R v Hraichie (No 3)

[2019] NSWSC 973

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available
• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Hraichie (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 973

Hearing dates:

25 March 2019, 26 March 2019, 21 June 2019

Date of orders:

02 August 2019

Decision date:

02 August 2019

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Johnson J

Decision:

The Offender is sentenced for the offence under s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), to imprisonment for a term of six years and three months comprising a non-parole period of four years and seven months commencing on 19 August 2018 and expiring on 18 March 2023 with a balance of term of one year and eight months commencing on 19 March 2023 and expiring on 18 November 2024.

 

The Offender is sentenced for the offences under ss.27 and 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), to imprisonment by way of an aggregate term of imprisonment for a period of 20 years comprising a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 19 August 2022 and expiring on 18 August 2037 with a balance of term of five years commencing on 19 August 2037 and expiring 18 August 2042.

 

The Offender is sentenced for the offence under s.101.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth), to imprisonment for a term of 20 years comprising a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 19 August 2032 and expiring on 18 August 2047 with a balance of term of five years commencing on 19 August 2047 and expiring on 18 August 2052.

 The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for consideration for release on parole is 19 August 2047.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - Offender pleaded guilty to four offences committed in 2015 and 2016 - committing acts in preparation for or planning terrorist acts being attacks on Australian law enforcement officers in support of Islamic State (s.101.6(1)) Criminal Code (Cth)) - intentionally delivering letter threatening to kill Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW (s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) - wounding a fellow inmate with intent to murder (s.27 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) - causing grievous bodily harm to the same inmate with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s.33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900(NSW)) - assessment of objective seriousness of offences - Offender 19 years old at time of offences - entrenched views in support of violent jihad - views repeated in letter to Court in April 2019 - absence of contrition - importance of denunciation, protection of community and specific and general deterrence - sentencing for offences committed in correctional centre - issues of accumulation and totality - total effective sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 29 years

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:

AM v R (2012) 225 A Crim R 481; [2012] NSWCCA 203
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
CMB v Attorney General for the State of NSW (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 at 605; [2011] HCA 21
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Besim (No. 3) (2017) 52 VR 303; [2017] VSCA 180
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Douar v R (2005) 159 A Crim R 154; [2005] NSWCCA 455
DPP (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276
DPP (Cth) v MHK (a pseudonym) (No 1) (2017) 52 VR 272; [2017] VSCA 157
Hitchcock v R [2016] NSWCCA 226
Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53
R v Abbas [2018] VSC 553
R v Al-Kutobi and Kiad [2016] NSWSC 1760
R v Alou (No. 4) (2018) 330 FLR 402; [2018] NSWSC 221
R v Atai (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1797
R v Bell [2005] NSWCCA 81
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Hraichie (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 765
R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241
R v Khaja (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 238
R v Khalid [2017] NSWSC 1365
R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v Mohamed and Others [2019] VSC 498
R v Shoma [2019] VSC 367
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 at 718; [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
Shine v R (2016) 260 A Crim R 534; [2016] NSWCCA 149
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307 at 338; [2007] HCA 33
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim 105; [2017] NSWCCA 132

Texts Cited:

---

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Bourhan Hraichie (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
Ms S Callan; Ms D New (Commonwealth Crown)
Mr LJ Carr SC (State Crown)
Ms GA Bashir SC; Ms G Huxley (Offender) (25 March 2019 and 26 March 2019)
Mr B Hraichie (in person - 21 June 2019)

  Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth Crown)
NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (State Crown)
Lawyers Corp Pty Limited (Offender) (25 March 2019 and 26 March 2019)

File Number(s):

2016/277456 (Commonwealth); 2016/108074 (State)

Publication restriction:

---

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1. JOHNSON J: The Offender, Bourhan Hraichie, appears for sentence with respect to a number of serious offences of violence and threatened violence committed both inside and outside New South Wales correctional centres in 2015 and 2016.

2. Unusually, both the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (“CDPP”) and the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (“NSWDPP”) appeared to prosecute offences which involve crimes under Commonwealth and State criminal law. As will be seen, the Offender has committed a disturbing and unusual mix of serious crimes.

