Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Decision restricted [2018] NSWSC 221 Decision date: 01 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Johnson J Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - guilty plea - aiding and abetting commission of terrorist act - fatal shooting of Curtis Cheng outside New South Wales Police Headquarters - 18-year old Offender supplied firearm to 15-year old killer - other acts of assistance by Offender - Offender a supporter of Islamic State - Offender deeply radicalised at time of offence - Offender remains radicalised - very high objective gravity of offence - absence of contrition and remorse - grim prospects of rehabilitation - factors relevant to sentence - importance of denunciation, general deterrence and specific deterrence - relevance of youth - very substantial determinate sentence imposed
The text of this decision has been restricted
Details
- AGLC
- R v Alou (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 221
- Case
- [2018] NSWSC 221
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved a defendant, referred to as Alou, who had supplied a firearm to a 15-year-old who subsequently shot and killed a man outside the New South Wales Police Headquarters. Alou, an 18-year-old at the time of the offence, had provided the firearm and other assistance in the commission of the act, which was considered a terrorist act. Alou was a supporter of the Islamic State and deeply radicalised, both at the time of the offence and at the time of sentencing. The defendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the commission of a terrorist act. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Alou, considering several factors, including the high objective gravity of the offence, the absence of contrition and remorse, the prospects of rehabilitation, and the relevance of the defendant's youth.
The legal issues before the court involved the sentencing of a young person who had aided in the commission of a very serious terrorist act. The court had to balance the objective gravity of the offence, the lack of remorse shown by the offender, and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the importance of denunciation and general deterrence, as well as specific deterrence, in imposing a sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance of the offender's youth in determining the appropriate sentence.
The court determined that despite Alou's youth, the high objective gravity of the offence, the absence of contrition and remorse, and the grim prospects for rehabilitation, outweighed any mitigating factors. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in cases involving the commission of terrorist acts. The court also considered specific deterrence, noting that Alou remained radicalised and posed a potential risk to the community if not adequately detained. The court imposed a very substantial determinate sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.
The final orders of the court were that Alou be sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the offence and the need to achieve the objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence. The court did not impose a minimum term, as it considered the determinate term sufficient to address these objectives. The court also noted that Alou's youth and potential for rehabilitation were relevant factors but did not outweigh the other considerations in this case.
The legal issues before the court involved the sentencing of a young person who had aided in the commission of a very serious terrorist act. The court had to balance the objective gravity of the offence, the lack of remorse shown by the offender, and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the importance of denunciation and general deterrence, as well as specific deterrence, in imposing a sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance of the offender's youth in determining the appropriate sentence.
The court determined that despite Alou's youth, the high objective gravity of the offence, the absence of contrition and remorse, and the grim prospects for rehabilitation, outweighed any mitigating factors. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation and general deterrence in cases involving the commission of terrorist acts. The court also considered specific deterrence, noting that Alou remained radicalised and posed a potential risk to the community if not adequately detained. The court imposed a very substantial determinate sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community.
The final orders of the court were that Alou be sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the offence and the need to achieve the objectives of denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence. The court did not impose a minimum term, as it considered the determinate term sufficient to address these objectives. The court also noted that Alou's youth and potential for rehabilitation were relevant factors but did not outweigh the other considerations in this case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.