Courts show they will act on terrorism plans
THE recent sentencing of five men convicted on terror charges in Sydney shows that Australia's judicial system is working effectively, says the ECAJ.
PETER KOHN
THE recent sentencing of five men convicted on terror charges in Sydney shows that Australia’s judicial system is working effectively in helping keep the country secure, according to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
The men, aged between 25 and 44 and whose names have been suppressed, were convicted last October after prosecutors alleged they had stockpiled dangerous chemicals, firearms and ammunition, in a plan to wage jihad against the Australian government.
Handing down prison terms of between 23 and 28 years for conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, Justice Anthony Whealy of the NSW Supreme Court said the five men were motivated by “intolerant, inflexible religious conviction”.
Some of the material seized from the group praised Osama Bin Laden and depicted graphic images of violence inflicted on hostages.
The jury in the high-security trial, which lasted nearly a year and ended in a month-long deliberation, was presented with information regarding the group’s arrests in 2005 after lengthy surveillance.
Welcoming the outcome of the case, ECAJ president Robert Goot told The AJN: “The question of sentencing is a matter for the trial judge, who obviously regarded the offences as very serious.
“I believe that the conviction and sentence send a strong message to the community about the attitude of the judiciary in respect of planned terror attacks on innocent Australians.”
Dr Tzvi Fleischer, of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and editor-in-chief of Australia Israel Review, said the judgement “makes clear that the offenders conspired to commit terrorism out of the belief that it was their duty”.
The Australian branch of extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir condemned the sentences, with spokesperson Uthman Badar labelling the decision a “travesty of justice”.
Rejecting the description of the five Muslims as “extreme”, he asked: “‘Extreme’ according to whom or what? ‘Extreme’ as judged by what criteria?”
comments