NSW ‘seeking urgent advice’ on controversial court ruling that found anti-Israel vandalism was not antisemitic
Guardian AU
•Fri, 21 Aug 2026 15:00:39 GMT
📰 What Happened
The NSW government is seeking urgent advice and considering an appeal after a supreme court judge refused its request for a terror order over Sydney man Mohommed Farhat, convicted of writing 'Fuk Israel' on cars and setting another vehicle alight in November 2024. Justice Desmond Fagan found disparaging Israel was 'political comment' rather than antisemitism, rejecting the application for a one-year extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act when Farhat is released. The judge separately criticised the handling of Farhat's case as appearing to be 'a serious miscarriage of justice'.
🔍 The Backstory
Farhat remains behind bars despite initially being due for release on parole. The case sits at the intersection of antisemitism concerns, politically motivated vandalism and NSW terror-order laws, and has drawn criticism from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which called the ruling dangerous judicial 'activism'.
🎯 Why It Matters
The ruling tests how courts distinguish political comment from antisemitism and how NSW applies its terrorism powers, with significant implications for community relations amid heightened concerns about antisemitic incidents. An appeal could help clarify those legal boundaries.
The NSW government is seeking urgent advice and considering an appeal after a supreme court judge refused its request for a terror order over Sydney man Mohommed Farhat, convicted of writing 'Fuk Israel' on cars and setting another vehicle alight in November 2024. Justice Desmond Fagan found disparaging Israel was 'political comment' rather than antisemitism, rejecting the application for a one-year extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act when Farhat is released. The judge separately criticised the handling of Farhat's case as appearing to be 'a serious miscarriage of justice'.
Farhat remains behind bars despite initially being due for release on parole. The case sits at the intersection of antisemitism concerns, politically motivated vandalism and NSW terror-order laws, and has drawn criticism from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which called the ruling dangerous judicial 'activism'.
The ruling tests how courts distinguish political comment from antisemitism and how NSW applies its terrorism powers, with significant implications for community relations amid heightened concerns about antisemitic incidents. An appeal could help clarify those legal boundaries.