Abbas v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 80

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0224

IBRAHIM ABBAS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, KAYE and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 April 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 80
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Abbas [2018] VSC 553 (Tinney J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Conspiring to do acts in preparation for or planning terrorist act – Planned mass murder of civilians in Melbourne’s central business district – Explosive vests, machetes and firearms weapons to be used – Sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 20 years – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Dr G Boas, Mr P Smallwood and Ms M Greener	Emma Turnbull Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Respondent	Mr N Robinson QC with Mr P Doyle	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
KAYE JA
T FORREST JA:

Overview of the applicant’s offending

In the two months leading up to his arrest on 22 December 2016, the applicant, Ibrahim Abbas, conspired with others to commit the mass murder of innocent citizens in the name of religion.

The applicant told police that the plan was that he and his co-conspirators would go to the heart of Melbourne wearing explosive vests, and there ram a policeman with a vehicle and steal his gun. They would then go to Federation Square, where the applicant would give the gun to whichever co-offender he deemed fit, to shoot whomever he could.

Armed with a machete, the applicant was going to ‘chop’ and kill people. He said, ‘obviously when the first person gets cut people are [going to] start running away’. As people ran from the terror, however, he ‘was going to run at them [and] slice their necks’. He admitted that he had told others in his group: ‘It’s not hard to kill a person with a machete. It just takes one slice to the neck’. At some point, the applicant intended to have his co-offenders detonate their explosive vests to blow themselves, and civilians, up. His goal, the applicant said, was ‘to cause as much chaos, destruction, fear [and] bloodshed’ as he could. He made it clear that since, as he thought, Australians were killing Muslims overseas, so much made innocent people here a legitimate target.

In his reasons for imposing the sentence which is the subject of the present application, the judge briefly summarised the offending, by observing that the

acts the subject of the conspiracy were the purchase of chemicals and other items for use in the manufacture of improvised explosive devices, the purchase of bladed weapons, and the conducting of reconnaissance of the area around Federation Square in Melbourne. The terrorist act in prospect was to involve the detonation of an explosive device or devices, and/or the use of bladed weapons, and/or the use of firearms in the vicinity of the area mentioned with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abbas v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ibrahim Abbas v The Queen [2020] VSCA 80
Case: [2020] VSCA 80
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentence by Abbas, who was found guilty of conspiring to do acts in preparation for or planning a terrorist act. The conspiracy involved a planned mass murder of civilians in Melbourne’s central business district, with the use of explosive vests, machetes, and firearms. Abbas was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The appeal focused on the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed on Abbas was manifestly excessive. This required a consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of Abbas, and the principles of sentencing for terrorism-related offences in Australia. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the principles of proportionality and justice.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, which involved a meticulously planned terrorist attack intended to cause mass casualties. It also examined Abbas’s level of involvement and culpability, acknowledging his central role in the conspiracy. The court held that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. It reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the community from the significant risk posed by Abbas. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving terrorism and the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of such offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders