NSW ‘seeking urgent advice’ on controversial court ruling that found anti-Israel vandalism was not antisemitic

The New South Wales government is reportedly seeking urgent legal guidance on whether to challenge a recent Supreme Court ruling that deemed anti-Israel vandalism not antisemitic. Justice Desmond Fagan ruled that the actions of a Sydney man, Mohommed Farhat, did not constitute antisemitism, thereby rejecting the state's attempt to secure a one-year extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act upon his release from prison. Farhat, who was convicted of damaging property in Woollahra in late 2024, remains incarcerated despite having been scheduled for parole in early December 2025. Fagan’s decision, issued this week, concluded that the lower courts and various state agencies had misclassified Farhat’s behavior as antisemitic, leading to a more severe punishment than warranted. His ruling highlighted that Farhat’s actions were considered political commentary rather than acts of antisemitism. Intelligence provided to the court revealed that counter-terrorism police had acknowledged, three weeks after Farhat’s arrest in November 2024, that he was not ideologically driven but had instead been recruited and financially incentivized to write the slogan “Fuk Israel” on vehicles and set a car ablaze. Despite this information, the police failed to share it with the prosecution or the magistrate who oversaw Farhat’s sentencing. This omission, according to Fagan, allowed the state to portray Farhat as a potential terrorist threat, even though the evidence suggested otherwise. Fagan emphasized that the risk posed by Farhat, a 22-year-old with limited intellectual capacity, was described as “insufficient” to warrant the extended supervision order. The ruling sparked immediate criticism from Australia’s peak Jewish organization, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which called the decision “dangerous judicial activism.” They argued that the ruling ignored the broader implications for the Jewish community and failed to address the community impact of such cases. Fagan himself expressed concern, stating that the handling of Farhat’s case appeared to be a “serious miscarriage of justice.” Government officials have responded cautiously, with a spokesperson indicating that Attorney General Michael Daley is “seeking urgent advice about the prospects of an appeal.” While the judiciary operates independently, the government has reiterated its commitment to combating antisemitism and hate crimes. However, given the ongoing legal proceedings, officials have opted not to provide additional comments. In response to the ruling, Greens MP Sue Higginson has called for an investigation into the police’s handling of the case. She has written to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Lecc), urging an urgent review of the agency’s conduct. Higginson claims that the failure of police to disclose critical evidence led to Farhat’s prolonged detention and significant legal errors. The Lecc’s chief executive, Peter Johnson SC, confirmed that the commission is considering the request. Meanwhile, NSW police have stated that the matter is currently under internal investigation and have refused to comment further to protect the integrity of the process. Fagan’s detailed judgment focused heavily on differentiating between anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism, emphasizing that the former does not necessarily equate to the latter. His critique of the legal and administrative processes surrounding Farhat’s case underscores the complexity of balancing national security concerns with individual rights.