Mark Dreyfus’s legal team’s last-minute bid to supervise released terrorist Ibrahim Ghazzawy

The A-G refused to apologise over the release of 148 dangerous non-citizens. But his counsel in a Sydney court were very sorry indeed about the case of Ibrahim Ghazzawy, quietly released from prison on Saturday.

Convicted terrorist Ibrahim Ghazzawy enjoys his first days of freedom on the weekend. Picture: Liam Mendes

A last-minute bid to impose strict rules on a released terrorist who wanted to attack the federal police’s headquarters nearly failed because Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’s legal officers did not have a case ready until three days before the Islamic extremist was set to go free.

Designated high-risk terror ­offender Ibrahim Ghazzawy, who has “refused to renounce violence in all contexts”, was quietly released from Hunter Correctional Facility on Saturday after serving an eight-year prison sentence.

Last week, the Attorney-General was left scrambling to apply for an interim supervision order for the terrorist who planned to form an army at a Blue Mountains base and plotted to attack the headquarters of the AFP.

The order was ultimately granted by the NSW Supreme Court just hours before Ghazzawy’s final prison sentence was set to expire and he was to be ­released into the community.

Ghazzawy, who previously committed to “violent jihad”, spent much of the weekend enjoying his new-found freedom in the suburbs of Sydney with many friends and family dropping in.

He was seen drinking Coca-Cola on his front lawn and pizza was delivered to the property at which he is now living.

Convicted terrorist Ibrahim Ghazzawy enjoys his first weekend of freedom in Sydney. Picture: Liam Mendes

The 11th-hour court hearing resulted in representatives for Mr Dreyfus apologising “unreservedly” to the court for the last-minute application.

“The sentence of the defendant expires entirely on the morning of Saturday, 9 December 2023. The matter came before me on Wednesday, 6 December 2023,” Supreme Court judge Richard Button said. “As the transcript shows, I accepted unreservedly apologies from officers of the plaintiff and his legal team for that state of affairs.”

Ghazzawy’s interim supervision order was settled on Friday.

The application for the interim supervision order was so late that Justice Button conceded he could not guarantee a decision would be made prior to Ghazzawy’s release, but in the end he was able to hand down his decision just hours before the expiring of his sentence.

“I also explained that I could not guarantee that a determination with reasons could be provided before the release date of the defendant, but that I would do so if reasonably practicable.

“I have done so, but I trust that in these circumstances I will be forgiven by the parties (and any other reader) if this judgment is notably short,” Justice Button added.

Had he not been able to hand down his decision prior to the expiry of Ghazzawy’s sentence, the convicted terrorist would have been released into the community without any monitoring.

Questions about the Attorney-General’s handling of Ghazzawy’s release come as one of Australia’s most notorious terrorists, Abdul Nacer Benbrika, who plotted to bomb the MCG and attack Crown casino, is set to be released into the community on December 23.

The Victorian Supreme Court is set to determine if Benbrika will be subject to an extended supervision order upon his release, as it is not possible to extend the continuing detention order. Ordinarily, offenders are released between the end of their non-parole period and full sentence, allowing for monitoring and reintegration into society.

The potential release of Ghazzawy unsupervised into the community was labelled “inexplic­able” by opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash.

Ghazzawy with a friend. Picture: Liam Mendes

“The incompetence of this government around matters of national security and the safety of Australians knows no bounds,” Senator Cash told The Australian on Monday. “This man was serving a sentence of eight years in jail – the Attorney-General had a long time to plan for his release. Mr Dreyfus should explain to the Australian people why he acted only at the last minute.

“This is yet another occasion where the Attorney-General appears not to have been ready to deal with a national security issue. Why isn’t he across his brief?

“The events of recent weeks are proof this government is incompetent when it comes to protecting Australians from crim­inals including pedophiles, rapists murderers and now terrorists.”

A spokeswoman for Mr Dreyfus told The Australian late on Monday: “At all times, the Attorney-General applies for post-sentence orders in accordance with the legislative framework. As these matters are before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

The interim supervision order consists of seven conditions, including that he must live at a nominated residence and is prohibited from applying for a passport or leaving the country without the approval of the AFP.

He is also required to attend disengagement, support and any rehabilitation programs if directed by a Community Corrections officer, and is prohibited from contacting 22 named persons or anyone who has been convicted of or charged with terrorism offences, or anyone he suspects is advocating support for a terrorist act.

It comes as Australia’s first convicted terrorist, Faheem Lodhi, was released on parole earlier this year after 19 years in jail. He will be supervised until at least April next year when his full sentence is set to expire.

Ghazzawy at the time of his arrest. Picture: NSW Police Media.

NSW’s first convicted terrorist to be placed on an extended supervision order, Blake Pender, was arrested in November last year after breaching his 28 day interim order.

Pender had just been released after a five-year stint in jail for threatening to behead police and rape their wives and also threatened to murder a magistrate.

The Supreme Court heard last week Ghazzawy had engaged in rehabilitative disengagement programs while in prison, and it was accepted by Justice Button that he had “on balance” renounced violated jihad.

The court did hear however, there had been “several ugly interactions” with prison officers while he was in custody and he hadn’t renounced violence.

“It is true that, when pressed, the defendant has refused to renounce violence in all contexts whatsoever,” Justice Button said.