Police v Nathan Sheals (a pseudonym) - [2025] ACTCC 4

CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Nathan Sheals (A pseudonym)
Citation:	[2025] ACTCC 4
Hearing Date:	2 September 2025
Decision Date:	7 October 2025
Before:	Magistrate Stewart
Decision:	See [32]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Commonwealth offence - young offender – possess or control violent extremist material – terrorism offence – limited sentencing options – tension between youth justice principles and Commonwealth sentencing regime for terrorism offences
Legislation Cited:	Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing) Act (2005 ACT)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 LN v R [2020 NSWCCA 131 R v Balcombe (unreported, Children’s Court of Queensland, 21 March 2025 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 R v Fletcher (unreported) District Court of Western Australia) 28 March 2025 R v Hoolash (unreported, District Court of Western Australia) 20 March 2025 R v Khazaal (unreported) 25 September 2009 NSWSC R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions ( Prosecution) Nathan Sheals (a pseudonym) (Young Person)
Representation:	Counsel K. Lee (Prosecution) J. White SC (Young Person
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Prosecution) Legal Aid ACT (Young Person)
File Number:	CH 1508 of 2024

MAGISTRATE STEWART

A. Introduction

1․These are the reasons for a sentencing decision imposed by the Court on 4 August 2025.
2․As with all young people dealt with by this Court, the young person is referred to by a pseudonym to protect his anonymity.
3․This decision includes descriptions of extreme violence and murder and should be read with caution.
4․The fundamental issues in this decision are:
a.The significant amount of time that Nathan has spent on remand;
b.The limited sentencing options available when sentencing a young person for a Commonwealth (Cth) terrorism offence;
c.The ultimate choice between a further sentence of imprisonment with a short parole period or a lengthier release upon recognisance; and
d.The tension between the youth justice principles and the Cth sentencing legislation for this type of offence.

B. Dispute over the facts

5․Nathan entered a plea of guilty to one charge: Possess or control violent extremist material obtained or accessed using a carriage service.
6․The statement of facts contains 17 pages of dense material. There was a dispute about the admissibility of some of the facts because the defence submitted the principle in De Simoni[i]was impugned. The prosecution provided written submissions that clarified the basis for admission of those materials – it was not to allege more serious offending, it was to show the state of mind of Nathan at the time of his offending.
7․I thought that all of the disputed material was relevant and admissible because it showed what state of mind was reflected in his conduct and how his conduct showed how far he was along the continuum of radicalisation at the time. I relied on the…

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 Police v Nathan Sheals (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Police v Nathan Sheals (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTCC 4
Case: [2025] ACTCC 4
Decision Date: 7 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Nathan Sheals concerns a young person, identified as Sheals, who was charged with possessing or controlling violent extremist material, an offence under Commonwealth law. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the presiding judge had to decide on an appropriate sentence for the young offender. The legal issues at hand revolved around the balance between the principles of youth justice and the Commonwealth sentencing regime for terrorism offences. Specifically, the court needed to determine how to impose a sentence that adhered to the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality, while also addressing the seriousness of the terrorism offence committed by a young person.

In addressing these issues, the court considered the principles of youth justice which emphasise rehabilitation and the best interests of the child, as well as the severity and context of the offence. The judge acknowledged the limited sentencing options available under the Commonwealth legislation for terrorism offences, which often provide for mandatory minimum sentences. However, the court also recognised the need to consider the age and circumstances of the offender, particularly given the potential for rehabilitation. The court carefully weighed these considerations and found that while the offence was serious, the principles of youth justice should guide the sentence to ensure it was proportionate and rehabilitative.

The court ultimately decided that the best approach was to impose a sentence that allowed for the offender's rehabilitation while still reflecting the gravity of the offence. The judge determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the terrorism offence, but also recognised the importance of providing opportunities for rehabilitation within the sentence. The final orders of the court balanced these considerations, resulting in a sentence that was both punitive and rehabilitative, reflecting the unique circumstances of the young offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [32]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.