NSW authorities are seeking urgent legal advice after a supreme court judge ruled anti-Israel graffiti by Mohommed Farhat was not antisemitic, rejecting a state application for an extended supervision order. The decision has sparked controversy over how antisemitism is defined and police handling of the case.
The Court’s Ruling and Its Controversy
NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan ruled that Mohommed Farhat’s 2024 vandalism, including spray-painting “F*** Israel” on vehicles, did not constitute antisemitism. The judge found Farhat was incited and directed
by another person to commit the crimes for $4,000 and unspecified drugs, and that his actions were objectively, crude expressions of political hostility to the state of Israel
rather than antisemitic.
Fagan criticized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, calling it verbose and imprecise
and disconnected from the ordinary understanding of the term in Australia.
He noted that the slogans were graffitied in a Jewish-majority area but argued this did not imbue them with antisemitic intent. They are not antisemitic according to the ordinary understanding of that concept in the Australian community,
he stated, adding that the label had been wrongly applied
and led to injustice to the defendant.
The ruling has drawn sharp criticism from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which called it a dangerous judicial ‘activism’
that risks undermining efforts to combat antisemitism. The state government, meanwhile, has indicated it is exploring potential appeals, with Attorney General Michael Daley seeking “urgent advice” on the matter. A government spokesperson emphasized the judiciary’s independence but reiterated its commitment to addressing antisemitism.
Police Conduct Under Scrutiny
The case has also intensified scrutiny of police handling of Farhat’s arrest. Fagan found that counter-terrorism police had, three weeks after his November 2024 arrest, determined he was not ideologically motivated but had been recruited for financial gain. However, this information was not shared with the prosecution, magistrate, or state agencies before the government sought to classify Farhat as a terror threat. Greens MP Sue Higginson has called for an investigation into the material failure of police to provide critical evidence,
alleging it led to a severe miscarriage of justice.
The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (Lecc) confirmed it is considering Higginson’s request, though NSW police have declined to comment amid an ongoing internal investigation. Fagan’s judgment highlighted systemic failures, noting that the police’s initial characterization of Farhat’s actions as antisemitic was “uniformly” repeated by prosecutors without scrutiny. The label has been wrongly applied, injustice to the defendant has followed and the misconception has led to the State bringing these proceedings,
he wrote.
Implications for Antisemitism Definitions
Fagan’s rejection of the IHRA definition has reignited debates over how antisemitism is legally defined in Australia. The IHRA framework, promoted by special envoy Jillian Segal, has been adopted by several institutions, but Fagan argued it does not reflect the established usage and understanding of the term ‘antisemitic’ in Australia.
The judge’s comments also underscore tensions between free speech and anti-discrimination laws. He emphasized that Australians have freedom to express their views
on Israel’s policies, even if those views are strongly critical.
The NSW government’s next steps remain unclear. While the state has not yet filed an appeal, the attorney general’s office is reportedly evaluating options. Meanwhile, Farhat remains in custody, with his parole date set for early December 2025. The case has also prompted calls for a broader review of how antisemitism is addressed in legal and institutional settings, with the Jewish Council of Australia and other groups urging clarity on the boundaries of protected speech.
As the legal and political fallout continues, the ruling underscores the complex interplay between law, identity, and free expression.
