Terrorism - Hot Topics 58 - Legal Information Access Centre

lisTeD OrganisaTiOnsThere are now 19 terrorist organisations listed bythe government:> Abu Sayyaf Group> Al Qa’ida> Al-Zarqawi> Ansar Al-Islam> Armed Islamic Group> Asbat al-Ansar> Egyptian Islamic Jihad> Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades> Hizballah External Security Organisation> Islamic Army of Aden> Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan> Jaish-i-Mohammed> Jamiat ul-Ansar> Jemaah Islamiyah> Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)> Lashkar I Jhangvi> Lashkar-e-Tayyiba> Palestinian Islamic Jihad> Salafist Group for Call and CombatThe second way of identifying a terrorist organisation is by a court during the prosecution of a terrorist offence, where an organisation is found to be engaging in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act. Where a court or the government has determined that an organisation is a terrorist organisation, it is then an offence for individuals to intentionally:> direct the activities of a terrorist organisation;> be a member of a terrorist organisation;> recruit for a terrorist organisation;> train a terrorist organisation or receive training from a terrorist organisation;> get funds to, from or for a terrorist organisation;> provide support or resources to a terrorist organisationthat would help it to engage in terrorism;> associate with a terrorist organisation, where theassociation provides support that would help theterrorist organisation.The Security Legislation Review Committee in 2006recommended that the offence of training for or witha terrorist organisation be urgently redrafted to requirethat the training is connected with a terrorist act, orcould assist the organisation or person to engage in orassist with a terrorist act. It also recommended:> repealing the offence of association with a terroristorganisation;> ensuring that the financing of terrorism must beintentional;> clarifying that ‘support’ for an organisation doesnot criminalise free speech amending various otheroffences to make them clearer and fairer.prOseCuTiOns unDer THenew legislaTiOnBetween mid-2002 (when the new offences came intoforce) and late 2006, 28 people were charged withterrorism offences, but most were still awaiting trial orproceedings were underway.The trials were also significant because they testednew legislation allowing the government to prevent thepublic disclosure at trial of material that might endangerAustralia’s ‘defence, security, international relations or lawenforcement interests’. The basic tension is whether theNational Security Information Act 2004 (Cth) establishesa reasonable balance between protecting vital intelligenceinformation and ensuring that defendants can receive afair trial by seeing the evidence against them.Zaky MallahMallah was the first person charged under thenew 2002 anti-terrorism laws. In April 2005 hewas acquitted of two charges of preparing for aterrorist act, after a jury found that he had notplanned to kill ASIO and foreign affairs officialsin a suicide attack. He did, however, plead guiltyto threatening to kill a Commonwealth officer andwas imprisoned for two and half years. Mallah was ayoung Australian who applied for a passport, whichwas refused after he was interviewed by ASIO onthe ground that he might prejudice the security ofAustralia or another country. When the decision wasreviewed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, heand his lawyer were excluded from access to someevidence presented. His case attracted negative mediaattention, some public hostility, and even break-ins athis home. Mallah became angry and depressed andhe prepared a suicide message on video and boughta gun. Because his telephone was tapped, the policefound out and Mallah was convicted of firearmsoffences. Later Mallah told an undercover policeofficer, posing as a journalist, that he planned tokill an ASIO or foreign affairs official, and sold himthe video tape. Mallah was then arrested and spent16 months on remand in isolation in a very highsecurity prison. The trial judge was not impressed bythe way the police officer had obtained the evidenceagainst Mallah, although it was ultimately admitted.It appears that Mallah was overcharged, since whilehis conduct was threatening, the jury sensibly did notview it as terrorism. Mallah’s own explanation forhis conduct was that his gun was for self-protection(after the break-ins) and that he was simply seekingpublicity and money, but did not really plan to harmanyone.R v Mallah [2005] NSWSC 317, available at www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/2005/317.htmlaustralian anti-terrorism laws 19