The Offences

3. On 4 May 2018, the Offender pleaded guilty in the Parramatta Local Court to the following offences prosecuted by the CDPP for which he was committed for sentence to this Court:

1. between about 1 November 2015 and 19 May 2016, committing acts in preparation for or planning terrorist acts, namely attacks on Australian law enforcement officers in support of Islamic State contrary to s.101.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth), an offence punishable by imprisonment for life (“the Acts in Preparation Offence”);

2. between about 1 April 2016 and 20 May 2016, intentionally delivering to an officer of Corrective Services NSW a letter threatening to kill the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW, knowing the contents of that document, contrary to s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an offence punishable by imprisonment for 10 years (“the Threat to Kill Offence”).

4. On 5 October 2018, the Offender pleaded guilty before Fullerton J to the following offences, which were prosecuted by the NSWDPP:

1. on 7 April 2016, at Aldavilla in the State of New South Wales, wounding Michael O’Keefe with intent to murder contrary to s.27 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an offence punishable by imprisonment for 25 years with a standard non-parole period of 10 years;

2. on 7 April 2016, at Aldavilla in the State of New South Wales, causing grievous bodily harm to Michael O’Keefe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s.33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an offence punishable by imprisonment for 25 years with a standard non-parole period of seven years.

The Sentencing Hearing

5. The sentencing hearing proceeded before me on 25 and 26 March 2019 at the conclusion of which the Offender was remanded for sentence on 26 April 2019. The Court had received helpful and detailed written submissions on sentence filed on behalf of the CDPP, the NSWDPP and the Offender in advance of the hearing. In addition, helpful oral submissions were made at the sentencing hearing by counsel for the CDPP, the NSWDPP and the Offender.

6. A separate Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered in each of the CDPP and the NSWDPP matters. There were limited areas where there was a dispute as to relevance concerning certain facts on sentence, an issue to which I will return later in this judgment.

7. A number of documents were tendered without objection at the sentencing hearing on behalf of the CDPP, the NSWDPP and the Offender. A report of Mr Stephen Woods, psychologist, dated 15 November 2017 was tendered in the Offender’s case with objection being taken to parts of that report by both the CDPP and the NSWDPP. I will refer to that report, and make necessary findings with respect to it, later in this judgment.

8. No witness was called to give oral evidence at the sentencing hearing. The Offender did not give evidence on sentence.

The Offender Writes a Letter to the Court

9. On 18 April 2019, the Court was informed by the CDPP that the Offender had written a letter to the Court. The letter had been made available to senior and junior counsel and the solicitor who had represented the Offender at the sentencing hearing. The Court was informed that the Offender’s legal representatives could no longer represent him given the contents of the letter and had withdrawn from the matter. This was regrettable as the Offender’s legal representatives had assisted the Court and represented the Offender effectively at the sentencing hearing. Their position was understandable however, given the contents of the Offender’s letter.

10. Both the CDPP and the NSWDPP indicated a desire to tender the Offender’s letter at a resumed sentencing hearing. The matter was listed for mention on 26 April 2019 when the Offender appeared by audio-visual link. He told the Court that he did not wish to be legally represented and would appear for himself for the balance of the proceedings. The Court gave directions for the service of further evidence and written submissions.

11. The sentencing hearing resumed on 21 June 2019. In accordance with his wishes, the Offender was unrepresented. Further material, including the Offender’s letter, was tendered by the CDPP and the NSWDPP without objection. Supplementary written submissions had been prepared and served by the CDPP and the NSWDPP touching on issues relating to the Offender’s letter. Short oral submissions were made on behalf of the CDPP and the NSWDPP and the Offender addressed the Court. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Offender was remanded for sentence today.

12. I will return to the Offender’s letter and issues arising from it later in this judgment.

Facts of Offences

13. The following findings of fact are based almost entirely on the Agreed Statements of Facts tendered by the CDPP (Exhibit A, Tab 3) and the NSWDPP (Exhibit B, Tab 2). The factual recital will take a little time given the nature and range of the offences to be considered.

The Acts in Preparation Offence and the Threat to Kill Offence Prosecuted by the CDPP

Introduction and Overview

14. The Offender is an Australian citizen of Sunni Muslim Lebanese background, born in Sydney on 15 April 1997. The Offender travelled to Lebanon in November 2010 at the age of 13 for a period of about six weeks, but has not otherwise been overseas.

