NSW judge raises serious miscarriage of justice concerns in the Farhat parole case after reviewing extensive evidence that was not considered by the parole board.
Judge’s Findings Challenge Sentencing
Justice Desmond Fagan sent a letter to the state parole board urging it to revisit the decision that kept Mohommed Farhat in custody. He said the sentencing magistrate had been misled and had not received key material that supported Farhat’s version of events.
The judge based his conclusions on thousands of pages of documentation, several psychological assessments and four days of hearings. He noted that the magistrate incorrectly described the graffiti “f..k Israel” and “PKK coming” as antisemitic, when the evidence suggested a financial motive.
According to the findings, Farhat was paid to carry out the vandalism and was not driven by extremist ideology. The judge also said the offender did not pose a serious terrorism threat.
Parole Board Stands by Decision
The parole board, however, reaffirmed its earlier denial of parole. Its assessment, presented at a hearing on 6 March, concluded that Farhat had not renounced extremist views and continued to present a identifiable risk to the community.
Board officials explained that the decision was reached before Justice Fagan’s findings were finalized. They cited separate statutory functions and legislative requirements as reasons for not incorporating the new information.
Related: Bankruptcy order upheld despite ex-solicitor misconduct
Farhat is required to serve the full 20‑month term, which is set to end in October.
While the legal process moves forward, the case highlights a tension between judicial review and administrative autonomy. When a senior judge identifies gaps in the evidentiary record, it can prompt questions about the adequacy of safeguards that protect individuals from prolonged detention without fresh scrutiny.
NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson has referred the matter to the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. Meanwhile, Attorney‑General Michael Daley is obtaining legal advice on whether to appeal the judge’s refusal to order special monitoring after Farhat’s release.
Farhat’s counsel is exploring options that may include an appeal on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice. The team said it will assess the feasibility of challenging the board’s decision in light of the newly highlighted evidence.
Legal analysts note that the outcome could set a precedent for how parole boards handle fresh findings that emerge after an initial hearing. If the board’s ruling is overturned, it may lead to a review of other cases where similar procedural gaps exist.
For now, the parole board’s stance remains unchanged, and Farhat will remain in full‑time custody until his sentence concludes.
