SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA | The New South Wales government will not appeal a contentious Supreme Court decision concerning Mohommed Farhat, who pleaded guilty to offences arising from a vandalism and arson spree in the heavily Jewish Sydney neighbourhood of Woollahra.
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley announced on Aug. 31 that legal advice concluded an appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
The decision leaves standing Justice Desmond Fagan’s rejection of the state’s application for a terrorism-related extended supervision order against Farhat.
It does not resolve the broader public debate over whether anti-Israel vandalism directed at property in a Jewish neighbourhood should be understood as antisemitic.
Vehicles Vandalized and One Set Ablaze
The original offences occurred in November 2024.
Vehicles in Woollahra were spray-painted with anti-Israel slogans, and one vehicle was set on fire. Farhat subsequently pleaded guilty to offences connected to the incident.
The vandalism was widely treated as an antisemitic attack because of its location, its political wording and its impact on a community already confronting heightened fears over anti-Jewish hostility.
During later proceedings, however, evidence emerged that Farhat had been recruited and paid to commit the offences.
Justice Fagan concluded that Farhat was a paid “vandal for hire” rather than an ideologically motivated extremist. The judge found that the state had not demonstrated a sufficient risk that Farhat would commit a serious terrorism offence after his release.
The court therefore rejected the proposed extended supervision order.
Farhat remains responsible for the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. The dispute concerns his proven motivation, the earlier handling of intelligence and the legal basis for subjecting him to terrorism-related restrictions.
Judge Criticizes Use of IHRA Definition
Justice Fagan also criticized the prosecution’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
The judge argued that the case had improperly conflated opposition to Israel with hatred of Jews and strongly criticized how earlier authorities characterized Farhat’s conduct.
The ruling generated an immediate political and communal backlash.
Jewish organizations argued that the decision placed insufficient weight on the context and effect of politically worded vandalism in a heavily Jewish neighbourhood. Other groups welcomed the ruling as a defence of the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism.
The IHRA working definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel comparable to criticism directed at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
It also lists contextual examples that may constitute antisemitism, including holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions and applying standards to Israel that are not expected of other democratic countries.
The definition is intended to be applied with attention to context. It does not automatically transform every anti-Israel statement into antisemitism, nor does it require decision-makers to ignore the target, setting or practical effect of particular conduct.
Government Concludes Appeal Would Fail
Daley initially sought urgent legal advice following the ruling. On Aug. 31, he confirmed that the state would not proceed with an appeal because counsel concluded it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Australian reported the government’s decision.
Declining to appeal is not necessarily an endorsement of every statement contained in a judgment. Governments must consider appealable legal error and the likelihood that a higher court would overturn the result.
The state’s conclusion means the disputed findings will not be tested on appeal.
A related investigation continues into how police intelligence concerning Farhat’s motivation was handled.
Evidence reportedly showed that counterterrorism police had accepted shortly after Farhat’s arrest that he was financially, rather than ideologically, motivated. That information was not provided during earlier proceedings in which his conduct was characterized as antisemitic extremism.
The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission is reportedly overseeing the police-conduct investigation. NSW parliamentary comments concerning the controversy were reproduced by the Greens.
Motivation and Impact Are Different Questions
The court’s finding concerns what prosecutors proved about this particular offender’s motivation.
It does not establish that anti-Israel vandalism committed in a Jewish neighbourhood can never be antisemitic.
A person may act for money while knowingly participating in conduct designed by someone else to intimidate a community. The paid participant’s personal beliefs and the broader purpose or effect of the operation are separate questions.
That distinction is essential.
Farhat may not have personally embraced the slogans he painted. That does not make the location accidental, erase the anti-Israel language or eliminate the fear caused among Jewish residents.
Nor does recognizing the communal impact dispense with the need for reliable evidence about an individual defendant’s state of mind. Courts must determine personal legal responsibility from proven facts, not public assumptions.
The Woollahra case therefore exposes two failures that can coexist.
Authorities must not withhold or mishandle evidence that bears directly on an offender’s motivation. At the same time, institutions should not pretend that politically charged vandalism directed at a heavily Jewish neighbourhood becomes socially meaningless because the person holding the spray can was paid.
The appeal is over.
The questions raised by the case are not.
TheJ.ca receives no government money. Independent journalism depends on readers who believe these stories must be told. Consider supporting our efforts.
Stand Proud. Stand Strong. Stand Zionist.
Woollahra is not a ‘heavily jewish neighbourhood’, with 0.6% of the population reporting as Jewish at the 2021 census.