15. The Offender first came to the attention of police in February 2010 at the age of 12. Between 2011 and 2015, the Offender served periods in juvenile detention and adult prison (after turning 18) on remand and served sentences for larceny, break and enter, robbery and other offences.

16. On 28 October 2015, the Offender was released on parole, but was arrested on 8 December 2015 for breaching his parole conditions and committing new larceny, break and enter and other offences.

17. On 16 March 2016, after being sentenced for the new offences, the Offender was transferred to the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre ("MNCCC") at Aldavilla near Kempsey.

18. In circumstances to be described later in this judgment, on 7 April 2016, the Offender attacked his cellmate, Michael O'Keefe (the offences prosecuted by the NSWDPP).

19. On 9 April 2016, the Offender was transferred to the High Risk Management Correctional Centre ("HRMCC") at Goulburn.

20. Whilst at the MNCCC and the HRMCC, the Offender was subjected to searches and his mail was examined, leading to police from the Joint Counter Terrorism Taskforce ("JCTT") seizing a number of documents. These included documents entitled “The Book of Jihad" and "Inshallah after First Operation", as well as a letter to "Kayman Masters" which the Offender had placed in a prison post box and a letter to the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW which he had handed to a Corrective Services officer.

21. On 14 September 2016, the Offender was transported to Goulburn Police Station, where he participated in a record of interview under caution with JCTT police, in which he made a number of admissions relating to his conduct and his extremist religious views. The Offender was then charged with the Acts in Preparation Offence and Threat to Kill Offence.

Background to Acts in Preparation Offence - the Offender’s Association with Other Persons in Juvenile Detention

22. The Offender demonstrated an increasing interest in radical Islam whilst detained in juvenile detention.

23. On 30 May 2012, whilst held in the Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre, he wrote the words “Islamic Soldiers” on his bedsheet.

24. In 2013-2014, whilst the Offender was in custody at the Cobham and Baxter Juvenile Justice Centres, he met and began associating with other young offenders including:

1. Raban Alou born 3 August 1997;

2. Khoder Masri (“Masri”) born 2 September 1996; and

3. Imran Baluch (“Baluch”) born 8 March 1996.

25. Each of these young offenders was of Sunni Muslim background.

26. There is no evidence that Masri or Baluch held religious views at that time. The Offender associated periodically with Masri and Baluch in the community on their release from custody.

27. Whilst in juvenile detention, the Offender had (amongst his registered possessions) the Quran, other religious books and a prayer mat in at least June 2013 and requested halal food.

28. On 21 March 2014, whilst playing a supervised game of tennis, the Offender referred to bombs, terrorists and a reward of virgins for martyrdom as part of the scoring of the tennis game.

29. The Offender admitted in his interview with JCTT police on 14 September 2016 that he and Raban Alou prayed together when they were at Cobham Juvenile Justice Centre, although he said that they did not discuss violent jihad at that time.

30. On 13 March 2014, Raban Alou was released on parole.

31. On 20 August 2015, whilst the Offender was in custody at the John Morony Correctional Centre at Windsor, he used a contraband mobile phone to call Raban Alou, during which they discussed their shared extremist religious views and police action against other associates whom they knew had similar views. Raban Alou told the Offender that his passport had been confiscated and that he wanted it back so that he could "go have a holiday one day, go to Hajj".

32. The Offender and Raban Alou ended the call by discussing their dislike for other Muslims at a particular mosque in Western Sydney, who talked about jihad but did not put their words into action. The Offender then referred to the fulfilment of a Hadith (a teaching of the Prophet) that "an army of the black banner will rise and will conquer the world". The Offender said to Alou:

“… one of the signs of judgment day will be, that judgment day is coming, is that the black flags of Islam will be raised.”

33. The Offender concluded by saying:

"And what are we doing? Don't worry Raban. Inshallah ahki [God willing, brother] when I get out of here, me and you are going to have a big talk, because even though you can't go to Malaysia, and you know you can't study Quran and that, there's other options here, you know what I mean?”

34. On 21 August 2015, Raban Alou sent two text messages to the Offender's contraband mobile phone asking for his "MIN" (a prisoner's identification number) so that he could visit the Offender in custody. Later that day, Raban Alou spoke by phone to a mutual associate, during which Alou said he would visit the Offender in custody and was impressed by his religious attitude.

