Has our Attorney-General confused Dan Duggan with Darcy Dugan?

By Terry Dwyer

An Australian citizen, a convicted terrorist and a disturbing double standard in our justice system.

On 29 October 2026, Federal Parliament heard renewed concerns about the impending release of convicted terrorist Isaac El Matari.

Liberal MP Andrew Wallace questioned why the Government had not sought to keep El Matari detained, describing him as a dangerous terrorist. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told Parliament that El Matari’s views and planning were “beyond contempt.”

The media have reported extensively on El Matari’s terrorism convictions, his plans for an Islamic State presence in Australia and the security concerns surrounding his release.

Yet there is another aspect of this story that deserves public scrutiny.

During his imprisonment at Macquarie Correctional Centre, Australian citizen Dan Duggan shared a prison pod with El Matari.

Consider the extraordinary contradiction.

Since his arrest on 21 October 2022, Dan has spent more than four years in maximum-security detention awaiting extradition to the United States. For the first 19 months, he was held in solitary confinement under an “Extreme High Risk Restricted” (EHRR) classification. He was shackled at the wrists and ankles and made to wear an orange jumpsuit reminiscent of those worn by Guantanamo Bay detainees. In my view, this treatment was designed to humiliate and break him.

Earlier this year, a stabbing incident was reported to have occurred at Macquarie Correctional Centre. Then, on 2 August 2026, another inmate was seriously injured in a stabbing involving homemade weapons. He suffered injuries to his head and neck and was airlifted to Westmead Hospital.

These incidents need to be considered alongside the findings of an official inspection by the NSW Inspector of Custodial Services, tabled in the NSW Parliament in December 2025.

The inspection recorded 33 inmate assaults at Macquarie during the 12 months from July 2023 to June 2024. More significantly, the inspectors raised concerns about vulnerable remand prisoners being exposed to intimidation, threats and violence. They also found that decisions about which pod inmates were placed in could be random, depending on bed availability, and recommended stronger procedures for assessing inmate placements.

Against this background, Dan’s prolonged detention and his proximity to a convicted terrorist raise further questions about the care and protection afforded to an un-convicted Australian citizen.

The AFP’s findings: a questions the Attorney-General cannot ignore

The Attorney-General’s Department has long been aware of a particularly significant fact:

Australia’s own law enforcement agency identified no Australian offending by Dan and commenced no investigation into him.

Its records state:

“The AFP, who is the appropriate law enforcement agency with responsibility for investigation of the types of offences for which Mr Duggan is accused, has confirmed that it did not identify any Australian offending, nor commence any investigation into Mr Duggan.”

This raises a fundamental question about dual criminality, the requirement that the conduct underlying an extradition request must also constitute an offence under Australian law.

How can that requirement be reconciled with the AFP’s confirmation that it identified no Australian offending?

Despite this finding, the Attorney-General’s Department continued to facilitate the US extradition proceedings.

It is difficult to understand how the Commonwealth can reconcile its obligation to protect Australian citizens with its decision to pursue the extradition of one of its own citizens when its own law enforcement agency found no Australian offending.

An extraordinary double standard

Now consider the contrast with the concerns being expressed by our politicians about El Matari.

One man was convicted of terrorism offences and served a substantial prison sentence. The other, Dan Duggan, has never been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence in Australia, yet has endured 4 years of maximum-security detention and shared his immediate prison environment with a convicted terrorist.

Our politicians are publicly expressing concern about the security implications of El Matari’s release. Yet where is that same level of concern for an Australian citizen who has not been charged or convicted of any crime?

This is not about comparing the two men or suggesting any association between them. It is about the decisions, priorities and apparent double standards of the Australian authorities.

If the Government is so concerned about the security risks posed by convicted terrorists, why has it shown so little apparent concern for the treatment and welfare of an un-convicted Australian citizen in its own prison system?

Has Australian citizenship become expendable?

There is an even bigger question here concerning Australia’s sovereignty.

The Commonwealth has facilitated an extradition process on behalf of a foreign government, despite the AFP’s finding that it identified no Australian offending.

The Attorney-General’s Department has continued to pursue the US request, while Dan’s ability to defend himself has been severely constrained.

Dan has been denied Legal Aid on three occasions, according to his supporters, partly because he has not been charged under Australian law and therefore does not meet the relevant eligibility requirements. The very absence of Australian charges that distinguishes his case has become an obstacle to obtaining publicly funded legal assistance.

His family has also endured severe financial and emotional hardship, including the freezing of assets. His wife and six Australian children have been deprived of their husband and father for more than four years.

There are also serious questions about the conduct of ASIO. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security reportedly found that ASIO had “transcended the bounds of propriety” in relation to Dan Duggan. The details remain contained in a classified report, leaving Dan and the Australian public with limited visibility of what occurred.

These circumstances inevitably raise questions about whether geopolitical considerations have influenced the handling of Dan’s case. Some have speculated that he has become an AUKUS bargaining chip. That remains speculation, but the Australian Government should do more to dispel such concerns.

Who is paying for this?

There is another aspect that Australian taxpayers should be asking about.

The Commonwealth has funded the US Government’s legal representation in Australia as part of the extradition proceedings, while the Attorney-General’s Department has acted in support of the US extradition request.

Meanwhile, Dan has been refused Legal Aid three times.

Think about that apparent imbalance: Australian public resources are being used to facilitate a foreign government’s extradition case against an Australian citizen, while that citizen struggles to secure financial assistance to defend himself.

The financial cost is one thing. The damage to public confidence in Australia’s independence, judicial impartiality and sovereignty may prove far more lasting.

The Attorney-General must answer

If this extradition proceeds, it raises serious questions about the protection Australian citizenship provides.

Any Australian citizen could find themselves detained for years at the request of a foreign government, without an Australian criminal charge or conviction, while being denied meaningful access to the resources needed to defend themselves?

What protection does citizenship offer if the Commonwealth places the interests of a foreign extradition request ahead of the welfare and rights of its own citizen?

And why has the Attorney-General not intervened to bring this extraordinary situation to an end?

Dan Duggan is not Isaac El Matari. He is an Australian husband, father of six and citizen who deserves the protection of Australian law.

After more than four years, it is time for the Attorney-General to explain how this situation can possibly be justified.

Has the Attorney-General confused Dan Duggan with Darcy Dugan?

Or has Australia simply forgotten what its citizenship is supposed to mean?

References

1. NSW Inspector of Custodial Services – Inspection of Macquarie and Hunter Correctional Centres 2024. Particularly relevant are the findings on inmate assaults, vulnerable remand prisoners and pod-placement procedures. Read the full inspection report (PDF).
2. NSW Parliament – Tabled Papers, 17 December 2025. Official record of the inspection report being tabled. View parliamentary record.
3. Daily Telegraph – 2 August 2026. Report of the stabbing at Macquarie Correctional Centre and the inmate being airlifted to Westmead Hospital. Read the report.
4. ABC News – 29 October 2026. Federal parliamentary coverage of Isaac El Matari, including Andrew Wallace’s questions and Tony Burke’s response. Read the parliamentary coverage.

See also: If the US can sanction international judges, could Australian judges be at risk?