Mohamed Arnaout faces ACT Magistrates Court for breaching order over encrypted phones

A man described as “very, very talented” is facing the prospect of a jail term after a court heard he “thwarted” police by refusing access to phones. Here’s what happened.

Mohamed Arnaout leaves the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday. Picture: Blake Foden

A “gifted” man is facing the prospect of a prison term after a court heard he “thwarted” police by refusing officers access to three phones, including two dedicated encrypted devices.

Court documents show police suspected Mohamed Abdullatif Arnaout of participation in a criminal group when they obtained warrants to search him and his home in June 2023.

Magistrate Ian Temby also made an order requiring Arnaout to provide access to any electronic devices officers found at his place in the north Canberra suburb of Moncrieff.

But when Arnaout refused to do so, he wound up facing a charge of failing to comply with an order made by a magistrate.

He pleaded guilty and faced a sentence hearing in the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday.

Mohamed Arnaout outside court. Picture: Blake Foden

Agreed facts show that when police served Arnaout with the order in relation to his personal Samsung phone, officers explained that it also applied to any other devices discovered on the premises.

“Police also located a number of other devices, including two Google Pixel phones which were identified as dedicated encrypted devices,” the facts state.

The ACT Magistrates Court, where the sentence hearing occurred. Picture: Gary Ramage

“Although (Arnaout) eventually offered to access his personal Samsung phone in front of police, he failed to provide passwords to any of his devices and police did not get access to this phone.

“(He) also failed to provide any information or assistance to allow police to access any other device that was located at the premises, including the two Google Pixel phones”.

On Wednesday, defence counsel AJ Karim initially urged magistrate Jane Campbell not to record a conviction.

The high-profile Sydney barrister said despite the suspicions that had prompted police to investigate his client, there was no suggestion they had found evidence “adversely linking (Arnaout) to any enterprise”.

The ACT law courts building. Picture: Blake Foden

Mr Karim described Arnaout as a “quite gifted and sought-after” man, who had employment, stable accommodation and “excellent” prospects of rehabilitation.

“He’s contrite,” the barrister said. “He’s remorseful.”

Mr Karim also tendered multiple character references, telling the court people “spoke glowingly” of his “very, very talented” client.

He also noted Arnaout had offered police access to his personal phone, arguing this made the offence less serious.

“That offer wasn’t accepted because the police wanted access to all three (phones),” he said.

But Ms Campbell rejected the idea that this offer somehow reduced Arnaout’s moral culpability.

“It doesn’t matter that someone offers,” the magistrate told Mr Karim. “They have to deliver.”

Prosecutor Christina Muthurajah indicated she would argue the threshold for a jail sentence had been crossed.

While Mr Karim disagreed and sought a recognisance, he ultimately withdrew his request for a non-conviction order.

Describing the question of a jail term as “a live issue”, Ms Campbell adjourned the matter to enable the preparation of a pre-sentence report and intensive correction order assessment.

“This type of offence thwarts police investigations,” the magistrate said.

Arnaout is due back in court in September.