The court heard that Naaman, who was born in Syria, had been in and out of prison in NSW and Queensland for most of his adult life. He served his most recent stint in jail for trying to slash a prison officer, then violated his parole in late 2016 by travelling overseas to Lebanon, where it's understood he now has a wife and child. He returned to Australia via Brisbane in May this year and was re-incarcerated the following month after being interviewed by counter-terrorism officers in Sydney. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Campbell granted an interim supervision order against him on August 2, the final day of Naaman’s full sentence over the attack. Last month, Justice Fagan heard that, soon after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Naaman displayed a poster of Osama bin Laden on his cell wall and, while imprisoned in Queensland about 12 years later, requested a CD of the Koran as read by extremist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by US forces in Yemen in 2011.

Loading It was claimed Naaman was preoccupied with Islamic State and once told a Queensland parole officer that he "would go to Syria and become a suicide bomber, then stated he was joking". In refusing to set down the order, Justice Fagan compared Naaman with contemporaries who carried out terrorist acts in Australia, such as the group that plotted to murder NSW Police accountant Curtis Cheng and Numan Haider, who was shot dead after knifing police in suburban Melbourne. "He has espoused his adherence to Islam over many years. He has shown himself to be an Islamic bigot, expressing contempt and hatred for anyone who does not accept the Koran, being the overwhelming majority of Australians," Justice Fagan said. But, he said, Naaman hadn't shown the "ideological objectives" seen in those other cases.

"He has not voiced the Islamic religious rationale, which these cases reveal, for attacking the Australian population and governments in order to impose sharia law," he said. Forensic psychiatrist Kerri Eagle said Naaman, a long-term illicit drug user with signs of chronic paranoid schizophrenia, would be highly likely to keep committing violent crimes upon his release from custody. Justice Fagan agreed, saying: "The only mitigating consideration with respect to this bleak forecast is that the defendant’s past violence has not been of a high level and has not been premeditated." In being asked by the Crown to respond to Naaman's "risk factors for radicalisation", Dr Eagle said that having radical beliefs didn't "necessarily result in violence or other problematic behaviours". Justice Fagan said the question of whether or not Naaman was "radical" was "beside the point of what I have to decide".

"I am not required to ascertain the 'mainstream Islamic belief system' with respect to inter-faith violence or to measure whether the defendant’s views on the subject are 'radical' relative to that norm," he said. "The question framed for Dr Eagle assumes that 'mainstream Islamic belief' does not condone religious violence and that to examine 'factors for [the defendant’s] radicalisation' is therefore equivalent to examining his inclination to violence. I do not make any such assumption and I do not consider that there is such equivalence." During the hearing, the court heard Naaman wanted to renounce his Australian citizenship and return to Lebanon, prompting Justice Fagan to ask why he shouldn’t be allowed to do so. "If somebody wishes to immigrate from Australia … why wouldn’t the state wish to facilitate it if it’s possible?" he said. Mr Agius said Australia had obligations to help prevent terrorist acts overseas.

"If he returns to Syria to fight the Syrian government and to kill infidels as he said he wishes to do, under Australian law that would be a serious terrorism offence," he said. But, in his judgment handed down this week, Justice Fagan said there was "nothing to be served by keeping him against his will in a country he detests". "I strongly urge that both the State and the defendant’s legal advisers should thoroughly explore any available means by which the defendant might realise his wish." In response to the judgment, NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman said: "The government’s first priority is community safety. I’m seeking urgent advice about the prospects of an appeal."