Lodhi guilty of terror plot: “Faheem Khalid Lodhi, 36, is the first person in the country to be convicted of planning a terrorist act and faces a maximum penalty of life in jail.” Thus becoming the third person to be convicted under Australia’s new terror laws, Lodhi having been preceded by Jack Thomas and Jack Roche:
In 2004, Jack Roche, 50, a Muslim convert, became the first person to be convicted of an offence under counter-terrorism laws introduced in 2002.
The Perth man was sentenced to nine years’ jail after pleading guilty to conspiring to blow up the Israeli embassy in Canberra.
But a NSW Supreme Court jury acquitted Zeky Mallah, 21, of terrorism charges after he was accused of preparing to launch a suicide attack on the Sydney office of either ASIO or the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Mallah pleaded guilty to a charge of threatening to kill a commonwealth officer. He became the first person to be acquitted under Australia’s anti-terror legislation.
“Jihad” Jack Thomas, the Melbourne man whom Osama bin Laden is said to have wanted as an al-Qa’ida sleeper agent in Australia, was also acquitted by a jury of terrorism charges. But he was sentenced to five years’ jail for receiving funds from a terrorist organisation.
Attorney-General Montgomery Burns, as keen-eyed and forthcoming as ever, is reported to have stated the following to The Daily Terror (June 19, 2006) in reaction to Lodhi’s conviction: “Mr Lodhi has been convicted of offences in relation to acts preparatory of a terrorist event here in Australia”. Even more helpfully, Burns added that he was unable to say ‘how close Australia came to an actual terrorist attack’. According to Kim Arlington (AAP), the successful prosecution of the ‘Case hinged on Lodhi as terrorist or entrepreneur’ (June 19, 2006), the jury settling for ‘terrorist’; The Australian too, reminding us (June 20, 2006) that the ‘Case against Lodhi was circumstantial’. But now that it’s over, The Daily Terror (June 20, 2006) has made its position clear regarding Lodhi’s sentencing: ‘Sydney terrorist must rot in jail’.
That’s Sydney. As for Melbourne:
…Magistrate Paul Smith last week adjourned a committal hearing for 13 men accused of being members of an alleged terrorist group… Prosecution and defence lawyers resolved a dispute after lawyers for the 13 men opposed the Federal Government’s insistence they [that is, the defence lawyers] pass security checks as part of new national security laws. The security checks would require extensive disclosure of personal information… defence lawyer Rob Stary called the security clearances “unlawful and unconstitutional”… The hearing continues in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on July 10.
The men charged with belonging to, funding and supporting a terrorist organisation are yet to enter a plea. Two of the men face additional charges of trying to help al-Qaida conduct a terrorist organisation.
Of note is the fact that similar laws were enacted in Germany in the 1970s, laws which were justified at the time as being necessary in order to combat the scourge of ‘(Red) Terror’. The effects of their enactment are described by one source as follows:
In Germany, by contrast, as the government’s policy became visibly more repressive during the 1970s, radical lawyers became important public voices of the RAF and other radical groups. Often berated publicly by the RAF, the government, and the media, several lawyers were arrested and convicted. Legal aid centers became a recruiting ground for future generations of radicals once the initial generation was behind bars. In Germany political trials and prisons were of great significance. German law acknowledges by 1976 that it is dealing with “political prisoners”, a category that the United States throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and Italy until 1978, refuses to acknowledge.
But if not Germany 1970s, then perhaps Northern Ireland 1970s?
As Sydney architect Faheem Lodhi yesterday became the first person to be convicted by a jury of planning a terrorist attack in Australia, one of the world’s foremost counter-terrorism experts, John Stevens, called for terrorism cases to be heard by a judge alone.
The former head of the London Metropolitan police has joined Australia’s top policeman, Mick Keelty, in arguing for a change to the justice system.
Lord Stevens and Mr Keelty discussed the issue in Sydney last week while the jury was deliberating on the terrorism charges against Lodhi.
Lord Stevens, who is considered one of London’s most successful police commissioners, said a successful precedent had been set in Northern Ireland where judge-only courts were used to run cases against accused IRA terrorists.
Lord Stevens said one of the major issues in conducting terrorism trials was the question of how much information should and could be disclosed to a jury.
“There is some information that should never see the light of day,” he said. “They (the judges) are going to be guarding the information and ensuring that it remains confidential.”
