JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	1-3 August 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 September 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Besim
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 537

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act – Accused, aged 18, planned to drive car into and kill, then behead, a law enforcement officer on ANZAC Day – Accused communicated with another in the United Kingdom via telegram messaging and conducted internet searches for this purpose – Plot foiled by police a week before ANZAC Day – Whether accused renounced belief in violent jihad – Youth – Previous good character – Plea of guilty – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Relevance of general deterrence, specific deterrence, curial denunciation, protection of the community and rehabilitation – Sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 11 years and three months – Criminal Code (Cth), s 101.6(1) – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 4, 59, 60 & 66A – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16E, 16F, 17A, 19AB & 19AG – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 6AAA & 18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Rapke QC with Mr P Doyle	Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Georgiou QC with Ms F Todd	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

To the vast majority of the community, it is unfathomable that an 18-year-old boy would plan to kill a law enforcement officer, by deliberately crashing into him with a car, and then behead him with a knife. And this was to be done in the name of violent jihad in Melbourne on ANZAC Day in 2015. Why a police officer? Why this particular day? Well, to “make sure the dogs” – that is, those in authority – “remember this as well as [their] fallen heroes”.

So said Sevdet Besim, from his bedroom in his parents’ home in Hallam, on what he thought was a secure telegram messaging device, to another terrorist, “S”, in the United Kingdom. Chillingly, they spoke of the different ways in which this unthinkable crime might be committed, as if talking about something as ordinary as football tactics. You can almost hear Mr Besim considering the words of S as he explained the difficulty of beheading a person with a knife in public. Mr Besim thought S was a married man with children. It turns out he was only 14.[1]
[1]There are reporting restrictions in the United Kingdom on the identification S. See R v S (sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Saunders, Crown Court, Manchester, 2 October 2015). Whether or not those restrictions formally extend to this side of the world, they should continue in spirit,…

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 Besim

Details

AGLC: R v Besim [2016] VSC 537
Case: [2016] VSC 537
Decision Date: 5 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Besim, the defendant, an 18-year-old, faced sentencing after pleading guilty to planning a terrorist act. The incident involved the defendant's intention to drive a car into a law enforcement officer on ANZAC Day, kill the officer, and then behead them. The plot was uncovered by police a week before ANZAC Day. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant's actions were examined in light of his communications with individuals in the United Kingdom and his internet searches related to violent jihad.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's planned terrorist act. Key legal issues included the relevance of the defendant's renunciation of violent jihad, his youth, previous good character, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, curial denunciation, protection of the community, and rehabilitation. The defendant's plea of guilty was recognised as a mitigating factor, but the gravity of the planned act necessitated a robust sentence.

The court found the defendant's actions to be extremely concerning, particularly given the potential for significant harm to the community and the law enforcement officer. However, the defendant's renunciation of violent jihad, his youth, and good character were considered mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence of ten years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years. This sentence reflected the plea of guilty, but the court made it clear that without the plea, the sentence would have been fifteen years with a non-parole period of eleven years and three months. The court balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the potential for rehabilitation, ultimately deciding on a sentence that aimed to protect the community while offering the defendant a chance for reform.

The final orders of the court included the defendant's imprisonment for ten years with a non-parole period of seven-and-a-half years. The court's decision emphasised the seriousness of the planned terrorist act, the mitigating factors of the defendant's age and renunciation of violent jihad, and the importance of rehabilitation.

Orders