B
BB-Leo
Guest
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23294016-2862,00.html
Accused couldn't manage a booze-up in brewery: lawyer
Katie Bice
February 29, 2008 12:00am
THE accused leader of a home-grown terror cell was a one-man band who was incapable of organising "a booze-up in a brewery", a court heard yesterday.
Defence lawyers told a Supreme Court jury there was no evidence their 12 clients were terrorists and the men were more like a "disorganisation".
James Montgomery, SC, for Hany Taha, urged the jury to take the emotion out of the case, despite the sensational headlines about bombings in Spain and London and Osama bin Laden.
He scoffed at the prosecution assertion that religious scholar Abdul Nacer Benbrika had formed and led a terrorist organisation.
"You may have been of the view that Mr Benbrika can't lead ants to sugar, can't organise a booze-up in a brewery . . . let alone run a terrorist organisation," he said.
Gerard Mullaly, for Majed Raad, said views expressed by the men in secretly recorded discussions were "undoubtedly fundamentalist and extreme", but they had not actually done anything.
"You have to cross the line of criminality, not the line of morality or decency," he told the jury. "You have to do something to actually know, not just hope or think or support or passionately believe in a cause, but to know that a group is actually preparing and fostering a terrorist act."
The lawyer for the youngest accused, Abdullah Merhi, said his client was immature, foolish and fumbling for meaning in his religion.
Mark Taft, SC, said it was one thing to talk the talk, but another to walk the walk.
"Abdullah Merhi was fumbling for meaning and identity, not that he was committed to terrorism," he said.
"A young man trying to understand the world and his place in that world."
Mr Taft said Australians had the right to say or read stupid and provocative things, even if they were unpopular.
"It is a right which distinguishes our society from that of many others," he said.
Julian McMahon, for Ahmed Raad, said prosecutors had used "shock and awe" tactics in their opening address, but the jury should consider the case carefully.
"The more you look the less there is," he said.
All barristers urged the jury not to readily accept the prosecution's take on the men's discussions and to consider the context and back ground they were made in.
On trial are: Mr Benbrika, 48, of Dallas; Mr Merhi, 22, of Fawkner; Shane Kent, 31, of Meadow Heights; Majed Raad, 23, of Coburg; Aimen Joud, 23, of Hoppers Crossing; Ahmed Raad, 24, of Fawkner; Fadl Sayadi, 28, of Coburg; Ezzit Raad, 26, of Preston; Mr Taha, 33, of Hadfield; Shoue Hammoud, 28, of Hadfield; Bassam Raad, 26, of Brunswick; and Amer Haddara, 28, of Yarraville.
The hearing, before Justice Bernard Bongiorno, was to continue on Monday.
Accused couldn't manage a booze-up in brewery: lawyer
Katie Bice
February 29, 2008 12:00am
THE accused leader of a home-grown terror cell was a one-man band who was incapable of organising "a booze-up in a brewery", a court heard yesterday.
Defence lawyers told a Supreme Court jury there was no evidence their 12 clients were terrorists and the men were more like a "disorganisation".
James Montgomery, SC, for Hany Taha, urged the jury to take the emotion out of the case, despite the sensational headlines about bombings in Spain and London and Osama bin Laden.
He scoffed at the prosecution assertion that religious scholar Abdul Nacer Benbrika had formed and led a terrorist organisation.
"You may have been of the view that Mr Benbrika can't lead ants to sugar, can't organise a booze-up in a brewery . . . let alone run a terrorist organisation," he said.
Gerard Mullaly, for Majed Raad, said views expressed by the men in secretly recorded discussions were "undoubtedly fundamentalist and extreme", but they had not actually done anything.
"You have to cross the line of criminality, not the line of morality or decency," he told the jury. "You have to do something to actually know, not just hope or think or support or passionately believe in a cause, but to know that a group is actually preparing and fostering a terrorist act."
The lawyer for the youngest accused, Abdullah Merhi, said his client was immature, foolish and fumbling for meaning in his religion.
Mark Taft, SC, said it was one thing to talk the talk, but another to walk the walk.
"Abdullah Merhi was fumbling for meaning and identity, not that he was committed to terrorism," he said.
"A young man trying to understand the world and his place in that world."
Mr Taft said Australians had the right to say or read stupid and provocative things, even if they were unpopular.
"It is a right which distinguishes our society from that of many others," he said.
Julian McMahon, for Ahmed Raad, said prosecutors had used "shock and awe" tactics in their opening address, but the jury should consider the case carefully.
"The more you look the less there is," he said.
All barristers urged the jury not to readily accept the prosecution's take on the men's discussions and to consider the context and back ground they were made in.
On trial are: Mr Benbrika, 48, of Dallas; Mr Merhi, 22, of Fawkner; Shane Kent, 31, of Meadow Heights; Majed Raad, 23, of Coburg; Aimen Joud, 23, of Hoppers Crossing; Ahmed Raad, 24, of Fawkner; Fadl Sayadi, 28, of Coburg; Ezzit Raad, 26, of Preston; Mr Taha, 33, of Hadfield; Shoue Hammoud, 28, of Hadfield; Bassam Raad, 26, of Brunswick; and Amer Haddara, 28, of Yarraville.
The hearing, before Justice Bernard Bongiorno, was to continue on Monday.