Some terrorists unfit for release, says former judge

The judge who presided over Australia’s largest terrorism trial has thrown his weight behind continuing detention orders.

Abdul Nacer Benbrika, the Algerian-born radical preacher at the centre of the Pendennis conspiracy.

The judge who presided over Australia’s largest terrorism trial has thrown his weight behind continuing detention orders, saying he is “pessimistic’’ that some of the men he sentenced to long jail terms will be rehabilitated by the time they get out.

Judge Antony Whealy, now retired, sentenced nine of the so-called Pendennis terror conspirators to lengthy jail terms in 2009 in what was the longest and most ­expensive criminal trial conducted in Australia.

Mr Whealy said when the time came, there would be “a powerful argument’’ for keeping some of the more extreme offenders in jail, such was their commitment to extremist ideology.

“I’m speculating but I think there will be a powerful argument that a number of those men will not have renounced their fanaticism and will pose a threat to the community,’’ he told The Australian. “I am pessimistic. It will be a tough task for the court to make a decision.’’

The 2005 Pendennis plot saw conspirators in NSW and Victoria plan to attack targets in Sydney and Melbourne.

They stockpiled precursor ­explosive chemicals, scouted ­targets and acquired ammunition.

On Wednesday, The Australian reported authorities were preparing to use continuing detention orders to detain a small number of unrepentant extremists beyond the terms of their sentence.

This year will see 11 convicted terrorists released from NSW and Victorian jails, a record number.

They include Abdul Nacer Benbrika, the Algerian-born radical preacher at the centre of the Pendennis conspiracy, and Bilal Khazal, a one-time confidant of Osama bin Laden.

Benbrika was infamously overheard in police wire taps exhorting his followers to do “maximum damage’’ in their attacks.

He is due for release on ­November 4, having been repeatedly denied parole.

However, authorities believe he remains as wedded to the cause as ever and are likely to apply for a CDO to keep him locked up.

The orders, which must be ­issued by a court, would see the men detained for up to three years provided a judge is satisfied there is a high risk they will reoffend.

Melbourne lawyer Rob Starry, who represented Benbrika at his trial, criticised the use of the CDOs, saying they fatally undercut the role of the sentencing judge, whose job it was to weigh culpability and punish accordingly. “Once you’ve paid your debt to society, you’ve got a chance for reintegration,’’ he said.

“The system is premised on this Christian ethos of forgiveness and repentance, but that’s never put into practice.’’

Mr Starry said detaining convicts beyond the term of their sentence, a sanction that has previously been used only for compulsive sex offenders and highly violent criminals, would eliminate any incentive for them to acknowledge their crimes and plead guilty. “A plea of guilty, which attracts the discount in penalty because the person expresses remorse, saves the community the expense of a trial. That would be a meaningless exercise,’’ he said.

However, Mr Whealy said while CDOs were “harsh’’, they were in some cases justified. “You have to ask which is the paramount interest here, the freedom of the person or the safety of the community? I think when you put it in those terms, you have to say, harsh though it is, it’s necessary for the protection of the public.’’