Key facts
- NSW government is seeking advice on appealing a court ruling that classified anti-Israel vandalism as political comment, not antisemitism.
- Justice Desmond Fagan rejected the state's request for a terror order against Mohommed Farhat, who was convicted of vandalism.
- Fagan found that intelligence indicating Farhat was paid and not ideologically motivated was not shared with prosecutors.
- The ruling criticized the IHRA definition of antisemitism, stating it is detached from common usage.
- Jewish groups have labeled the decision as dangerous judicial activism and called for an appeal.
The New South Wales government is considering an appeal against a Supreme Court decision that classified anti-Israel vandalism as political commentary rather than antisemitism. Justice Desmond Fagan rejected the state's bid to impose a one-year extended supervision order on Mohommed Farhat, who was convicted of spray-painting 'Fuk Israel' on cars and setting one alight.
Fagan found that intelligence suggesting Farhat was paid and not ideologically motivated was not shared with prosecutors or the magistrate who sentenced him. He also criticized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, stating it is detached from common usage and that Jewish people have historically been critical of Israel's actions.
Australia's peak Jewish group, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has labeled Fagan's ruling as dangerous judicial activism that avoids community impact and should be reviewed. Co-chair Alex Ryvchin argued that Farhat's actions in a 'Jewish neighbourhood' were antisemitic and that the judge's focus on the IHRA definition appeared to be activism.
However, the progressive Jewish Council of Australia welcomed Fagan's rejection of the IHRA definition, stating it distorts the fight against antisemitism and shields Israel from legitimate scrutiny. Greens MP Sue Higginson has requested an investigation into the police's handling of the case, citing a potential miscarriage of justice due to the failure to provide critical evidence.
NSW Police stated the matter is under internal investigation. The Attorney General's office confirmed they are seeking urgent advice on the prospects of an appeal.