Appearing before a royal commission investigating Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in decades, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation chief Mike Burgess said the agency had been “stretched” by competing security challenges, including religious extremism, politically motivated violence and the growing radicalization of young people online.

The inquiry is examining the circumstances surrounding the December attack at Bondi Beach, where authorities allege that Sajid Akram and his son Naveed opened fire during a Hanukkah celebration attended by Jewish families, killing 15 people and triggering a nationwide debate over security failures and rising antisemitism.

Questioned about Australia’s counterterrorism capabilities before the attack, Burgess acknowledged mounting operational demands on the intelligence service but rejected suggestions that resource constraints had prevented investigations into significant threats.

“We were not leaving serious matters untreated or uninvestigated,” Burgess told the commission, adding that intelligence agencies could not anticipate every potential threat despite extensive monitoring efforts.
He said that, even in hindsight, he believed the agency’s resources were sufficient to address the security challenges it faced at the time.

Burgess is expected to provide further evidence in a closed hearing focused on classified intelligence matters and operational arrangements that cannot be discussed publicly.

The attack has prompted intense scrutiny of Australia’s security framework and sparked broader concerns about the safety of Jewish communities. It also led to calls for stronger measures against violent extremism and hate-motivated attacks.

In response to the shooting, the Australian government announced a package of firearm reforms, including a proposed nationwide gun buyback program. However, implementation has slowed amid difficulties securing support from state and territorial governments, whose cooperation is required for nationwide enforcement.

The inquiry is being led by former High Court judge Virginia Bell and is expected to examine intelligence assessments, law enforcement responses and broader policy issues linked to the attack.

Authorities said alleged gunman Sajid Akram, 50, was killed by police during the assault. His son, Naveed Akram, 24, remains in custody and has been charged with terrorism offenses and 15 counts of murder.

Royal commissions are among Australia’s most powerful public inquiries and can run for months or years while examining evidence and making recommendations for legislative and institutional reform.

The ruling marks one of the most significant judicial actions taken by Bahrain in recent months against individuals accused of maintaining links with Iranian security organizations amid heightened regional tensions between Gulf states and Tehran.

According to the report carried by the Bahrain News Agency, the defendants were convicted of gathering information on sensitive locations within Bahrain and facilitating financial transfers connected to the alleged activities.

The court said the defendants had collaborated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commonly known as the IRGC, which Bahrain and several of its regional partners have repeatedly accused of supporting activities that threaten Gulf security.

The verdict follows an announcement by Bahrain’s Interior Ministry on May 9 that security forces had arrested 41 individuals allegedly linked to the IRGC. Authorities said investigations uncovered a network connected to the Iranian organization, while prosecutors were also examining cases involving expressions of support for Iranian military actions.

Bahraini officials have not publicly disclosed the identities of those convicted, nor have they released detailed information regarding the specific locations targeted or the extent of the alleged intelligence-gathering activities.

Relations between Bahrain and Iran have long been strained by security disputes, accusations of interference and broader geopolitical rivalries across the Gulf region.

The latest convictions come amid increased regional scrutiny of alleged IRGC-linked activities following months of heightened military and diplomatic tensions involving Iran, Israel, Gulf Arab states and the United States.

Bahrain hosts the headquarters of the United States Fifth Fleet and is a close security partner of Washington, making the island kingdom a strategically important player in Gulf security architecture.

Authorities have not indicated whether additional prosecutions related to the May arrests are expected.

Bahrain’s Public Prosecution said the defendants were found guilty of “supporting and endorsing Iranian terrorist attacks on the Kingdom, obtaining and broadcasting prohibited vital data, and photographing prohibited locations,” the agency reported.

Several of the convicted individuals were also fined 2,000 Bahraini dinars ($5,300), while the court ordered the permanent deportation of three defendants following completion of their prison terms.

Authorities did not publicly disclose additional details about the defendants, the alleged attacks or the timeframe of the offenses.

The convictions come amid heightened regional tensions involving Iran and Gulf Arab states, as Bahrain continues to maintain close security ties with Western allies and neighboring Gulf countries.

Bahrain has previously accused Iran-backed groups of destabilizing activities inside the kingdom, allegations Tehran has repeatedly denied.

The island nation hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and remains a key regional security partner for Washington amid ongoing instability across the Gulf.

The three-judge panel dismissed Tarrant’s claim that harsh prison conditions and poor mental health had caused him to plead guilty involuntarily in March 2020, concluding there was no evidence he had suffered from a mental impairment that affected his legal judgment.

“He was not suffering from a mental impairment or any other form of mental incapacity which rendered him unable to voluntarily change his pleas to guilty,” the judges wrote in their decision.

The court said the Australian national, now 35, had attempted to mislead judges about his mental state in what it described as “a weak attempt to advance an appeal,” adding that evidence showed he had made an informed and rational decision when he admitted guilt.

Tarrant carried out the attacks in March 2019, driving to two mosques in Christchurch during Friday prayers and opening fire with semiautomatic weapons, killing 51 people and injuring dozens more in New Zealand’s deadliest modern mass shooting.

