The offender, Omarjan Azari, is convicted and sentenced as follows:
(1) Convicted of offences under ss 11.1(1)/101.6(1) and 102.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
(2) For the offence under s 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years commencing on 18 September 2014.
(3) For the offence under ss 11.1(1) and 102.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), and taking into account two further offences under s 102.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) for the purpose of s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years commencing on 18 September 2024.
(4) In accordance with s 19AG of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a single non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months fixed commencing on 18 September 2014 and expiring on 17 March 2028. The head sentence of 18 years imprisonment will expire on 17 September 2032.
(5) Pursuant to s 105A.23 of the Criminal Code (Cth), the offender warned that an application may be made under Division 105A of that Code for a continuing detention order requiring the offender to be detained in a prison after the end of his sentence for the offence under s 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth).
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence after trial – terrorism offences – conviction for doing an act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act or acts – Criminal Code (Cth), s 101.6(1) – guilty plea to attempting to make funds available to terrorist organisation – Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.1(1) and 102.6(1) – where offender was pursuing the agenda of Islamic State – where offender made funds available to Islamic State to fund foreign fighters – where offender participated in intercepted telephone conversation with senior Islamic State member discussing plan for domestic terrorist attacks
[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 Azari (No 12)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Azari (No 12) [2019] NSWSC 314
Case
[2019] NSWSC 314
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the respondent, Azari, faced criminal charges following a conviction for engaging in activities preparatory to, or in planning for, a terrorist act. The prosecution brought the matter before the court under sections 101.6(1) and 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code, concerning the provision of funds to a terrorist organisation. Azari had pleaded guilty to attempting to make funds available to the Islamic State, with the intent to support foreign fighters and to fund potential domestic terrorist attacks. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence to be imposed following the respondent's guilty plea.
The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in light of the respondent's substantial criminal conduct and the significant risk he posed to the community. It was necessary to balance the culpability of the offence against the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also needed to consider the precedents set in previous cases involving terrorism offences, and how these applied to the unique circumstances of this case. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of the offender's involvement in planning domestic terrorist attacks, which added a layer of severity to the sentencing process.
In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the principles of individual culpability, deterrence, and denunciation, as well as the specific facts of the case. The court concluded that the respondent's actions demonstrated a high degree of culpability, given his dedication to the agenda of the Islamic State and his active participation in planning terrorist activities. The court also highlighted the significant risk posed by the respondent to the community, both domestically and internationally. Ultimately, the court found that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the public from further harm. The High Court determined that the sentence should be commensurate with the gravity of the respondent's criminal conduct and the risk he posed to the community.