Email reveals Jewish group warned police about Bondi gunman in 2019

Naveed Akram is before the courts on dozens of charges over the December terrorist attack. Email shows Jewish security agency raised concerns about Bondi Beach gunman Naveed Akram in 2019. An expert witness has told the ongoing royal commission a leading definition of antisemitism could "benefit everyone" if used correctly. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance defines antisemitism as a "perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred". Link copiedShareShare articleA Jewish security agency raised concerns about Bondi Beach gunman Naveed Akram years before the terror attack that left 15 people dead, a document shows. In an email seen by the ABC, Community Security Group (CSG) warned counterterrorism officers with NSW Police about a street preaching group in Sydney's south-west, identifying Akram and others as among those involved. The 2019 email was sent a week after counterterrorism units arrested some individuals who are now convicted Islamic State group supporters. Akram faces nearly 60 charges over the shooting at a Jewish event at Bondi Beach in mid-December, including 15 counts of murder, dozens of counts of attempted murder and one of committing a terrorist act. NSW Police said it was unable to comment on the email, first reported by The Sydney Morning Herald, while the circumstances surrounding the Bondi terror attack remained under investigation. It comes as the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion concluded its first block of public sessions on Thursday, which were held in Sydney over two weeks. The hearings have largely heard from people with lived experience of antisemitism, organisations which work to measure and prevent antisemitic incidents and expert witnesses who have attempted to define antisemitism. For the purpose of the inquiry, Royal Commissioner Virginia Bell has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which described antisemitism as "a perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews". It states hatred could be directed at individuals, property and venues. The royal commission held its final hearing of the first block on Thursday. (ABC News: Liam Patrick) It provides eight examples which can be described as antisemitism, with the definition noting each suspected case should be assessed in context. The commission has heard testimony of dozens of antisemitic incidents. Students performing Nazi salutes in classrooms and declaring "Hitler should have gassed them all"; a stranger calling a man wearing a kippah a "dirty Jew" and making a finger gun gesture; and the deadly shooting at a Hanukkah celebration which triggered the inquiry. Other examples are more layered, like the plastering of a building with crossed-out Israeli flag stickers. The Jewish Council of Australia was granted permission to cross-examine some expert witnesses who gave evidence related to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which some critics argued could be weaponised to have a chilling effect on free speech. Appearing via video link from the UK, Community Security Trust director of policy Dave Rich MBE said the definition was a useful tool to guide investigators probing allegations of antisemitism. Counsel for the Jewish Council of Australia, Peggy Dwyer SC, put to Dr Rich that the IHRA definition was imprecise to the point it risked wrongly accusing people or institutions of being antisemitic. "Can I suggest to you, people operating in good faith, reasonable people would be appalled to be called antisemitic," she said. "Those people might be legitimately frightened to enter into the debates about the actions of Israel and criticisms if they are likely to be accused wrongly of being antisemitic." Dr Rich addressed the royal commission via video link from the UK. Dr Rich said it was a "serious charge" to be accused of antisemitism. "There are cases I am aware of … where the IHRA definition was actually used to exonerate people from complaints of antisemitism," he said. "If the definition is used correctly, it can benefit everyone involved in the debate. "There are some types of free speech, namely antisemitic free speech, where it's not necessarily a bad thing to chill that kind of speech. "The point is to try and draw the boundaries in a place that is fair for everybody and I think the IHRA definition is a good faith effort to draw those boundaries in a fair place." Ms Dwyer suggested the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism was preferred, as it provided detailed guidelines of what was and was not antisemitic, and was less ambiguous than the IHRA definition. "I don't think the Jerusalem Declaration is clearer than the IHRA definition at all," he said. "The IHRA definition was written by practitioners to be a practical tool. The Jerusalem Declaration was written by academics to set out their views." Unlike the Jewish Council of Australia, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) was denied leave

Email reveals Jewish group warned police about Bondi gunman in 2019

Key takeaways

More in international