Second alleged arsonist, 21, arrested for 'politically motivated' Adass Israel Synagogue blaze in Melbourne last year
It is alleged the man from Werribee is one of the three individuals who broke into the Ripponlea synagogue and set the fire.
The 21-year-old will be interviewed in relation to the offences of arson, endangering life arson and theft of motor vehicle.
The first of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment, while the other two both carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.
JCTT investigators, along with Victoria Police and the AFP, executed seven search warrants across Melbourne resulting in the seizure of several electronic devices and other items.
Victoria Police said on July 16, the JCTT charged another person for allegedly stealing a 'communal crime car', which is alleged to have been used to drive to the synagogue.
In a statement, Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Daniel Aghion said the arrest brought 'long-awaited comfort and reassurance' to the Jewish community.
'It is ominous that police are continuing to treat the despicable firebombing of the Adass synagogue as politically motivated,' he said.
'Such attacks are a danger to all Australians. We thank the police for their painstaking efforts to date and hope that further arrests will be made in the near future.'
Mr Aghion said a deterrent could only established against such 'chilling behaviour', until all the offenders, including the attack's architects, were swiftly brought to justice.
Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Wendy Steendam the arrest was a significant step forward and expected more arrests to come.
'We know there are people out there with information that will progress this investigation – whether that is people we have already spoken to or others who are yet to come forward," she said.
If you have any details at all about those involved and their motivation, then we want to hear from you. Even the smallest detail or piece of information could prove crucial."
Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Mike Bush said the state's law enforcement would be relentless in pursuing the remaining offenders.
'People deserve to be safe and feel safe, particularly when it comes to their places of worship,' he said.
AFP Deputy Commissioner National Security Krissy Barrett thanked the Jewish community across Australia, in particular the Adass Israel Synagogue congregation, for their 'stoicism, patience, and the support' for the JCTT.
'The gravity of this crime has not been lessened by time, and I can confirm the JCTT continues to investigate the arson attack as a politically motivated crime,' Deputy Commissioner Barrett said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
9 hours ago
- 9 News
Two men charged after 'tragic' kidnapping and murder of man in Brisbane
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Two men have been charged with the "tragic" kidnapping and murder of a 52-year-old man in Brisbane . The pair, 26 and 29, were arrested in Upper Mount Gravatt and Chermside. The victim went to Logan Hospital with head injuries about 12.30am on January 6, and died the next day. Two men have been charged with kidnapping and murdering a 52-year-old man in Brisbane. (Supplied) Police released images showing the alleged confrontation in Inala. It shows a man pointing a gun at another man getting out of a car with his hands up near Rudyard Street. The arrested pair have been charged with murder, kidnapping, torture and grievous bodily harm and are expected to appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow. Three men have previously been charged over the alleged attack and police say they're not looking for anyone else. Detective Inspector Chris Knight said the investigation has been "long-running and complex". "We will allege this group was known to each other, and their actions resulted in the tragic death of a man who sustained catastrophic injuries," he said. They are appealing for help from anyone who knows more. Brisbane police crime murder Australia national queensland CONTACT US Auto news: Why Australians are still driving around without insurance.
7NEWS
15 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Irish man allegedly used makeshift bedsheet rope to escape Australian detention centre
An Irish man allegedly escaped an Australian detention centre by fashioning a makeshift rope out of bedsheets and 'scaling down the side of a building', according to the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The AFP allege the 26-year-old flew into Australia in March using a fake passport and was detained after he refused to undertake biometric checks. Following his alleged escape, an arrest warrant was issued for him in April. NSW Police officers then arrested him in Box Hill, in Sydney's northwest, on Thursday. He appeared before Parramatta Magistrates Court on Saturday, and was then extradited back to Queensland that afternoon. He is scheduled to appear before Brisbane Arrest Court on Sunday. The man is charged with one count of using false documents and false or misleading information, and one count of escaping from detention. The maximum penalty for the false documents offence is 10 years' imprisonment.
The Advertiser
15 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