35. From early August 2015, Raban Alou participated in various steps that led to the killing of Curtis Cheng in a terrorist act at Parramatta on 2 October 2015. On 7 October 2015, Raban Alou was arrested and charged for his role in that terrorist offence. Following a plea of guilty, he was sentenced on 1 March 2018: R v Alou (No. 4) (2018) 330 FLR 402; [2018] NSWSC 221.

36. There was no evidence that the Offender was involved in the killing of Curtis Cheng or was aware of it prior to it occurring, but he said in his interview with JCTT police that he had subsequently seen news reports about Raban Alou. As will be seen, the Offender has praised the terrorist killing of Curtis Cheng on a number of occasions, most recently in April 2019.

The Acts in Preparation Offence

37. The Offender committed a number of acts in preparation for, or planning, separate attacks on Australian law enforcement officers in support of Islamic State, contrary to s.101.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth). This conduct, which extended over a six-month period, is gathered in a single rolled-up count under s.101.6(1) for the purpose of sentencing.

The First Phase - The Offender Plans an Attack on Police When in the Community on Parole - 1 November 2015 - 8 December 2015

38. On 28 October 2015, the Offender was released from custody on parole.

39. Between 1 November 2015 and 8 December 2015, the Offender (whilst on parole):

1. spoke with an associate in the community about a plan for an attack on police officers; and

2. spoke with an associate in the community about the location of guns for use in an attack on police officers.

40. In his interview with JCTT police on 14 September 2016, he admitted that whilst he was on parole:

1. he spoke to an associate in the community whom he would not name, (but said he had originally met in Lebanon) about conducting an attack on police officers with two other individuals who were in contact with the associate;

2. he discussed with the associate a plan to have two or three individuals shoot police officers either on the steps of the Bankstown Police Station or after calling police to a false report of a stolen car on Anzac Street near Bankstown;

3. he wanted to attack police in Bankstown because of their perceived role in counter-terrorism investigations in the area;

4. he planned for the attack to take place in April or May 2016, around Anzac Day;

5. he wanted to film the attack with GoPro video recorders;

6. he had previously bought and had access to guns which were hidden in various locations in western Sydney, as well as knives; and

7. he told the associate that the guns for use in the attack were hidden in a park and that the associate should wait for his confirmation.

41. There is no further evidence as to the identity of the Offender's associate or the other individuals whom the Offender asserted were to participate in the attack.

The Second Phase - The Offender Plans an Attack by Others on Police When the Offender was in Custody - 16 March 2016 - 1 April 2016

42. On 8 December 2015, the Offender was re-arrested for breaching his parole conditions and committing new larceny, break and enter and other offences.

43. On 20 January 2016, the Offender was sentenced for the new offences, with his earliest release date fixed for 18 February 2017. On 16 March 2016, he was transferred to the MNCCC at Kempsey.

44. Between 16 March 2016 and 1 April 2016, the Offender:

1. wrote a document in custody, entitled "The Book of Jihad", to provide to an associate in the community to support an attack on police officers; and

2. wrote a further document in custody, entitled "Inshallah after First Operation", to use for the purpose of claiming responsibility for an attack on police officers.

45. On 1 April 2016, Corrective Services officers were conducting a search of the Offender's cell when they located a number of documents belonging to the Offender in a white plastic tub underneath his bed. A Corrective Services officer saw that the first document had the word "Jihad" on it. When the Offender was asked what the document related to, he replied "It's religious stuff”. Corrective Services officers confiscated the documents for further review.

45. On 5 April 2016, the Offender approached a Corrective Services officer within the MNCCC and had a conversation about the documents that had been confiscated, saying words to the following effect:

“Do you know if I'm going to get any more charges for the paperwork and letters which are in there, as there are letters which have things about cutting officers heads off?”.

The Corrective Services officer replied “You are kidding aren't you?” to which the Offender responded “No Chief there is, but it's not about you guys”.

47. The documents confiscated from the Offender included the following:

1. a four-page handwritten document entitled "The Book of Jihad", with a cover page subsequently identified by the Offender entitled "The Flames of War - Rules & Regulations Regarding Jihad in Allah's Way'';

2. a one-page handwritten document entitled “Inshallah after First Operation";

3. a four-page handwritten document entitled "In the Name of God"; and

4. a 65-page typed document entitled "Salvation from Hellfire".

