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 case of LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131 for that proposition at [153] and also for the proposition that evidence of uncharged (and more serious acts) can be relevant to making findings about protection of the community by assessing future dangerousness at [116].

8․Any reference to other, more serious, offending was ignored for anything other than these purposes.  Put another way, Nathan has not been sentenced for anything in the facts that suggest he committed a more serious offence than the one he is to be sentenced for.

C. The facts

9․Police executed a search warrant on Nathan’s home on 6 December 2024.  Nathan was aged 16 years and seven months at the time.

10․These were some of the most important things that police found in the search[ii]:

a.a notebook in Nathan’s bedroom with the words “Islamic State” written on it;

b.a piece of paper containing the written words “The Islamic State is remaining”;

c.a Samsung mobile phone that contained 44 files that met the definition of violent extremist material.  These files depicted the stabbing of a priest in Australia, explosions amongst humans, deceased and injured people, written and verbal calls to kill, confessions of handcuffed prisoners, footage of live humans being killed by decapitation and dead humans being decapitated, military attacks, Islamic State insignia on flags and militaria, close range shootings of dead soldiers, men being burned to death, soldiers being fatally shot, training videos containing footage of stabbing and dismembering live humans, training on the creation of  improvised explosive devices with common chemicals, a human being exploded by a backpack bomb, footage of apparently executed soldiers and footage of live humans having hands and feet amputated by a meat clever;

d.evidence of multiple searches and downloads of material showing Nathan’s interest in a caliphate, jihad, ISIS flags, ISIS soldiers and ISIS propaganda videos depicting murder and decapitation;

e.a HP laptop containing 26 videos that met the definition of violent extremist materials including a police station being blown up, a video clip of a song called a ‘nasheed’ and showing murder by shooting, explosives, decapitation and the ISIS flag, the decapitation of an American soldier, a mass decapitation of 30 humans, nasheeds calling for warfare, depictions of explosive devices and western military bases and vehicles being blown up;

f.messages on the laptop including a request for a recipe for HMTD (a high explosive) and a recipe for HMTD;

g.a telegram account that was not completely reviewed, but that contained 294 videos that met the definition of violent extremist material including explosives detonating, dead bodies, men being shot in the back of the head, horrifically injured dead children, combat scenes, mutilation of humans, a Syrian soldier being decapitated, execution, a decapitated head with nerves in the deceased’s facial muscles still twitching and multiple dead bodies.

h.Telegram chats that included material showing that Nathan had forwarded multiple films to another person that depicted some of the already mentioned material above including propaganda, an execution by shooting, a statement that Nathan wanted to “do this operation as quickly as possible” and a request for a martyrdom belt tutorial. These last messages occurred between 4 and 6 December 2024;

i.ideological statements including support for Hamas, execution of gay people, the cursing of Shia Muslims, a picture of himself in Islamic clothing showing only his eyes; and

j.on 23 November 2023 a video of himself was forwarded to his mother via Snapchat. That video depicted Nathan’s head with only his eyes uncovered and a nasheed playing. There were subtitles that spoke of waging war on an enemy and eternal paradise.

D.Objective seriousness

11․This is not a prevalent offence. The factors for assessing the objective seriousness of Nathan’s possession of violent extremist material (other than sheer volume) was the existence of material that depicted:

a.The death of non-combatants;

b.The death of combatants in a manner inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict (such as execution of prisoners);

c.Deceased non-combatants or combatants who have been killed in a manner inconsistent with the laws of armed conflict;

d.Explosives attached to humans as forms of suicide bombing or murder bombing;

e.The detonation of explosives attached to humans;

f.Symbols of terrorist organisations;

g.Edited or cinematically produced content suggesting that the footage was a legitimate documentary or short film;

h.Content accompanied by music or religious music;

i.Training of soldiers belonging to terrorist organisations;

j.Techniques for torture, killing, dismemberment and decapitation;

k.Features of humans that may identify them and may demean them or distress their family members;

l.The promotion of unlawful violence and/or religion to promote unlawful violence;

m.Targeting of religious people.

12․The prevalence of this material in the content in Nathan’s possession indicated that his offending was well above the median level of objective seriousness.  I concluded that any messages he sent to others were more likely to be driven by teenage bravado than by any genuine desire to carry out any physical act.  I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Nathan had progressed quite some way along the path to radicalisation but found that his journey fell somewhere short of physically acting on his beliefs.

