Accused Islamic State bride Zeinab Ahmad denied bail over ‘unacceptable’ terrorism risk after slavery charges
Accused Islamic State bride Zeinab Ahmad has learnt the outcome of her bid for freedom.
An accused Islamic State bride charged in Australia’s first crimes against humanity prosecution has been refused bail after a magistrate found she posed an unacceptable terrorism risk and there was no compelling evidence she had renounced the extremist group.
After two days of bail hearings in the Melbourne Magistrates Court, Chief Magistrate Lisa Hannan delivered her decision on Wednesday afternoon, refusing Zeinab Ahmad’s bail application.
The 31-year-old was arrested last month upon her return to Australian from Syria, where she is accused of enslaving a Yazidi girl while living under Islamic State rule.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.The court heard Ms Ahmad failed to establish the “exceptional circumstances” required for her release and that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated she posed an unacceptable risk to community safety.
“I am satisfied the prosecution has discharged the burden of establishing that there is a risk of the applicant endangering the safety or welfare of any other person, and that that risk is unacceptable,” Judge Hannan said.
“I am further satisfied that there are simply no conditions capable of making that risk acceptable because of the nature of the risk and its basis in belief and apparent ideology.”
Ms Ahmad and her mother, Kawsar Ahmad, are facing Australia’s first prosecution for alleged crimes against humanity after being accused of involvement in the enslavement of a Yazidi teenager during the Islamic State caliphate.
The charges carry maximum penalties of 25 years imprisonment.
In refusing bail, Judge Hannan placed significant weight on allegations Ms Ahmad had supported Islamic State ideology while living in Syria.
The prosecution relied on social media posts allegedly made by Ahmad between 2015 and 2016, including posts supporting violent jihad, praising martyrdom and endorsing violence against non-believers.
The magistrate noted the prosecution had pointed to Ms Ahmad’s travel to Syria, residence under Islamic State rule, marriages to Islamic State fighters, receipt of Islamic State salary payments and her alleged support for the organisation’s ideology and activities.
During the hearing, the defence argued Ms Ahmad had renounced the terrorist group, describing the terrorist organisation as responsible for years of suffering and saying she harboured a “deep anger” towards it.
But Judge Hannan found there was no compelling evidence of renunciation.
“What is apparent from the evidence led for the purposes of this application is that while in Syria, the applicant is alleged by her words and actions to have endorsed the ideology of ISIS and their actions,” she said.
“There has been no clear evidence of renunciation.”
The magistrate said statements made by Ahmad to a psychologist and comments conveyed through her barrister during the bail hearing carried limited weight because they were made while seeking release from custody.
“I do not regard her recent statements in relation to her views about ISIS … as persuasive,” she said.
“They are made after her arrest, after separation from her daughter, and in the context of an application for bail.”
More to come.
