R v Abbas, Chaarani & Mohamed

In the case of R v Abbas, Chaarani & Mohamed, the defendants were convicted by a jury of conspiring to carry out acts in preparation for or planning a terrorist act. The conspiracy involved the support of the Islamic State and the planning of a terrorist act that was intended to involve the mass slaughter of innocent civilians in the Melbourne CBD around Christmas Day 2016. The planned attack included the use of improvised explosive devices, bladed weapons, and firearms. The offenders had already taken significant steps towards their goal, including the purchase of ingredients and components for explosive devices, the manufacture and testing of improvised explosive devices, the acquisition of firearms, the purchase of bladed weapons, and reconnaissance of potential targets in and around Federation Square. The attack was imminent when the offenders were arrested.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offenders, taking into account the principles of parity, totality, and the avoidance of crushing sentences. The offenders had all pleaded guilty at various stages of the proceedings, and two of the offenders had demonstrated remorse by renouncing their support for the Islamic State and violent jihad at their plea hearings. The court also had to consider the sentence previously imposed on a co-offender, as well as the sentences already being served by two of the offenders for other terrorism-related offences.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in terrorism cases, as well as the specific circumstances of the offenders and the nature of the crime. It was held that the crime was at the upper end of the range of seriousness and that the offenders' preparatory acts had brought the attack close to fruition. However, the court also took into account the admissions of guilt, renunciation of violent ideology, and evidence of remorse by two of the offenders. The court ultimately determined that the sentences should reflect the seriousness of the crime, while also avoiding crushing sentences and taking into account the principles of parity and totality. The offenders were each sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment, with non-parole periods that reflected the considerations outlined above.