Abdul Nacer Benbrika: Convicted Melbourne terror leader may challenge government on supervision conditions, court told

One of Australia’s most infamous domestic terrorists may seek to challenge a plan for him to remain under strict community supervision early next year.

Lawyers acting for Abdul Nacer Benbrika appeared in the Victorian Supreme Court on Wednesday as the federal government sought to extend a supervision order that places extensive conditions on his freedom in the community.

The Algerian-born man was jailed for 15 years in 2009 after leading a group of young men advocating for violent jihad against nonbelievers in Melbourne.

After serving the full sentence, he was kept behind bars for a further three years on a continuing detention order, as the government argued he was too dangerous to be released.

But Benbrika was freed in December last year and placed on a one-year supervision order after Justice Elizabeth Hollingsworth found the evidence “clearly establishes” he’d made substantial progress towards deradicalisation.

But she found Benbrika’s risk of radicalising others was “still unacceptable at this time”.

“This will be the first time Mr Benbrika lives in the community since his arrest nearly 20 years ago,’ she said.

“Much of the expert evidence on how he will get on has been based on predictions and judgments … Only time will tell, in the meantime the community will be protected by the comprehensive and extensive orders.”

In court, Benbrika’s lawyer Dan Star KC complained that the Attorney-General’s office had waited until just weeks before the year-long order expired to apply to the court for a new one.

But he said he had instructions to consent to two 28-day interim supervision orders to be “co-operative”.

“We’re not happy with it, but Mr Benbrika will consent when the time comes,” he said.

“He doesn’t concede an order should be made but accepts it is open that the court could be satisfied an interim order could be made.”

Under the legislation used to make orders, the government must present evidence that Benbrika still posed a risk to the community.

Mr Star said this would allow until mid-February for Benbrika and his legal team to “digest” what was being sought and get instructions on whether he will fight a full supervision order.

“I may have instructions to consent, I may have instructions to contest it,” he said.

The court was told the Attorney-General was seeking conditions that were “very significantly reduced” compared with the regimen over Benbrika for the past year.

Over the past 12 months, Benbrika’s presence in the community has been subject to 30 strict conditions, including police monitoring, movement restrictions and limits on who he has contact with.

The court was told Benbrika was not a risk of a “lone wolf” offence but a risk of influencing others.

Last year, Justice Hollingsworth was scathing of the government for withholding expert reports critical of tools used to assess the terrorist’s risk of reoffending from his legal team.

These reports were kept secret from Benbrika’s lawyers at the end of his prison term and each review of the continuing detention order.

The Corner report, commissioned by Home Affairs, was critical of the VERA-2R tool used to assess Benbrika’s risk of reoffending, finding it had poor predictive validity.

Justice Hollingsworth referred the disclosure failure by Home Affairs and the AFP, then led by Peter Dutton, to an independent monitor for investigation.

“The nondisclosure of the various expert reports amounts to a serious interference with the administration of justice,” she said.

Counsel for the Attorney-General, Peter Hanks KC, last year argued the failure was the result of human error, saying; “there was no conspiracy”.

Shortly before his sentence expired in 2020, Benbrika’s Australian citizenship was cancelled under a controversial law the majority of the High Court determined late last year was invalid.

Benbrika was found guilty in September 2008 of being a member of a terrorist organisation, directing the activities of a terror group and possessing an item connected with preparation for a terrorist act.

He returned to the family home in Melbourne’s north.

Benbrika will return before the Supreme Court next Wednesday for a hearing on the proposed orders.