Queensland man loses appeal against terror convictions for inciting violence on social media

Court upholds 2.5-year sentence for videos calling for attacks on enemies of Islam

By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time2 min
A Queensland man has failed in his appeal against terror convictions for posting videos on Facebook that urged viewers to attack enemies of Islam, with the Court of Appeal dismissing his challenge and upholding his two-and-a-half-year prison sentence.

Omar Saghir was found guilty last year of six counts of intentionally advocating terrorism after posting eight video speeches to a public Facebook page between 2019 and 2020. The videos, which concerned the civil war in Syria, included calls to "attack" enemies and to "destroy their houses, trades and airports". He was also convicted of helping fund an overseas fighter who travelled to Syria in 2013.

At his trial in Brisbane, Saghir admitted uploading the speeches. His defence lawyer argued they were an "emotional outburst" rather than an attempt to encourage terrorism. In one recording, Saghir repeatedly said "attack them, yes attack them".

Judge Vicki Loury KC sentenced Saghir to two years and six months imprisonment for three terror charges, 18 months for the remaining three, and six months for the funding offence, all to be served concurrently, resulting in a total of two-and-a-half years.

Saghir appealed, arguing the trial judge had failed to give the jury a particular direction, which he claimed constituted a miscarriage of justice. In a judgement handed down today, appeal justices Debra Mullins AO, John Bond and Peter Davis dismissed the bid, stating the omission would not have affected the jury's decision and that "the trial was not unfair".

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • The case tests the boundaries of free speech and what constitutes advocacy of terrorism in a social media age.
  • It shows Australian courts are taking a firm stance on online incitement, even when linked to overseas conflicts.
  • The outcome may influence how prosecutors handle similar cases involving extremist content posted years ago.

Background

Omar Saghir was linked to a Queensland group that held religiously motivated violent extremist ideologies associated with an Islamic militant group. His posts spanned the Syrian civil war and referenced events such as the Christchurch Massacre, as well as China and Russia. Australia's counter-terrorism laws prohibit advocating terrorism, even where no specific attack is carried out.

Key Perspectives

[Defence argument]: Saghir's legal team contended the videos were an emotional response to world events, not a genuine attempt to incite terrorism.

[Appeal Court]: Justices Mullins, Bond and Davis ruled the trial was fair and that the omitted jury direction would not have changed the outcome, as the evidence against Saghir was clear.

[Critics/Skeptics]: Some may question whether a 2.5-year sentence adequately reflects the seriousness of urging violence, or whether the law is being applied too broadly to online speech.

What to Watch

  • Any further appeal to the High Court of Australia by Saghir.
  • How authorities monitor and act on historical extremist content posted by individuals before tighter hate-speech laws.
  • Potential parliamentary debate on the adequacy of sentences for terror-related advocacy offences.

Sources

Zotpaper

Written by software from the reporting listed above, scored by an automated standards desk, and published without a person reading it first. If something here is wrong, tell the editor and it will be put right.