Three Australian Women Arrested on Return from Syria on Terrorism and Slavery Charges

On May 7, 2026, three Australian women stepping off Qatar Airways flights from Doha were arrested at Melbourne and Sydney airports on charges of slavery and terrorism — making two of them the first Australians ever prosecuted for crimes against humanity under domestic law [1][2]. The arrests capped a decade-long investigation and reignited fierce debate over how democracies should handle citizens who joined the Islamic State.

The Arrests and Charges

The thirteen Australians — four women and nine children — had spent years in the Roj Camp, a displacement facility in northeastern Syria administered by Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces [1]. Three of the four women were arrested on arrival; the fourth was not charged.

Kawsar Abbas, 53, who arrived at Melbourne Airport, was charged with four counts of crimes against humanity under Division 268 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, including possessing a slave, using a slave, and engaging in slave trading [2][3]. Each count carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.

Her daughter Zeinab Abbas, 31, also arriving in Melbourne, was charged with two counts of crimes against humanity related to enslavement [3][4].

A third woman, Janai Safar, 32, who arrived at Sydney Airport with her son, was charged with being a member of a terrorist organization and entering or remaining in a declared area controlled by a terrorist organization — offenses under Division 102 and Section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, each carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years [1][5].

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett said investigators had "been prepared for the ISIS-linked women to return to Australia for more than a decade" [4].

The Yazidi Victims

The slavery charges center on testimony from two Yazidi women who say they were held captive by the Abbas family in ISIS-controlled Syria [3][4].

Tayseer, who was held for over a year, alleged she was raped multiple times and forced to cook, clean, and film family videos while enslaved [4]. Sarab, abducted by ISIS at age 11, said she was brought to the Abbas household at 13 for a "trial period." She told investigators: "I was their slave and they could do whatever they wanted to me" [4].

Police allege Kawsar Abbas traveled to Syria with her family in 2014 and was involved in purchasing a female Yazidi slave for approximately US$10,000, keeping the woman in the family home [2][3]. The Yazidi people — a Kurdish-speaking religious minority in northern Iraq — were subjected to systematic enslavement, sexual violence, and genocide by ISIS beginning in August 2014, with the United Nations formally recognizing ISIS's campaign against them as genocide [6].

An Unprecedented Legal Test

The charges are, in the words of Australian National University international law professor Donald Rothwell, "completely unprecedented" [4]. While Australia has prosecuted individuals for terrorism-related travel offenses, no Australian court has previously adjudicated crimes against humanity.

Division 268 of the Criminal Code domesticates obligations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, criminalizing acts such as enslavement when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population [7]. Separately, Divisions 270 and 271 cover slavery and slavery-like practices — including servitude, forced labor, and human trafficking — with penalties ranging from 4 years for debt bondage to 25 years for slavery [8].

Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, noted that victim testimony constitutes "absolutely some of the best evidence" in such cases, and that ISIS's own bureaucratic documentation — including records of slave transactions — could provide corroborating paper trails [4]. However, Rothwell cautioned that prosecutors face a "fairly high evidentiary burden" and would need to demonstrate that the women's involvement went beyond merely being family members in an ISIS household [4].

Australia has completed only two prior war crimes prosecutions, and neither involved crimes against humanity charges [4]. This makes the Abbas case a test of whether Australian courts can effectively try international crimes committed in foreign conflict zones.

How Australia Compares Internationally

Australia is not alone in struggling to prosecute returned ISIS affiliates for atrocity crimes. Germany remains the only country to have convicted an ISIS member specifically for genocide against Yazidis. In 2021, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt sentenced Iraqi national Taha al-Jumailly to life imprisonment for enslaving a Yazidi woman and her five-year-old daughter, who died after being tied outdoors in extreme heat as punishment [9]. His wife, German national Jennifer Wenisch, received 10 years for crimes against humanity in the form of enslavement and for aiding in the child's death [9].

The United Kingdom has largely avoided prosecution by revoking citizenship. Shamima Begum, who left London for Syria at age 15, had her British citizenship stripped in 2019 — a decision upheld despite a trafficking finding by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission [10]. The United States similarly revoked the passport of Hoda Muthana, an Alabama woman who joined ISIS as a teenager, blocking her return entirely [10]. Canada has repatriated some citizens but has not pursued slavery or crimes against humanity charges [11].

Australia's decision to charge returning women with crimes against humanity rather than simply revoking citizenship or relying on lower-level terrorism charges represents a distinct prosecutorial strategy — one that prioritizes accountability for specific atrocities over blanket exclusion.

The Numbers: Foreign Fighters and the Prosecution Gap

Approximately 207 Australians traveled to Syria and Iraq to support the Islamic State, with roughly 17% being women [11][12]. About 40 had returned before this latest group, and approximately 60 Australian men, women, and children remain offshore [12][13].

Source: Lowy Institute / ASIO / AFP

Data as of May 8, 2026CSV

Of those who returned, the prosecution rate has been strikingly low. Prior to this week's arrests, only a handful had been charged. In 2024, Mariam Raad — repatriated in the 2022 group of four women and 13 children — was sentenced for voluntarily entering ISIS-controlled territory, one of the few successful convictions [12].

The gap between investigation and prosecution reflects structural challenges: intelligence agencies may hold substantial information about individuals' activities in Syria, but converting classified intelligence into admissible courtroom evidence is a separate and often impossible task [14]. As one analysis noted, "even with strong intelligence about involvement with terrorist groups, gathering enough admissible evidence of activities in Syria or Iraq to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt can be difficult" [14].

