A CSIRO PhD student is facing serious allegations of plotting a terrorist attack on Australia Day, an event that has sparked significant concern and controversy.
On January 22, 2026, Sepehr Saryazdi, a 24-year-old doctoral candidate, appeared in Brisbane Magistrates Court, where he sought bail following his arrest related to these troubling plans. According to court proceedings, Saryazdi had been engaging with around 50 individuals in a private Facebook chat, expressing his intention to lead a riot on the Gold Coast during the national holiday.
The prosecution revealed that Saryazdi held the belief that the Australian government was oppressive and sought to replace it with a radically different system, one he referred to as a cybernetics government. His academic background is noteworthy; he was affiliated with CSIRO’s Data61 Robotics and Autonomous Systems Group as well as the Australian Centre for Robotics. Furthermore, he served as a tutor in physics, mathematics, data science, and robotics at the University of Sydney, highlighting his academic prowess and intellect.
Commonwealth prosecutor Ellie McDonald informed the court that law enforcement had received alarming reports about Saryazdi's activities and messages within the private group. A subsequent investigation by counterterrorism officials uncovered Saryazdi's plans to incite a riot, which included intentions to utilize Molotov cocktails—materials he had reportedly acquired and encouraged others to procure.
Specific messages attributed to Saryazdi revealed his intentions clearly. For instance, he allegedly stated, "I’ll be leading the Gold Coast riots on Jan 26. If you guys know people in Melbourne, let them know so that they can start buying bottles early to stockpile batches." In another post, he advised potential followers on how to handle police interactions if arrested, suggesting they should remain calm and assert the logic behind their actions.
One particularly chilling message indicated his awareness of the severe consequences he might face post-riot: "Before I leave the battlefield on Jan 26, I have a few wishes in case I die." He expressed a belief that after an uprising, he would either be killed or severely harmed by government agencies. Additionally, he urged individuals to learn firearm use at shooting ranges and suggested applying for positions in national security organizations, such as ASIO or the Defense Force.
Saryazdi’s attorney, Hellen Shilton, presented a defense characterized by isolation and emotional distress. She explained that after relocating from Sydney, her client became influenced by new acquaintances and immersed himself in geopolitics, ultimately feeling overwhelmed by current events. She emphasized that Saryazdi never intended to cause harm but rather aimed to raise awareness about governmental issues.
The police clarified that there was no indication that a specific group was targeted in Saryazdi's alleged plot. Shilton argued that her client simply sought to make headlines and unite people disillusioned with the government’s direction.
Despite the defense's arguments, Magistrate Penelope Hay denied Saryazdi's bail request, concluding that releasing him would not mitigate the associated risks. Consequently, he remains in custody until his next court date in February.
This situation raises many questions about individual motivations in political activism and the fine line between protest and extremism. What do you think? Is there a difference between advocating for change and resorting to violence? We invite you to share your thoughts in the comments.
