Judge rules graffiti was political, not antisemitic

The New South Wales Supreme Court has dismissed the state's application to place Mohommed Farhat under a year-long extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act, after Justice Desmond Fagan found that the vandalism for which Farhat was convicted was not antisemitic but a "crude expression of political hostility to the state of Israel."

Farhat, now 22, pleaded guilty to 15 offences over vandalism in Woollahra in November 2024, including spray-painting slogans such as "F* Israel" and "PKK coming" on vehicles. He was initially sentenced to one year and eight months, with an expiry date in October 2026, and his parole was later revoked due to a finding that he posed a serious risk.

Justice Fagan found that Farhat was "incited and directed" by another person to commit the crimes for a $4,000 payment and drugs, and that he "did not intend to express hatred of Jews." The judge said the slogans were "not antisemitic according to the ordinary understanding of that concept in the Australian community," and that Australians who strongly disapprove of Israel's treatment of Palestinians "have freedom to express their views."

Had the state's application succeeded, Farhat would have been subjected to 55 strict conditions, which the judge noted would have been "highly restrictive" of his liberty.

Case 'derailed' from the start

Justice Fagan was highly critical of how the case had been handled. During a July hearing, he told the parties: "This proceeding against this man seems to me to have been derailed and gone completely haywire right from the beginning." He attributed the mischaracterisation to police and intelligence reports that had "uniformly" described Farhat's spray-painting as antisemitic, which the prosecution had taken up "without reflection."

The Guardian reported that counterterrorism police had accepted three weeks after Farhat's arrest that he was not ideologically motivated but had been recruited and paid, yet this information was not shared with the prosecution or the magistrate. A bank statement showing money transferred to Farhat was also not tendered to the magistrate.

Justice Fagan found that the Local Court judge made a legal error in finding the slogans antisemitic, and that "the label has been wrongly applied, injustice to the defendant has followed." He said the case appeared to be "a serious miscarriage of justice" and that the magistrate had been "misled."

On Wednesday, a hearing was held to determine when Farhat might be released. Justice Fagan indicated he would write to the state parole authority, but the crown prosecutor questioned his authority to "compel" release. The judge said he was "simply" asking whether the state planned to "correct the evident injustice."

The judge also rejected the state's argument that a Hezbollah tattoo, protest attendance, and text messages about Lebanon indicated a terror risk, finding there was an "insignificant" risk that Farhat, who was of "limited intellect," would commit a serious terrorism offence. He ordered the state to pay Farhat's legal costs.

IHRA definition under fire

A central issue in the case was the definition of antisemitism used by the authorities. Justice Fagan criticised the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition as "verbose and imprecise," "inept drafting," and "detached from reality." He noted that the Jewish Council of Australia had also criticised the definition.

The IHRA definition has been endorsed by the Australian government and is the accepted definition of the royal commission into antisemitism established after the Bondi beach terror attack. The federal antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, has a plan to combat antisemitism that includes working to require the IHRA definition across all levels of government, but she declined to comment on Fagan's criticism.

Justice Fagan dedicated part of his judgment to distinguishing anti-Israel speech from antisemitic speech, noting that "for decades Jewish people have been amongst the most forceful critics of Israel's conduct." He also referred to a June 2026 Pew Research Center poll finding that 79% of Australian respondents viewed Israel unfavourably.

Reactions from Jewish groups and politicians

The ruling has drawn sharply different reactions. Australia's peak Jewish group, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, labelled the decision dangerous judicial "activism" that should be reviewed. Co-chair Alex Ryvchin said the vandalism occurred in a "Jewish neighbourhood" and was antisemitic, and that the ruling "totally avoids the facts of the case but also the community impact."

In contrast, the Jewish Council of Australia welcomed Fagan's "categorical rejection of the IHRA definition." Executive member Bart Shteinman said the definition "distorts the fight between real antisemitism while shielding Israel from legitimate scrutiny."

The NSW government is considering an appeal. A government spokesperson said Attorney General Michael Daley was "seeking urgent advice about the prospects of an appeal," while adding that the "judiciary operates independently of government." The Greens MP Sue Higginson has written to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission requesting an investigation into police conduct, citing "systemic or deliberate maladministration." The commission's chief executive, Peter Johnson SC, said the watchdog was considering the request, and NSW police said the matter was under internal investigation.

Farhat's solicitor, Abdul Reslan, said the legal team was considering options regarding any miscarriage of justice. MP Stephen Lawrence praised the ruling as "fearless high-level legal analysis colliding with politicised narratives."

In a letter to the Local Court, Farhat wrote that he was "lost in my ways," addicted to drugs, and that visits from a Jewish community member "really opened my eyes." A Jewish religion teacher, Ellie Nagel, met with Farhat in prison and provided letters of support.