R v Ali - [2020] VSC 316

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0169

THE QUEEN

ALI KHALIF SHIRE ALI

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8-18 April 2019, 30 April, 1, 6, 7, 9, 10-15 May 2019 and 28 & 29 November 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ali
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 316

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Single charge to do an act in preparation for, or planning a terrorist act contrary to s 101.6 of Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – Supported Islamic State – Preparation of a terrorist act involving the shooting of innocent civilians in Melbourne CBD on New Year’s Eve 2017 enjoying celebrations – Steps taken to acquire a firearm – Admissions of guilt – Renunciation of Islamic State – Evidence of remorse – Sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months – Criminal Code (Cth) ss 101.6(1), 105A.23 DPP (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 – DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Doyle with Ms R. Avis	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Williams with Ms G. Morgan	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR

Introduction

Ali Khalif Shire Ali, on 15 May 2019 you were arraigned and pleaded guilty to a single charge of intentionally doing an act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act contrary to sub-s 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (‘the Code’).

The maximum penalty for the offence under s 101.6 of the Code is life imprisonment. This reflects the seriousness Parliament views the offence for which you will be sentenced.[1]
[1]Lodhi v The Queen (2007) 179 A Crim R 470 at [79]; R v Khaja (No 5) [2018] NSWCA 238 at [43].

Circumstances of the offending

You planned to carry out a terrorist attack in the city of Melbourne at the end of 2017. The core features of the attack you contemplated were the killing of civilians; targeting a crowd of people to maximise casualties; and your eventual death, to achieve martyrdom. While planning the attack, you considered various methods of carrying it out, including the use of a vehicle, a firearm, bladed weapons, and a bomb.

The prosecution case is that in the course of your planning and preparation you made enquiries about obtaining a firearm and ammunition. You made these enquiries on 31 March and 6 April 2017 of people you believed might have been able to supply the weaponry you sought. However, you were unaware that the people you were speaking with were undercover police officers, and that your conversations with them were being covertly recorded.

During the time you engaged with the undercover police officers, you were contemplating an attack on a crowd of people, using a rapid fire assault rifle, and repeatedly shooting into the crowd at Federation Square moments before…

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.

Continue reading R v Ali

Details

AGLC: R v Ali [2020] VSC 316
Case: [2020] VSC 316
Decision Date: 21 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ali involved an individual who pleaded guilty to a single charge of engaging in activities in preparation for, or planning a terrorist act. The charge was brought under section 101.6 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), which pertains to acts of terrorism. The accused had taken steps to acquire a firearm with the intent to shoot innocent civilians during New Year’s Eve celebrations in Melbourne CBD in 2017. The accused had supported the Islamic State, but subsequently renounced the group and expressed remorse. The court was required to consider various factors including the severity of the planned act, the accused's admissions of guilt, and the level of remorse demonstrated.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of planning a terrorist act, considering the mitigating factors presented by the accused. The court needed to balance the gravity of the offence with the mitigating circumstances, such as the renunciation of the Islamic State and the accused's remorse. The court also had to determine a suitable non-parole period in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code and relevant case law, such as DPP (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 and DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157.

The court found that while the offence was severe, the accused’s renunciation of the Islamic State and expression of remorse were significant mitigating factors. The court considered these factors alongside the need for deterrence and denunciation of such activities. After weighing all these considerations, the court sentenced the accused to 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months. The court concluded that this sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors presented.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the sentence. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of the severity of the offence, the mitigating factors, and the need for both punishment and deterrence.

Orders