Bathurst CJ at [1]; Price J at [137]; N Adams J at [138]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – accumulation – totality principle – objective seriousness of offences
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in his treatment of the applicant’s youth – principles relevant to terrorism offences
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Milad Atai (the applicant) was sentenced to 38 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 28 years and 6 months, after pleading guilty to a number of terrorist offences. He sought leave to appeal against his sentence.
Count 1 was that the applicant aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of a terrorist act, contrary to ss 11.2(1) and 101.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The terrorist act was the murder of Curtis Cheng, a civilian employee 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 Atai v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Atai v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 302
Case
[2020] NSWCCA 302
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this matter, Atai appeals against his sentence imposed by the court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The respondent, The Queen, opposes the appeal, maintaining that the sentence was appropriately severe given the nature of the crimes committed. The High Court of Australia is the forum for this appeal, and the central issue is the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the crimes committed.
The appeal hinges on two primary legal issues. First, the court must determine whether the sentencing judge erred in his treatment of the applicant's youth, specifically considering the principles relevant to terrorism offences. Second, the court must assess whether the sentence imposed was a manifest excess of the court's sentencing powers, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offences, and the need to balance this with the principle of proportionality.
The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in his treatment of the applicant's youth. It was noted that while youth is a mitigating factor, in cases of terrorism, the severity of the crime often outweighs personal circumstances. The court further considered the totality of the principle and the objective seriousness of the offences, which involved significant planning and intent to cause harm. The sentence was deemed proportionate to the crimes committed, and thus, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the gravity of terrorism offences and the need for sentences that reflect this gravity, while also adhering to principles of proportionality and individualised justice.