E. Compulsory statutory sentencing considerations

13․Because this is a Cth offence and the fact that Nathan is a young person under the age of 18, the Court must consider the general sentencing principles in S16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the purposes of sentencing, relevant considerations and principles set out at s 7, 33 and 133C,D and G of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and the youth justice principles at s 94 of the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT). The Court considered all of those principles, purposes and considerations.

14․Because much of the material was not disputed, the most important features that were taken into account can be summarised as follows:

A.The maximum penalty for the offence is 5 years imprisonment;

B.Nathan was aged 16 years and 7 months when he committed the offence.  He is a proud Aboriginal man who is learning more about his culture;

C.The damage arising from the conduct is the promotion and fomentation[iii] of terrorism activity;

D.Nathan entered a guilty plea in the face of a strong prosecution case; 

E.Following the report dated 13 August 2025 and evidence in court of Ms Kocak, forensic psychologist (see detailed summary below), I find that Nathan has shown remorse and contrition for his offending and an acceptance of the wrongfulness of his thoughts at the time;

F.Nathan willingly co-operated with the police who executed the warrant on his home. This included providing the passwords to his devices as per the s 3LA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) warrant shown to him. Whilst he is not entitled to a discount for his compliance, I thought that his behaviour when faced with an order of the Court was directly relevant to Nathan’s prospects of rehabilitation;

G.Nathan has no criminal history at all, let alone any relevant history. At the time of the offending he was attending high school and had worked casually at a takeaway shop.

H.Nathan has endured complex trauma in his short life.  His father passed away whilst in custody in 2017.  His grandmother who had been his carer for many years passed away in 2024. He has been the subject of care and protection interventions including removal from his mother’s care.  He has been subjected to family violence and experienced the effects of close family members being exposed to family violence and many police attendances. He has lived in multiple homes and endured the trauma of one of his homes being destroyed by fire. 

I.At the time of the offending Nathan had self-placed with his mother;

J.Nathan is autistic and holds a low average level of intellectual function[iv];

K.Nathan converted from Catholicism to Islam in 2022 and had taught himself to speak and read Arabic; and

L.Nathan had been remanded in custody from 13 December 2024 to the day of sentence – 264 days.

15․There was no dispute that because this charge is a terrorism offence the usual ACT sentencing options for young people do not apply – only imprisonment or a recognisance release order and no combination of them is available.

16․Further, because of the operation of s 19AG of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), if a sentence of imprisonment was imposed, a non-parole period of three quarters of the head sentence must also be imposed (unless exceptional circumstances are found).

E. Evidence of Ms Kocak

17․Ms Kocak is a specialist who, amongst other qualifications, holds masters degrees in forensic psychology and terrorism and security studies.  Her evidence comprised of her written report and the evidence that she gave to the court via audio visual link.  I determined that she was a knowledgeable and impressive expert and could not ascertain any reason to stray from making findings based on her opinions.

18․I accepted her view that Nathan had been frank when speaking to her.  Her report spoke to significant disclosures made by him during their interviews.

19․The prominent features of her evidence were:

i.Nathan became interested in terrorist activities without being influenced by others to do so. His radicalisation “developed during adolescence through self-directed online exploration.”[v]

ii.There had been recent changes in his ideological framework such that Nathan rejected ISIS and had embraced jihad as being limited to defence of land or family.[vi]

iii.Nathan was then aware that he was no longer able to cross a line into the prohibited possession or sharing of violent extremist material.[vii]

iv.Whilst he knew that possessing the material was illegal, it is likely that Nathan’s neurodevelopmental profile constrained his moral reasoning.[viii]

v.Nathan’s interest in the material was shaped less by a desire to harm and more by rigid moral beliefs reinforced by his ASD traits.[ix]

vi.“The combined influence of ASD and Low cognitive functioning is likely to have causally contributed to the commission of the offence to a significant degree”.[x]

vii.Restriction of his worship was not recommended.[xi]

viii.Supervision of Nathan’s study of chemistry was recommended.[xii]

ix.Nathan’s study of war history should be limited to legitimate and mainstream teachings and sources and should exclude gory or unfiltered material.[xiii]

x.International travel could be a possibility after a period of time.[xiv]

xi.Nathan’s therapy should focus on behavioural change rather than changing his opinions.[xv]

xii.The resources in place for Nathan were very positive and designed to assist him to move forward into adulthood in the community as a Muslim man navigating a pluralistic society.[xvi]

F. Consideration

20․I found that the Bugmy[xvii] and Verdins[xviii] principles were enlivened and that there was a reduced moral culpability for Nathan’s offending as a result. These findings also tempered the requirement to concentrate on deterrence and punishment set out in the Cth legislation that were reflected in the sentencing approaches taken in other terrorism cases provided to the Court by the prosecution[xix].

