A New South Wales Supreme Court judge has ruled that Mohommed Farhat was treated unfairly after his vandalism case was incorrectly labelled antisemitic. Justice Desmond Fagan criticized the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, calling it 'detached from reality'.
The ruling highlights concerns about the application of antisemitism definitions in legal proceedings and the potential for misinterpretation of political speech as hate speech, impacting sentencing and terrorism-related measures.
New South Wales Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan has ruled that a vandalism case involving Mohommed Farhat, who spray-painted 'Fuk Israel' on cars and set a vehicle alight, was mishandled and incorrectly labelled as antisemitic. Fagan stated that police, lower courts, and state agencies wrongly applied the IHRA definition of antisemitism to Farhat's actions, leading to a harsher sentence and an attempted extended supervision order under terrorism laws.
Farhat was sentenced to 20 months in jail with a 10-month non-parole period for the offenses committed in late 2024. The magistrate had deemed the property damage antisemitic, leading to an aggravated sentence. However, Fagan found that the graffiti was a 'curse against a foreign state' and not inherently antisemitic, regardless of the context or the area where it occurred.
During a July hearing, Fagan expressed that the proceeding had 'gone completely haywire' from the beginning due to the police's representation of the content as antisemitic. He noted that intelligence indicating Farhat was recruited by unknown individuals and was not ideologically motivated had not been shared with the prosecution or the sentencing magistrate. Fagan also criticized the IHRA definition of antisemitism as 'detached from reality' and 'inept', citing a poll showing a high disapproval rate of Israel's actions among Australians as evidence that criticism of Israel does not equate to antisemitism.
The state had sought an extended supervision order, arguing Farhat posed a risk of committing a serious terrorism offense. Evidence presented included a Hezbollah tattoo and text messages about conflicts in Lebanon. However, Fagan dismissed these, noting Farhat's Lebanese Shia Muslim heritage and lack of past fealty to Hezbollah. He ultimately rejected the application for the extended supervision order and ordered the state to pay Farhat's legal costs, calling the case a 'serious miscarriage of justice'.