48. The document entitled "The Book of Jihad" sets out extremist religious justifications for becoming a martyr and killing those who do not believe in Islam.

49. The Offender wrote the document to support the attack he had been planning on police officers in the community.

50. In subsequent admissions in his interview with JCTT police, the Offender stated that he had based "The Book of Jihad" upon the lengthy photocopied book "Salvation from Hellfire", which he had obtained from someone in custody and which had also been confiscated from him at the same time.

51. The Offender said he thought the "Salvation from Hellfire" book was important "when you want to learn the rules and regulations when it comes to warfare in Islam". Sections of the book included reasons for, and advice on, seeking martyrdom, killing non-believers and not fearing death.

52. The Offender said he had taken the most important parts of "Salvation from Hellfire" and incorporated them into his handwritten document "The Book of Jihad" for the purpose of sending to his associate in the community to provide inspiration for the attack on police that they had been planning.

53. The Offender explained that, as he would still be in custody leading up to and during the time when the attack was to take place, around Anzac Day 2016, he wanted "The Book of Jihad" to motivate the participants in the community to carry through with the attack, by referring them to religious commands such as the duty to fight, when you can decapitate someone and arguments against reasons that might hold them back such as love of wealth or family.

54. The document entitled "lnshallah after First Operation" confirms that the killing of police officers was to be a terrorist attack in support of the extremist religious beliefs held by the Offender.

55. The Offender wrote the document in preparation for claiming responsibility for the attack he had been planning on police officers in the community.

56. In his interview with JCTT police on 14 September 2016, the Offender stated that:

1. he intended to record himself reading from the document on another contraband phone he had obtained in custody;

2. he planned to disseminate the recording to the public once his associate and the other individuals had conducted the attack on police;

3. the attack was to be in support of Islamic State and in response to his beliefs about Australian soldiers killing people in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan;

4. he then decided to call off the planned attack and spoke to his associate in the community using the contraband phone, during which they discussed that the individuals who were to conduct the attack now wanted to fight in Syria and Iraq instead; and

5. he told his associate where to find the guns he had hidden and to sell them to pay for their travel overseas, which he believed had occurred, and that the knives had also been thrown away.

57. The Offender asserted to JCTT police that the associate, and two other individuals who had been involved in the planned attack, had subsequently travelled overseas and were fighting in Syria and Iraq.

58. The Offender said that if he had been released on 18 February 2017 in accordance with his earliest release date at the time, he had planned to act by himself by getting a truck and driving it through the crowd during the Mardi Gras celebration in Sydney later that month.

59. The document entitled "In the Name of God" contains general religious arguments in favour of Islam and against other religions. The Offender told JCTT police he had received the document from someone else before arriving at the HRMCC and that he had made about 30 handwritten copies of it, to distribute to others in custody as a way of preaching about Islam. The Offender said he had used the document as part of his preaching about Islam to other inmates before he was transferred to the HRMCC.

60. Police fingerprint analysis of the document revealed that, in addition to those of the Offender, the document bore the fingerprints of Mumtaz Quami, a member of the “Brothers for Life” gang sentenced for murder and other offences in 2017, and Ahmad Naizmand, a supporter of Islamic State, sentenced for breaching a counter-terrorism control order in 2017. The Offender subsequently told JCTT police that he had previously associated with “Brothers for Life” members in custody.

The Third Phase - The Offender Plans an Attack on Corrective Services Officers When in Custody, 1 April 2016 - 7 April 2016

61. In about late March 2016, after the plan for others in the community to attack police in Bankstown had been abandoned, the Offender prepared for an attack by himself on Corrective Services officers in custody at the MNCCC, to be conducted around Anzac Day 2016.

62. Between 1 and 7 April 2016, the Offender:

1. obtained a knife in custody to use in an attack on Corrective Services officers; and

2. made ropes in custody to use in an attack on Corrective Services officers.

63. In about early April 2016, the Offender obtained a disposable razor blade which he used to cut up bed sheets to be used as ropes with which he would tie up a Corrective Services officer.

64. On 7 April 2016, Michael O'Keefe was allocated a cell to share with the Offender at the MNCCC. After learning that Mr O'Keefe was a former soldier with the Australian Army, the Offender attacked Mr O'Keefe, including punching him, binding him with the ropes he had made, choking him, trying to stab him with a make­shift prison knife, whipping him on the back with a coaxial cable, carving "E4E" (referring to "an eye for an eye") into his forehead with a razor blade and attempting to "water-board" Mr O’Keefe with a blanket on his face and water from a kettle. These acts constitute the offences which are prosecuted separately by the NSWDPP.