His guilty pleas a year later spared victims’ families and survivors from a lengthy public trial, which many feared would give him a platform to spread extremist views.The appeal court noted that Tarrant’s bid to challenge those pleas was filed 505 days after the legal deadline, but it proceeded to hear the matter because of its public significance.

During a five-day hearing in February, Tarrant argued that “irrationality” caused by poor mental health had temporarily led him to abandon his white supremacist ideology and plead guilty.

The judges rejected that argument, saying prison staff, mental health professionals and his former lawyers did not support his claims. They also noted that he had accepted the summary of facts presented by police and the sentencing judge, while the evidence against him was overwhelming.

That evidence included video footage of the attack that Tarrant filmed himself and livestreamed online, clearly showing his face, as well as a manifesto outlining his racist ideology that he published under his real name before the shootings.

The ruling also disclosed that Tarrant sought to abandon the appeal shortly after presenting his case in February, but judges refused, saying the matter was of “significant public interest and should be finally determined.”They said he appeared to conclude the hearing was not going in his favor and then attempted to withdraw the case after proceedings ended.

Tarrant was sentenced in August 2020 to life imprisonment without parole, the first such sentence in New Zealand’s history. He remains in Auckland Prison.The judges allowed him to abandon a separate appeal against that sentence, which had been scheduled to be heard later in 2026.

A British woman convicted on terrorism-related charges after traveling to Syria has described her trajectory from personal vulnerability and radicalisation to imprisonment and eventual reintegration into society, offering a detailed account of the personal, legal and social consequences of her actions.

The woman, identified as Shakil, said her early life was marked by instability, including regular visits to her father in prison. She described a determination during adolescence to pursue a different path, excelling academically and enrolling at university to study psychology.

However, at age 20, she entered into a relationship that she said quickly became controlling. Within a year, she had married and left her studies.Shakil stated that the relationship resulted in social isolation and restricted communication, including periods during which she did not have access to a phone.

She distanced herself from family members, citing fear of disclosing her circumstances. During this period, she became involved with individuals who facilitated her travel to Syria via Turkey. She later told authorities that she concealed the truth from her family out of concern that she would lose access to her child.

Following her return, Shakil was released on bail and allowed limited contact with her son. She described this period as the most difficult phase of her life, marked by severe emotional distress and close monitoring by family members concerned about her safety.

After several months, she was formally charged with joining the Islamic State group and encouraging acts of terrorism, based on digital communications and social media activity during her time in Syria.In court proceedings, prosecutors presented messages in which Shakil expressed support for extremist causes and encouraged others to join her.

One message indicated a desire to die as a martyr. Additional evidence included photographs recovered from her phone, among them an image of her young child holding an assault rifle. Shakil denied the charges, arguing that she had not formally joined the group and that her actions were influenced by coercion and surveillance within Syria.

The presiding judge rejected her account, citing inconsistencies in her statements and the nature of the evidence. The court emphasized the risks posed to her child, including exposure to extremist ideology. Shakil was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to six years in prison.

Her case unfolded against the broader backdrop of the territorial defeat of Islamic State, marked by the fall of Baghouz in March 2019. Around the same time, another British national, Shamima Begum, re-emerged in a refugee camp.

Begum had left the United Kingdom as a minor and later became the subject of international attention when her citizenship was revoked by the British government on national security grounds. Authorities argued that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere through her family, a claim that has been contested in ongoing legal proceedings.

Shakil drew a distinction between her own case and that of Begum, while acknowledging similarities in their circumstances. She expressed the view that Begum had been groomed as a minor, but argued that differences in their experiences, including the duration of time spent in Syria, shaped their respective outcomes.

Following her conviction, Shakil served approximately half of her sentence, including time spent on remand, before being released under strict probation conditions. These included geographic restrictions, limits on contact with family members, electronic monitoring, and a curfew.

Despite these constraints, she secured employment in multiple roles, including cleaning, hospitality and administrative work, often holding more than one job simultaneously.After completing her probationary period in 2021, Shakil began to speak publicly about her experiences.

She participated in a documentary and media appearances aimed at raising awareness about online grooming and radicalisation. She described her actions as the result of vulnerability and manipulation, while acknowledging public skepticism regarding such claims.

Efforts to establish a charitable initiative focused on educating young people about extremism did not materialize, which she attributed in part to a lack of public trust. She continued to receive negative reactions online but indicated that such responses did not significantly affect her.

In the years following her release, Shakil reported gradual improvements in her personal circumstances. Contact with her son was eventually restored, and she described rebuilding relationships with family and establishing a stable social network. By 2024, she indicated that she had reached a level of stability that had previously seemed unattainable.

More recently, she has used social media platforms to engage with audiences on topics including relationships, self-esteem and personal development. While she does not regularly discuss her past, she views her current lifestyle and public presence as part of a broader effort to demonstrate the possibility of rehabilitation.

Shakil remains subject to long-term monitoring requirements and continues to report regularly to law enforcement authorities, a condition that will remain in place until 2034. She stated that she accepts these measures as part of the consequences of her actions.

Her account reflects the intersection of personal vulnerability, extremist recruitment, legal accountability and reintegration challenges, illustrating the long-term implications of involvement in conflict zones and proscribed organisations.