R v Dirani (Sentence) - [2023] NSWSC 1664

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dirani (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 1664
Hearing dates: 13 December 2023
Date of orders: 15 December 2023
Decision date: 15 December 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sweeney J
Decision:
1. The offender is sentenced to 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years, 6 months imprisonment to date from 13 November 2015.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Terrorism offences — After trial

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1914 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276
Hatahet v R [2023] NSWCCA 305
Lodhi v The Queen (2007) 179 A Crim R 470
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Khaled [2020] NSWCCA
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mustafa Dirani (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Staehli SC with B Anniwell (Crown)
N Steel with D Pace (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Fourtree Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/335067
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 31 March 2023, after a trial by jury, Mustafa Dirani was found guilty of one offence of conspiring with Raban Alou and others to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts between about 6 August 2015 and 2 October 2015. The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment. Section 16A of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth) requires the court to impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence.
For the purpose of sentencing Mr Dirani, I make the following findings of fact, based on the evidence in the trial which the jury must have accepted to return its guilty verdict and consistent with the jury's verdict. There was a dispute between the Crown and Mr Dirani about the extent of his participation in the conspiracy, based on what Senior Counsel for the Crown described as “the relative sparseness of the evidence of his involvement.” Findings of fact adverse to Mr Dirani must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
By way of background of Mr Dirani's offence, I note the following facts. On the afternoon of 2 October 2015, a teenage boy named Farhad Mohammad walked to the outside of the Police Centre in Parramatta and paced up and down. When Mr Curtis Cheng, an employee of the police came out of the building, Farhad Mohammad shot and killed him.
Farhad Mohammad was then shot and killed by Police Special Constables. On his body was found a note which indicated that the shooting of Mr Cheng was a terrorist act, intended to indicate support for Islamic State. Mr Cheng was not known to Farhad Mohammad.
The gun used by Farhad Mohammad had been provided to him by Raban Alou at the Parramatta Mosque, immediately before Farhad Mohammad walked from the mosque to the Police Centre to commit his crime.
The offence alleged by the Crown against Mr Dirani which the jury found proved was that on 2 October he assisted Raban Alou…

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 Dirani (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Dirani (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 1664
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1664
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Dirani, who was found guilty of terrorism offences. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which reviewed the severity and appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the lower court. The primary issue before the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, given the gravity of the crimes committed by Dirani. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and whether it adequately reflected the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The High Court considered the severity of Dirani's crimes, which involved planning and facilitating terrorist activities that posed a significant risk to public safety. The court examined the principles of sentencing for terrorism offences and the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of such crimes. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately account for the seriousness of the offences, the risk posed to the community, and the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing.

In light of the findings, the High Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for terrorism offences are commensurate with the gravity of the crimes and the risks they pose to public safety. The court highlighted the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to adequately deter others from engaging in similar activities. The court did not provide specific details on the appropriate sentence but stressed that the re-sentencing must appropriately reflect the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Orders