R (Cth) v Jakovac

Case [2022] NSWDC 579


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R (Cth) v Jakovac [2022] NSWDC 579
Hearing dates: 4 & 5 July 2022
Date of orders: 25 July 2022
Decision date: 25 July 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Buscombe DCJ
Decision:

Convicted of the offence of advocating the doing of a terrorist act or commission of a terrorism offence.

Impose a sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months. The sentence commenced on 9 December 2020 and expired on 8 June 2022. The non-parole period expired on 8 February 2022.

Catchwords:

CRIME – Terrorism offences – Intentionally advocate the doing of a terrorist act

SENTENCING – Relevant factors on sentence – Moral culpability

SENTENCING – Subjective considerations on sentence – Age of offender

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 80.2C(1), s 80.2C(2)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s16A(2)(m), s 17A

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 249 CLR 571

Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131

BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159

DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194

Kaurasi v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 253

R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2

The Queen v Dakkak [2020] NSWSC 1806

The Queen v Taleb (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 720

The Queen v Uweinat [2021] NSWSC 1256

Category:Sentence
Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Tyler Jakovac (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:

Mr R Ranken (Crown)

Mr T Quilter (Offender)
File Number(s): 2020/00349632

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. The offender Tyler Jakovac is to be sentenced having pleaded guilty to an offence that between 16 January 2020 and 8 December 2020 he did intentionally advocate the doing of a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence referred to in s 80.2C(2) of the Commonwealth’s Criminal Code being reckless as to whether another person would engage in a terrorist act or commit a terrorism offence referred to in that provision of the Criminal Code. That is an offence under s 80.2C(1) of the Criminal Code and has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and/or a fine equivalent to 300 penalty units. The offender is to be sentenced pursuant to Pt 1B of the Commonwealth Crime Act and in particular s 16A. Section 16A sets out a number of matters which the Court must take into account when imposing sentence insofar as they are relevant and known to the Court.

Nature and circumstances of the offence

  1. One matter to be taken into account is the nature and circumstances of the offence which are essentially contained within a very lengthy statement of agreed facts. The following is taken from the agreed facts which run to some 99 paragraphs. There was also tendered by the Crown extracts from the transcript of the interview conducted with the offender on 9 December 2020. The offender’s counsel also tendered before me extracts from the actual recording of that record of interview and I will say something about those extracts later in these remarks.

  2. The…

Continue reading R (Cth) v Jakovac

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R (Cth) v Jakovac [2022] NSWDC 579
Case
[2022] NSWDC 579
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Commonwealth brought a case against Jakovac, involving allegations of advocating the commission of a terrorist act. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Jakovac, who had been convicted of this serious offence. The Commonwealth argued for a sentence that adequately reflected the gravity of the offence, while Jakovac's legal representatives advocated for a more lenient sentence, citing factors such as his age and moral culpability.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the appropriate sentence for an offence that carried significant moral blame and understanding the extent to which subjective factors, including the offender's age and moral culpability, could mitigate the sentence. The court was required to balance the need for punishment with considerations of rehabilitation and deterrence. Additionally, the court had to determine the non-parole period, ensuring it was just and proportionate to the offence.

The court considered the severity of the offence, the moral blameworthiness of the act, and the offender's personal circumstances. In its reasoning, the court emphasised the seriousness of advocating terrorist acts, which posed a significant threat to public safety. However, it also took into account Jakovac's age and his potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court found that a sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the need for punishment while also considering the offender's capacity for rehabilitation and the need to deter similar offences in the future.

The court ordered that Jakovac's sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months, commence on 9 December 2020 and expire on 8 June 2022. The non-parole period was set to expire on 8 February 2022, providing an opportunity for review and potential early release if Jakovac demonstrated satisfactory rehabilitation and rehabilitation efforts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted of the offence of advocating the doing of a terrorist act or commission of a terrorism offence.

Impose a sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months. The sentence commenced on 9 December 2020 and expired on 8 June 2022. The non-parole period expired on 8 February 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.