Man denied parole a second time over anti-Israel graffiti despite judge’s scathing critique of case

Man Denied Parole a Second Time Despite Court Critique

Wanderstayfinder.com – A Sydney man denied parole a second time over an anti-Israel graffiti conviction, even after a Supreme Court justice branded the prosecution a “serious miscarriage of justice.” The NSW Parole Authority issued its determination on Monday, keeping the 22-year-old behind bars for a further stretch despite judicial findings that his conduct was best described as a paid act of vandalism rather than ideological extremism. The episode has sharpened debate over inter-agency coordination, the scope of parole commissioners’ discretion, and whether a single act of property damage can be reclassified as terrorism-adjacent behaviour.

From Woollahra Vandalism to a Revoked Parole Order

In November 2024, Mohommed Farhat was arrested in the eastern-sydney suburb of Woollahra after writing “Fuk Israel” across several parked cars and setting one vehicle alight. He pleaded guilty to 15 property-damage offences and received a sentence of under three years. Under ordinary NSW practice, a prisoner serving that length would become eligible for parole after roughly 10 months; Farhat’s initial release date fell in December.

That release never materialised. The commissioner for corrective services intervened — a step described as rare — and secured revocation of the parole order without first hearing from Farhat’s legal team. A new hearing before the state parole authority was scheduled for March.

A Supreme Court Justice Labels the Case a Miscarriage of Justice

Justice Desmond Fagan of the NSW Supreme Court delivered a sharply worded ruling last week after the state government sought a one-year extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act. Fagan found the risk of Farhat committing a serious terrorism offence to be “insignificant,” noting that Farhat was of “limited intellect” and that counter-terrorism officers attached to Strike Force Pearl had concluded within three weeks of the arrest that no ideological motivation existed.

The judge went further, ruling that police, lower courts, and multiple state agencies had all mischaracterised the conduct. Rather than antisemitism, Fagan held the act was best understood as “a curse against a foreign state.” He observed that Farhat, who bears a Hezbollah tattoo on his neck, had been treated more harshly than the facts warranted and had been paid to carry out the vandalism.

“The conclusions of the counter-terrorism officers and the resolution of Strike Force Pearl were directly against an assessment that the defendant had exhibited religious or political radicalisation by his index offending,” Fagan said.

Fagan added that advancing terrorism-risk arguments without first consulting specialist police would be “unsound,” describing the gap as “a serious failure of communication between agencies.” He stated he intended to write to the commissioner ahead of the parole authority’s expected determination.

The Parole Authority’s Monday Determination

Five months after the March hearing, the authority issued its decision. It did not engage with Fagan’s findings or with the counter-terrorism police assessment that Farhat lacked ideological motivation. Instead, the authority maintained its own characterisation of the offence:

“In the authority’s view, 2026-08-25 offending was reflective of a deep-seated adherence on the part of the offender to an extremist ideology of an antisemitic character.”

The authority also rejected the explanation — accepted by Fagan — that Farhat had been paid to perform the vandalism, and stated it did not accept “the offender’s claimed ignorance of the meaning of the phrases which were used in the offending.”

Commissioner McMahon Faces Questions in Budget Estimates

On the same day, Commissioner Gary McMahon was questioned during budget estimates about his December intervention and the arguments he put before the parole authority. He acknowledged the intervention was “uncommon” and admitted he had not consulted specialist police before advancing the position that Farhat posed a terrorism risk and that the offending was antisemitic.

“The material that was before me at the time when I gave that consideration was that he did pose a significant risk to the community,” McMahon said.

Greens MP Sue Higginson issued a statement expressing shock at what she described as a sustained institutional effort to keep Farhat in custody beyond what the judicial findings supported.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why was Farhat’s parole revoked in the first place? The commissioner for corrective services intervened after the initial December release date and applied to have the parole order revoked. Farhat’s lawyers were not heard before the revocation was granted. A fresh parole hearing was then set for March.

What did the Supreme Court actually rule? Justice Fagan denied the state government’s application for a one-year extended supervision order under the Terrorism Act. He found the terrorism risk “insignificant,” ruled the act was a paid curse against a foreign state rather than antisemitism, and criticised multiple agencies for mischaracterising the offence.

Can the parole authority override a Supreme Court finding? The authority is a separate statutory body with its own discretion over release conditions. It is not bound to adopt a court’s characterisation of an offence, though the failure to engage with Fagan’s reasoning has drawn public and political criticism.

What happens next for Farhat? Unless the authority revises its determination or a higher court intervenes, Farhat remains in custody until his next eligibility date. His legal team has indicated it will seek further review.