R (Cth) v Dakkak

Case [2022] NSWDC 181


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Dakkak [2022] NSWDC 181
Hearing dates: 8 April 2022, 11 April 2022
Date of orders: 11 April 2022
Decision date: 11 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

Radwan Dakkak you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and eight months commencing on 16 January 2021 and concluding on 15 September 2022. I set a non-parole period of one year and three months expiring on 15 April 2022.

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – INTERIM CONTROL ORDER – Accused pleaded guilty to breach of Interim Control Order - Terrorism offence.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

R v Alo-Bridget Namoa (Parramatta District Court, 29 November 2021)

Naizmand v R [2018] NSWCCA 25

R v MO (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 144

Regina (Cth) v Ahmad Saiyer Naizmand [2017] NSWDC 4

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina – Crown (Cth)
Defence – Radwan Dakkak
Representation: Crown
Rodger, R instructed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Defence
Quilter, T. instructed by LegalAid
File Number(s): 2021/00013405
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

Background

  1. HIS HONOUR: Radwan Dakkak stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that between 2 January 2021 and 12 January 2021 at Sydney in this State and elsewhere, he did contravene a control order by accessing electronic media. That is an offence contrary to s 104.27 of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for that offence is five years imprisonment.

  2. To understand the nature of the charge it is necessary to go back in time. This is the second occasion on which the offender has stood for sentence in the courts of this State. On 18 December 2020 the offender was convicted and sentenced on two counts of associating with a terrorist organisation contrary to s 109.8(1) of the Criminal CodeAct 1995 (Cth).

  3. The charges were firstly that on two or more occasions, between 1 January 2019 and 2 July 2019, he did intentionally associate with another person, namely Isaac El Matari, knowing that he was a member of, and a person who promoted and/or directed the activities of, an organisation, namely Islamic State, and knowing that organisation was a terrorist organisation, in circumstances where the association provided support to the organisation and intending that the support assist the organisation to expand or continue to exist.

  4. The second offence to which the offender pleaded guilty was that on two or more occasions between 26 July 2017 and 2 July 2019 he did intentionally associate with another person, namely Sheikh Hassan Hussein and a person or persons Ahlut-Tawhid Publications, knowing that they were members of, and were persons who promoted and/or directed the activities of, an organisation, namely Islamic State, and knowing that organisation is a terrorist organisation, in circumstances where the association provided support to the organisation and intending that the support assist the organisation to expand or continue to exist.

  5. For…

Continue reading R (Cth) v Dakkak

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R (Cth) v Dakkak [2022] NSWDC 181
Case
[2022] NSWDC 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth brought a case against Radwan Dakkak, who pleaded guilty to a breach of an Interim Control Order. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with sentencing Dakkak for his terrorism-related offence. The Commonwealth argued that the breach of the Interim Control Order warranted a significant custodial sentence, while Dakkak's legal representatives sought a more lenient penalty. The court was required to balance the need to punish Dakkak's actions with the principles of proportionality and justice.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the impact of the breach on the community. It also examined Dakkak's personal circumstances, including his guilty plea and cooperation with authorities. In delivering the sentence, the court held that the breach of the Interim Control Order was a serious offence that warranted a substantial custodial term. The court determined that a sentence of one year and eight months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of one year and three months.

In summary, the Federal Court of Australia convicted Radwan Dakkak for breaching an Interim Control Order in relation to a terrorism offence. The court sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and eight months, with a non-parole period of one year and three months. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing the seriousness of the offence with the principles of justice and proportionality.

Orders

Orders of the court

Radwan Dakkak you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment for one year and eight months commencing on 16 January 2021 and concluding on 15 September 2022. I set a non-parole period of one year and three months expiring on 15 April 2022.

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.