A man from Queensland, Omar Saghir, who was convicted of promoting terrorism, has had his appeal to overturn the conviction rejected by the court.
Between 2019 and 2020, Saghir shared eight video speeches on social media, with six of them classified by the court as inciting violence against individuals. The appeal court upheld his original sentence after dismissing his appeal.
Saghir had urged viewers in these videos to “attack” perceived enemies of Islam and to “destroy their houses, trades, and airports.” His actions led to a conviction last year on six counts of intentionally advocating terrorism, stemming from the content shared on his public Facebook page, which reached thousands of followers.
Previously, Saghir was associated with a Queensland organization that espoused extremist ideologies linked to an Islamic militant group. He was also found guilty of financing an overseas fighter who traveled to Syria in 2013.
Court documents indicated that the content of Saghir’s videos largely addressed the ongoing civil war in Syria, while also referencing topics such as the Coronavirus, China, Russia, and the Christchurch Massacre. The court noted that his speeches promoted violence against others.
During his trial in Brisbane in 2025, Saghir acknowledged that he had posted the speeches online. His attorney contended that the videos represented an emotional expression rather than a deliberate call to terrorism. In one instance, Saghir repeatedly urged viewers to “attack them, yes attack them,” referring to various “enemies.” He also mentioned targeting China’s economy and expressed intentions regarding Russia’s fate.
In August, Saghir was convicted of six counts related to the encouragement of terrorist acts but was acquitted of two charges, including one concerning the video about Russia. Judge Vicki Loury KC sentenced him to two years and six months for three of the charges, 18 months for the other three, and an additional six months for the charge related to funding an overseas fighter. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, resulting in a total of two and a half years in prison.
Following his sentencing, Saghir appealed, claiming that the presiding judge did not provide a specific directive to the jury, which he argued constituted a miscarriage of justice. However, today, appeal justices Debra Mullins AO, John Bond, and Peter Davis ruled against his appeal, stating that any alleged oversight would not have influenced the jury’s decision or verdict. They concluded that the trial was fair and upheld his sentences.