21․Ordinarily (and instinctively) in the ACT a sentence of imprisonment that was partially suspended or combined with a good behaviour order would have been the appropriate sentence.  The Cth legislation did not allow for such an approach because this is a terrorism offence.

22․The Cth regime left two sentencing options for Nathan - a sentence of imprisonment with a parole period that would be supervised by the Cth Parole Office (there is no parole for young people in the ACT) or a Cth good behaviour order in the form of a recognisance release order. There could be no combination of both.

23․The prosecution accepted that a sentence culminating in imprisonment for 12 months with a fixed non-parole period would not be an appellable error.[xx]

24․The prosecution fairly conceded that they could not advise the Court of how long it might take for an application for parole by Nathan to be received and heard.  What this meant in a practical sense was that if the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period commencing on the day of sentence, Nathan would not be released until he was granted parole by the Cth Parole Office.

25․It should not be forgotten that Nathan is a young person and had been remanded in custody, bail refused since December 2024.  If a 12-month sentence was fixed, Nathan had already served 264 days of that 365 day sentence – a little over 72 per cent  (being only 9 days shy of 75 per cent of a 12 month head sentence). 

26․The prosecution would not be heard against a non-parole period of less than three quarters being fixed.[xxi] Thus, if imprisonment was to be the outcome, then Nathan had likely served his mandatory non-parole period. 

27․The youth justice principles speak to imprisonment being a last resort and for the minimum time necessary.[xxii] This is a mandatory consideration that the Court must not ignore. The tension between the principle and the Cth legislation was apparent.

28․If imprisonment was chosen as the outcome then the Court had no control over when Nathan’s application for parole would be received or heard. 

29․Nathan is a young person with significant neurological disadvantage.  There was no guarantee that if the Court fixed a non-appellable head sentence of 12 months that Nathan would be granted the opportunity for parole before the head sentence expired.

30․Even if parole was granted within days of sentence, it would have been for about three months and likely to have been of little rehabilitative purpose.  Most importantly, such a sentence would have only allowed for supervision for the short length of the parole period.

31․All of the above factors were taken into account and a recognisance release order was imposed that allowed for lengthy supervision.  This was the greatest opportunity for rehabilitation and consequent reduced risk to the community.  Such an outcome would have been out of the question if Nathan had not served so much time in custody whilst bail refused.

G. Orders

32․A conviction was recorded, the time in custody was taken into account and a 24 month recognisance release order was imposed with conditions including supervision, reporting to CYF immediately, attendance at any assessments, programs or counselling as directed, medical treatment and supervision as directed, any education or training as directed, reside as directed, surrendering of passport, no study of chemistry without permission, a restriction on possession of certain chemicals without permission, not to travel interstate or overseas without permission and not to view or possess violent extremist material.

33․The Court file reflects that Nathan elected to sign that recognisance release order on 2 September 2025.

I certify that the preceding thirty-three [33] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of His Honour Magistrate Stewart.

Associate: Zeinab Elsheekhly

Date: 7 October 2025

[i] R v De Simoni  (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31

[ii] The complete extent of the materials is detailed in the statement of facts tendered.  It is unnecessary to repeat int in full to give the content it’s full effect.

[iii] R v Khazaal (unreported) 25 September 2009 NSWSC per Latham J at [11]

[iv] See undated report of Dr Eryn Davies at pages 9 and 10.

[v] Report of Ms Kocak dated 13 August 2025 at [40]

[vi] Ibid at [41]

[vii] Ibid at [42]

[viii] Ibid at [52]

[ix] Ibid at [53]

[x] Ibid at [54]

[xi] TX P 21

[xii] Ibid

[xiii] TX P 22

[xiv] Ibid

[xv] Ibid

[xvi] TX P 23

[xvii] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

[xviii] R v Verdins; R v Buckley, R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102

[xix] R v Balcombe (unreported, Children’s Court of Queensland, 21 March 2025, R v Hoolash (unreported, District Court of Western Australia) 20 March 2025 and R v Fletcher (unreported) District Court of Western Australia) 28 March 2025.

[xx] TX P 45 L39

[xxi] TX P 46 LL31-34

[xxii] S 94(1)(f) Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT)