‘Dangerous attachment devices’ made by Ferra Engineering in Brisbane

The irony is, if there were ever dangerous attachment devices, it is the parts manufactured in Brisbane by Ferra Engineering and Heat Treatment Australia. Ferra exclusively manufactures dangerous attachment devices to hang 9,000kg bunker buster bombs under the fuselage of F35s, dropping them on the people of Gaza, killing and maiming tens of thousands of people half of whom are children.

There is no Queensland law that explicitly says “manufacture, make, produce or supply a (dangerous) attachment device” is itself an offence. Yet the use of a dangerous attachment device like a tripod to block the ‘lawful business‘ of Ferra Engineering making lethal attachment devices for F35s is a criminal offence ensuring our complicity in genocide. Use of a tripod to block Ferra’s driveway is an offence that may give rise to two (2) years imprisonment.

Governments around the world have supported the global supply of weapons infrastructure used in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. To that extent, governments have become lawless and descended into political depravity, acting against the interests of humanity.

People, recognising this, have taken direct action to prevent complicity in the genocide. In this article, we analyse possible defences against charges of using dangerous attachment devices.

The laws about ‘dangerous attachment devices’ were invented to stop environmental activists from blocking coal ports. We confine ourselves here to the Australian context, but defences against these charges could be developed anywhere.

Sadly, despite the best intentions of many member states, the United Nations has itself become complicit in the genocide through the United States’ use of security council vetos. The UN’s failures to stop IDF war crimes in Gaza have been compounded by the sending into Gaza, yet another occupation force, the international destabilization force.

Analysis of defences against charges arising from blockading weapons infrastructure

LEGAL DEFENCE STRATEGY

Summary of Findings relating to the charge of using a tripod to block Ferra’s export of weapons parts used in the genocide in Gaza.

I have come to the conclusion that, if the reasonable excuse defence is not available, the defendant has committed offences of the type in Ss.14C(1) and (2) SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005. However, he can only be convicted of one or the other.

The facts, as I know them, are that the defendant erected and mounted himself on a tripod  to obstruct or impede access to the premises of Ferra Engineering  because that company was manufacturing parts for F35 Aircraft used in the bombing of Gaza. His tripod was placed on a driveway entrance to the premises.

Closer reading of the legislation leads me to the following conclusions :

The tripod, as it was being used is an attachment device within the meaning of S14A(1).

A Tripod is declared to be a dangerous attachment device S 14B (2)

The tripod as constructed fits within the description in S, 14B (6)

I initially thought that there was a defence provided by S 14C(3) on the basis that the Tripod in question did not incorporate a dangerous substance or thing. I could not fathom the reason for the provision of such a defence. However closer reading shows that the tripod does incorporate a dangerous substance or thing under S14B(8). That dangerous thing is support riggings, for a thing, means the cables, chains, ropes or other materials used to stabilise the thing in a particular position.

The drafting is very clumsy and difficult to understand but, read with the rest of the section it is plain that 14C(3) does not provide a defence to a charge under 14C(2)(a)

This leaves to the defendant the defence of reasonable excuse.

To establish reasonable excuse, the defendant will need to rely on 

The CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 (CWLTH) – SCHEDULE 1: The Criminal Code, which has a list of offences relating to war crimes and genocide at:

Division 268 — Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court (Sections 268.1 to 268.125)

AND  Section 11.2 – Complicity and common purpose: A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence** by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.

To establish reasonable excuse, the defendant will need to prove*: 

1. That there has been an ongoing series of war crimes and genocide in Gaza committed by Israel;
   
2. That F35 parts manufactured by Ferra Engineering have been supplied to Israel and used to commit the war crimes and genocide;
3. That Ferra Engineering must have known that those parts were used by the IDF to carry out the operations in Gaza. (it is not relevant that Ferra Engineering did not believe that what the IDF was doing amounted to war crimes or genocide);
4. That the supply of the parts was sanctioned and permitted by Australian governments;
5. That extensive lawful action had been undertaken to persuade Ferra Engineering and the Australian Government to stop the supply of F35 parts to Israel e.g.   letters, demonstrations, public appeals to politicians etc and those actions had been unsuccessful;
   
6. That peaceful civil disobedience action taken by the defendant was the logical and necessary next step to prevent the commission of a crime of aiding and abetting war crimes and genocide by Ferra Engineering in which the Australian Government is complicit;
7. The action taken by the defendant was proportional in the circumstances and constitutes a reasonable excuse;
   
8. Alternatively, the defendant had an honest and reasonable belief in the facts outlined above, which even if not all  proven to the satisfaction of the court is sufficient to provide him with a defence under S 24 of the Criminal Code Queensland.

Much of the necessary evidence has been gathered by Wage Peace. What is needed is the arduous task of preparing it so that it may be presented to the court in admissible form. [See Boeing-Ferra-Brief-Qld-Government-focus.pdf https://share.google/ydN1OIYZRhZuC2doJ%5D

*Please note:

1. The accused bears an evidential burden (also called “evidential onus”) to raise (adduce or point to) some evidence capable of supporting the excuse.)

