MOHAMED ALI ELOMAR, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 28 years commencing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 7 November 2033. I fix a non-parole period of 21 years in respect of that sentence to commence on 8 Novemner 2005 and to expire on 7 November 2026. The period of 21 years is the minimum period the offender must serve in custody. KHALED CHEIKHO, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 27 years commencing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 7 November 2032. I fix a non-parole period of 20 years and three months in respect of that sentence. The non-parole period is to commence on 8 November 2005 and is to expire on 7 February 2026. The period of 20 years and three months is the minimum period the offender must serve in custody. ABDUL RAKIB HASAN, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 26 years commencing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 7 November 2031. I fix a non-parole period of 19 years and six months in respect to that sentence. The non-parole is to commence on 8 November 2005 and to expire on 7 May 2025. The period of 19 years and six months is the minimum period the offender must serve in custody. MOUSTAFA CHEIKHO, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 26 years commencing on 21 December 2005 and expiring on 20 December 2031. I fix a non-parole period of 19 years and six months in respect of that sentence. The non-parole period is to commence on 8 November 2005 and is to expire on 7 May 2025. The period of 19 years and six months is the minimum period the pffender must serve in custody. MOHAMMED OMAR JAMAL, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 23 years commencing on 21 December 2005 and expiring on 20 December 2028. I fix a non-parole period of 17 years and three months. The non-parole period is to commence on 21 December 2005 and is to expire on 20 March 2023. The non-parole period of 17 years and three months is the minimum period the offender must serve in custody.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence after trial - conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act - Commonwealth offence - Terrorism offence - Principles applicable to sentencing - Application of parity principles by analogy - Objectively grave offence - not far short of most serious case - Absence of remorse and contrition - Absence of withdrawal from extremist convictions.
[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 Elomar
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Elomar [2010] NSWSC 10
Case
[2010] NSWSC 10
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Elomar, the respondent was found guilty of conspiring to commit acts in preparation for a terrorist act, a Commonwealth offence. The case was heard in a court of criminal appeal. The appeal was brought by the respondent against his conviction and sentence, which was a term of imprisonment. The appeal hinged on the principles applicable to sentencing in terrorism-related offences, particularly the application of parity principles by analogy.
The legal issues before the court included the application of parity principles in the context of terrorism offences and the determination of an appropriate sentence for an offence that, while not the most severe, was nonetheless objectively grave. The court was required to consider the absence of remorse and contrition by the respondent, as well as his continued adherence to extremist beliefs. The court also needed to weigh these factors against the gravity of the offence, which was not far short of the most serious case.
The court held that the principles of parity, while not strictly applicable, provided a useful analogy in determining an appropriate sentence for terrorism offences. Given the objectively grave nature of the offence, the absence of remorse and contrition, and the respondent's continued espousal of extremist beliefs, the court found that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.