R (Cth) v Alqudsi (No 8) - [2023] NSWSC 355

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Alqudsi (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 355
Hearing dates: 18 – 22, 25 – 26 July, 2 – 5, 8, 10 – 11, 15, 22 – 23, 25-26, 29 – 31 August, 5 – 9, 12 – 15 September 2022, 2 February 2023
Decision date: 11 April 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) The offender is convicted that between about 30 August 2014 and 31 December 2014, at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, he did intentionally direct the activities of a terrorist organisation, namely the Shura, the said organisation being a terrorist organisation, namely an organisation that was directly or indirectly preparing or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, knowing the said organisation was a terrorist organisation. That conviction is recorded.
(2) The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 15 years, commencing 11 November 2019 and expiring 10 November 2034, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months, expiring 10 February 2031.
(3) Pursuant to s 105C of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the offender is warned that an application may be made for a continuing detention order requiring him to be detained after the completion of the sentence.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – terrorism offence – directing a terrorist organisation – serious terrorism targets contemplated – sentence imposed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 7A, 16A, 19AB,19AG
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 102.2, 105C
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165

Cases Cited:
Benbrika v R (2010) 204 A Crim R 457; [2010] VSCA 281
Lodhi v R (2007) 179 A Crim R 470; [2007] NSWCCA 360
R v Uweinat [2021] NSWSC 1256

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Hamdi Alqudsi (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T McDonald SC / N Roucek (Crown)
M Finnane RFD QC / K Stares SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
(Crown)
Pinnacle Legal Group (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/354277

remarks on sentence

HIS HONOUR: The Court is required to impose a sentence upon Hamdi Alqudsi, who, after trial, has been found guilty of a contravention of s 102.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) of directing the activities of a terrorist organisation. The maximum sentence imposed for such an offence by the legislature is imprisonment for 25 years. The offence is said to have occurred between 30 August 2014 and 31 December 2014.
Notwithstanding that the proceedings at trial had a duration of over nine weeks, the facts giving rise to the offence are relatively confined. In the period between the end of August 2014 and the end of December 2014, the offender, Mr Alqudsi, directed the activity of a terrorist organisation, which was referred to as the Shura. It operated in Sydney.
The evidence before the Court was that the Shura was initially established for the purpose of assisting people to travel to Syria to fight against the government of Syria. Law enforcement…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R (Cth) v Alqudsi (No 8) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NSWSC 355
Decision Date: 11 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Alqudsi, the dispute centred around the imposition of a sentence for a terrorism-related offence. The respondent, Alqudsi, was convicted of directing a terrorist organisation, with the prosecution alleging that he had facilitated and supported terrorist activities targeting significant Australian interests. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to review the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of directing a terrorist organisation and whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the gravity and potential impact of the respondent's actions. The court considered the principles of sentencing in terrorism cases, including the need for deterrence, denunciation, and the protection of the community. It also examined the particular circumstances of the case, such as the serious nature of the terrorism targets contemplated by the respondent.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the lower courts was appropriate and reflected the severity of the offence. The High Court found that the sentence adequately balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principles of proportionality and individual justice. The court noted that the respondent's actions had the potential to cause significant harm and that the sentence served to both punish the offender and protect the community from future acts of terrorism. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence, affirming the decision of the lower courts.

No additional orders were made by the court. The High Court's decision confirmed the sentence imposed on Alqudsi for directing a terrorist organisation, emphasising the importance of robust sentencing in terrorism cases to reflect the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community.

Orders