2. Once the evidential burden is discharged (i.e. there is some proper evidence of “reasonable excuse” for consideration), the prosecution must disprove the excuse — i.e. prove absence of reasonable excuse — beyond reasonable doubt.

In other words: “reasonable excuse” is not treated as an additional element the prosecution must prove at the outset — rather, it remains the defendant’s responsibility to raise the issue. Once raised, the prosecution must negate it as part of their case.

End of Summary

Questions

1. Is a tripod a dangerous attachment device (under SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 – SECT 14C )? Is it used to block ‘transport infrastructure‘ on a driveway or footpath as in photo?

2. It seems to me that police may have difficulty establishing in court that weapons makers are conducting ‘lawful activities‘. Is this an element of the offence under SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 – SECT 14C Use of dangerous attachment device to disrupt lawful activities @ https://share.google/tceeGYbXQQ4OOkNaM ?

Responses
Firstly, dealing with the possible defence under 14C(3) Summary Offences Act

14C(4) of the SOA  defines as follows  ‘transport infrastructure’ see the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, schedule 6.

Which, in turn says

DEFINITIONS……

Road (is defined as)

(i) an area of land dedicated to public use as a road; or (which includes the footpath under the Local Government act).

(ii) an area that is open to or used by the public and is

developed for, or has as 1 of its main uses, the

driving or riding of motor vehicles; or

(iii) a bridge, culvert, ferry, ford, tunnel or viaduct; or

(iv) a pedestrian or bicycle path; or

From this I deduce that the footpath on which the Tripod was placed was  part of a road and therefore transport infrastructure . So , I if the charge is under 14C (1) and not 14C(2) , the possible defence presented by 14C (3) is not helpful.

REASONABLE EXCUSE
I think the focus will have to be on the lawful activities and reasonable excuse  defences about which I have offered some guidance previously. In addition , I offer the following:

I think counsel will have to dig deeper into the CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995 (CWLTH) – SCHEDULE The Criminal Code at
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html which has a tasty list of offences relating to war crimes and genocide at

Division   268 — Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court SS 268.1 to 268.125 AND  the effect on those sections  of section 11.2  – Complicity and common purpose

1. A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence** by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.

**e.g. by providing F35 parts used to carry larger bombs  to the IDF when they knew that they were being used to commit war crimes and a genocide.

Which will be the basis of a reasonable excuse defence, but for which we will require evidence.  I don’t know if any documents which have been published by reputable UN commissions or other organizations  would be admissible or if Chris Sidoti or someone of similar repute  would be able to give admissible evidence of war crimes and genocide.

We would also have to prove that the parts supplied were in use by the IDF, which may require tracking through the supply chains. This might be done by calling evidence from a principal officer of Ferra and having them declared hostile witness and putting to them the documents that demonstrate that they are the exclusive suppliers of the relevant part.

It may provide an opportunity to publicly expound on the depths of depravity to which our government has permitted us to descend.

Thought might also be given to a defence under s 24 of the Queensland Criminal code ‘honest and reasonable, but mistaken (unproven?)  belief‘  that defendant had a reasonable excuse for what the person on the tripod did.

POLITICAL DEFENCE STRATEGY
Alongside a legal defence strategy would require public actions and statements supporting the blockade of weapons factories and failure of governments to stop their complicity in war crimes.

At the very least, pickets should be arranged at courts at the most effective times possible.

This will require better organisation and capacity of people involved. This is a strain on our capacity because key activists are already over-committed.

An additional thought on the politics and perhaps on the legal side as well (but I am not hopeful).

It is illegal to export any materiel to Russia .

Autonomous Sanctions (Export Sanctioned Goods) Designation 2014 explicitly prohibits the export of “export sanctioned goods” to Russia. The definition of these goods is very broad and includes:

Arms and related materiel:
– Dual-use goods:
– Goods for specific sectors:
– The rationale is Australia is a steadfast partner in the international effort to hold Russia accountable for its aggression against Ukraine.

Many experts, most notably Professor Mearsheimer, express the view that the Russian incursion into Ukraine  took place because the U.S. was pressing ahead to incorporate Ukraine into NATO thereby threatening Russian security and the the U.S. offered an absolute NYET to any discussion or negotiation on the issue and actively scuttled (via Boris Johnson) a negotiated peace agreement at the commencement of the incursion.

There are parallels and stark distinctions between Russia /Ukraine and Israel/ Palestine .

Russia is at war with Ukraine. I don’t think anyone has seriously alleged that there is a genocide although war crimes have been alleged.

There is an avalanche of respected institutions including UN Commissions and humanitarian organizations who assert that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that there have been many war crimes.

The Australian government has acted against Russia. Its failure to act against Israel stands in stark contrast and demonstrates its complete surrender of sovereignty to the U.S. which is an active participant in the Israeli genocide.

No defence for apartheid

Its lack of action is a shame on the people of Australia. Many Australians have  expressed their disapproval without success. A vanguard of brave citizens have moved on to civil disobedience in the pursuit of justice for the people of Gaza and Palestine.

A court should not consider this charge in the isolated light of local legislation. It is obliged to consider Commonwealth legislation as well and to allow evidence to establish a defence under that legislation.

Ian Curr
3 December 2025