Gender has historically shaped prosecutorial outcomes. Women who traveled to Syria were long treated as "jihadi brides" — passive followers of male relatives — and charged leniently or not at all [15]. That framing is now shifting as evidence emerges of women's active participation in ISIS governance, recruitment, and enforcement of the group's slavery regime [15].

The Coercion Question

Defense lawyers and refugee advocates have raised a counter-narrative: that some of these women were themselves victims of coercion, trafficking, or domestic abuse.

Zahra Ahmad, one of the Australian women in the Roj camp, told SBS that some women "had no choice but to follow" male family members who joined ISIS [13]. Advocates have argued that many women were trafficked by the Islamic State for sexual and reproductive exploitation, and that recruitment techniques targeting Western women — who averaged 18 years of age — may constitute entrapment [16][17].

Under Australian law, duress can serve as a "complete defence" to criminal charges if a defendant can demonstrate they were compelled to act under threat of serious harm [4]. But establishing this threshold is complex. Courts must distinguish between genuine coercion and voluntary participation, and the line between perpetrator and victim is rarely clean in a totalitarian environment like the ISIS caliphate.

The academic literature is divided. A 2021 study titled "Guilty When Innocent" argued that the Australian government's resistance to repatriation reflected a presumption of guilt rather than a careful assessment of individual circumstances [17]. Conversely, Yazidi survivors and their advocates have pushed back sharply against the "victim" framing. As one Yazidi advocacy organization noted, the women who managed ISIS households and oversaw enslaved captives cannot be categorized as passive bystanders regardless of how they arrived in Syria [6].

The Children

Nine children arrived with the four women. Their ages have not been publicly disclosed, but some were born in ISIS territory and have known nothing but conflict and detention camps [1][13].

AFP Commissioner Barrett confirmed that children would not face criminal charges. Instead, they will enter anti-extremism programs and receive psychological support as part of a reintegration framework [5]. Previous repatriation rounds — eight orphaned children in 2019, four women and 13 children in 2022, and six people who obtained passports independently from the Australian embassy in Beirut in 2025 — established a precedent for child-focused welfare responses [12][13].

Source: UNHCR Population Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2025CSV

Syria remains the world's largest source of refugees, with 5.5 million displaced internationally as of 2025 [18]. The al-Hol and al-Roj camps in northeastern Syria collectively hold over 40,000 inhabitants, including 8,500 from non-Syrian and non-Iraqi nations [12]. Among them, approximately 30 Australian women and children remain [13]. Conditions in the camps include scarce food and medical supplies, commonplace violence, and persistent exposure to ISIS ideology [12].

Australia's government has repeatedly stated it "is not and will not repatriate people from Syria" [13], but Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke acknowledged a legal reality: "There are very serious limits on what can be done with respect to preventing a citizen of a country returning to their country" [5].

Source: Various government sources / CEP

Data as of May 8, 2026CSV

ASIO's Threat Assessment

ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess stated that the return of this group "does not change the national terrorism threat level," which remains at "probable" — the midpoint on Australia's five-tier scale — but confirmed the returnees will "get our attention" [15][19].

The assessment reflects ASIO's evolving understanding of the threat posed by returned women. Early analyses tended to rate women as lower-risk than male fighters on the assumption that they held domestic rather than operational roles. More recent evaluations, informed by evidence from prosecutions in Europe and testimony from camp detainees, acknowledge that women carried out a range of functions within the caliphate — including enforcing religious codes, recruiting other women, and in some cases participating directly in violence [15].

Whether the decision to prosecute these three women reflects a policy shift or is consistent with prior enforcement depends on perspective. The terrorism charges against Safar are broadly in line with previous cases; several returned Australians have been charged with declared-area offenses. The crimes against humanity charges against the Abbas women, however, represent an escalation — both in legal ambition and in the seriousness with which Australian authorities are treating women's roles in ISIS atrocities.

Political Crosscurrents

The arrests have drawn predictable but revealing reactions across the political spectrum.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated that those returning would face "the full force of Australian law" if they had committed offenses [13]. Home Affairs Minister Burke emphasized the government provided "no support for repatriation and no assistance for these people" [5].

From the right, One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson accused the government of capitulating to "political Islam" and alleged Burke was "so scared of losing the Muslim vote in his electorate" that the government had been "held hostage" [20]. Such statements have raised concerns about potential prejudice to fair trial proceedings.

Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, urged measured responses: "While the returning women have placed themselves, their children, and the broader Muslim community in a deeply challenging position, we must ensure that Muslim communities are not unfairly targeted or dehumanised" [19]. He noted an increase in abuse directed at Muslim Australians, including threats against the Lakemba mosque in Sydney [19].

Legal experts have flagged a tension between political rhetoric and the presumption of innocence. The women have been charged, not convicted, and inflammatory public commentary — particularly from elected officials — risks contaminating jury pools and undermining the integrity of proceedings that are already unprecedented in Australian legal history.

What Comes Next

The Abbas women are due in Melbourne Magistrates' Court for preliminary hearings. Safar will appear in Sydney. Bail determinations and evidentiary hearings will test whether the prosecution can assemble admissible evidence for crimes committed in a war zone thousands of kilometers away, in a territory where conventional forensic investigation was impossible.

For the Yazidi survivors who provided testimony, the Australian proceedings represent something rare: a Western court taking their suffering seriously enough to bring charges of crimes against humanity. For the defendants, the stakes are existential — potential sentences of 25 years each. And for Australian law, the cases will establish whether Division 268 of the Criminal Code is a functional tool for accountability or merely a statutory aspiration.

The outcome will reverberate beyond Australia. Dozens of Western nations face similar questions about their citizens detained in Syrian camps, and Australia's prosecutorial approach — charging crimes against humanity rather than relying on citizenship revocation or lesser terrorism offenses — may set a precedent that others follow or reject.