A Supreme Court judge has criticised federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland for commenting on Australia's biggest terrorism trial before it was finished.
Justice Bernard Bongiorno said it was ''abundantly clear'' the justice system was ill served by comments Mr McClelland made on Monday after 24 of the 27 verdicts had been delivered.
When a defence lawyer suggested Mr McClelland should have waited until all the verdicts had been rendered, Justice Bongiorno said flatly, ''It's very hard to shut them up.''
Justice Bongiorno's main criticism came in a ruling yesterday that, while the comments ''had the potential to upset the trial'', the jurors should continue their deliberations as they had been frequently warned about outside influences.
Less than an hour later, the jury returned and found Amer Haddara was the seventh man guilty of belonging to a terrorist organisation that had planned to kill thousands.
The jury remained split on the fate of Shane Kent, who will face a retrial.
Altogether there were 16 guilty and 10 not guilty verdicts. The jury was hung on one count after seven months.
The men found guilty, including Abdul Nacer Benbrika who has become the first man found guilty of directing a home-grown terrorist cell will all appeal against their convictions.
Outside court, lawyer Rob Stary also criticised Mr McClelland for his comments and for supporting the laws rushed in by the Howard government in 2005, under which eight men have now been convicted.
''It beggars belief that the Commonwealth Attorney-General could make comment while the jury was still deliberating,'' Mr Stary said.
''What the real question is in this case is how four innocent men could have been kept in Guantanamo Bay conditions for almost three years.''
He said the Federal Government should not tolerate the failure of the Australian Federal Police, and Commissioner Mick Keelty, after spending $20 billion chasing ''so-called terrorist prosecutions''.
''We have spent $20 billion in this country in pursuing cases against inconsequential figures,'' he said.
''You will remember in this case in 2005, when these men were arrested, they said that an imminent terrorist attack had been thwarted. Well, unfortunately they could not identify any imminent terrorist attack by these 12 men: four of them, of course, have been found not guilty.
The Senate was recalled to change a word in the legislation under which the men were tried, leading Mr Stary to call the prosecutions political.
Mr Stary's firm represented several of the defendants.
Now the trial is over, it can be revealed that a key prosecution witness, Izzydeen Atik, had pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist group. Atik was jailed for a minimum of four years and one month, and may be released as soon as November next year.
Including Atik, eight of the men arrested in November 2005 have now been found guilty.
Several of the men who were found guilty this week will face a second trial for other alleged terrorist offences.
The final verdicts came on the 22nd day of deliberation after a 115-day trial, the largest and longest of its kind in Australian history.
In discharging the jury, Justice Bongiorno thanked the nine women and three men ''a sterling task, a very difficult task'', performed over seven months.
Haddara was found guilty of being a member of the organisation but cleared of the lesser charge of possessing a computer used in preparation for a terrorist act.
Haddara joins Benbrika, 48, Abdullah Merhi, 23, Aimen Joud, 23, Ahmed Raad, 25, Fadl Sayadi, 28, and Ezzit Raad, 26, in custody awaiting sentence.
Hany Taha, Shoue Hammoud, Bassam Raad and Majed Raad walked free on Monday after being acquitted of all charges.