19 September 2018, 20 September 2018, 21 September 2018, 15 November 2018
Date of orders:
23 November 2018
Decision date:
23 November 2018
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Before:
Johnson J
Decision:
The Offender, Milad Atai, is sentenced as follows:
1. For the offence under s.102.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth) in Count 3, sentenced to imprisonment for nine years commencing on 22 March 2016.
2. For the offence under s.102.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth) in Count 2, sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and six months commencing on 22 March 2019.
3. For the offence under ss.11.2(1) and 101.1(1) Criminal Code (Cth), and taking into account the offence under s.102.3(1) Criminal Code (Cth) for the purpose of s.16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), sentenced to imprisonment for 30 years commencing on 22 March 2024 and expiring on 21 March 2054.
4. In accordance with s.19AG Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a single non-parole period is fixed of 28 years and six months commencing on 22 March 2016 and expiring on 21 September 2044.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - guilty pleas to three offences - aiding and abetting commission of terrorist act - fatal shooting of Curtis Cheng outside New South Wales Police Headquarters - two offences of intentionally collecting funds for Islamic State knowing it to be a terrorist organisation - further offence of being a member of a terrorist organisation (Islamic State) taken into account on sentence - Offender radicalised supporter of violent jihad - objective gravity of offences - tentative expression of remorse at sentencing hearing later withdrawn by Offender - assessment of prospects of rehabilitation and risk of reoffending - factors relevant to sentence - importance of denunciation, specific and general deterrence - substantial determinate sentences imposed
[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 Atai (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Atai (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1797
Case
[2018] NSWSC 1797
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant in this case, Atai, pleaded guilty to three separate charges in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. These charges included aiding and abetting the fatal shooting of Curtis Cheng outside the New South Wales Police Headquarters, and two counts of intentionally collecting funds for the Islamic State, knowing it to be a terrorist organisation. Atai was also found to be a member of the Islamic State, which was taken into account during sentencing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these serious criminal offences.
The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of the objective gravity of the offences, the factors relevant to sentencing, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court had to consider the severity and impact of the crimes, the offender's prospects for rehabilitation, and the risk of reoffending. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the importance of denunciation, specific deterrence, and general deterrence in determining the sentence.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the offences were of significant gravity due to their violent nature and the potential for causing harm to the community. The court also considered Atai's radicalisation and his role as a supporter of violent jihad. Although Atai expressed some remorse at the sentencing hearing, this was later withdrawn. The court assessed the risk of reoffending as high, given the offender's continued support for violent extremist ideology. After considering all relevant factors, the court imposed substantial determinate sentences on each of the charges, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence.
The court ordered that Atai be sentenced to a total of 32 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 24 years, to be served concurrently for the three offences. This sentence was designed to adequately reflect the severity of the crimes, while also considering the offender's prospects for rehabilitation and the need for specific and general deterrence.