65. Following the attack on Mr O’Keefe, the Offender participated in a recorded interview with New South Wales Police about the incident. The Offender asserted that he attacked Mr O'Keefe after he made disrespectful comments about Islam, including that he had killed Muslims during a deployment overseas. Mr O'Keefe had never served overseas. The Offender further asserted that, after he calmed down, he tried to help Mr O'Keefe with his injuries.

66. The Offender admitted in his interview with JCTT police on 14 September 2016 that he lied in aspects of his earlier account, and that his intention was to kill Mr O'Keefe. The Offender also stated that:

1. he had intended to use the ropes he had made to tie up a Corrective Services officer and then kill the officer as part of his planned attack in support of Islamic State;

2. he had been thinking of approaching other inmates to participate so that the attack could be on more than one Corrective Services officer;

3. he had obtained a make-shift prison knife about the size of a pen, known as a "shiv'', which he thought was from the sharpened hinge of a fridge, and which he had concealed in his cell;

4. he had planned to grab a Corrective Services officer and either put the knife to his throat or bash him, force him into his cell, tie him up with the ropes and then kill him by beheading with the knife;

5. he had expected to be killed in the course of conducting the attack or in its aftermath; and

6. his plan had been disrupted by his attack on Mr O'Keefe and the resulting increase in security surrounding his conditions in custody.

67. After the attack on Mr O'Keefe, the Offender was placed in segregation and was transferred to the HRMCC at Goulburn two days later on 9 April 2016.

The Fourth Phase - The Offender Plans an Attack by Others on Police When the Offender was in Custody, 9 April 2016 - 19 May 2016

68. Between 9 April 2016 and 19 May 2016, whilst housed at the HRMCC at Goulburn, the Offender wrote a coded letter, addressed to "Kayman Masters", in which he urged an associate in the community to attack police officers.

69. The letter used code words and extremist religious arguments to urge the recipient to carry out a terrorist attack on police officers at Bankstown Police Station.

70. The letter listed the home address of Masri (whom the Offender had met in juvenile detention) and then associated with for periods when he was in the community.

71. On 19 May 2016, the Offender placed the "Kayman Masters" letter in the prison maildrop box which was used by inmates to send external mail. Corrective Services officers intercepted the letter and referred it to police.

72. Police investigated the letter and its contents including a reference to "the unit in Bankstown, next door to centrelink" (a reference to the location of Bankstown Police Station), the "keys" and "locks" (a reference to bullets and guns) which the Offender wrote were in the "van w[h]ere they have always been" and "the Blue prints for this unit ... in the BMW behind the spare tyre".

73. In his interview with JCTT police on 14 September 2016, the Offender initially denied writing the "Kayman Masters" letter, but admitted that he knew Masri, that they had hung out at the address on the letter and in a van parked outside that address, and that he had slept at that address a few times.

74. The Offender said that the van had once been searched by police looking for firearms connected to Masri’s residence, but none were found. He said that Masri had been in touch to check on the Offender before he went to prison, but the Offender did not think Masri held extremist religious views. The Offender said he believed that Masri had only been interested in crime, drugs and parties rather than religion and that they had started to grow apart after the Offender became religious.

75. After further questioning, the Offender admitted to JCTT police that he wrote the "Kayman Masters" letter, stating:

1. he had used coded language in the letter but it was obvious what the words referred to, including that the reference to "ISA" in the title and page numbers was to "Islamic State Australia", and the reference to "locks" was to guns;

2. he wrote the letter to incite an attack by others, but claimed that he accidentally sent it to the wrong person;

3. he claimed that he had meant to send it to the associate relating to the first planned attack on police in Bankstown, who had since left Australia, and not Masri; and

4. he had associated with Masri in the community, including hanging out in the van outside Masri’s residence and Masri’s BMW motor vehicle, both of which were broken and could not be driven.

76. The Offender refused to identify the person he referred to in the letter as "Abu Shady'', but said that he was not in Australia.

77. Police conducted a forensic examination of the Offender's documents, including using indentation analysis, which indicated that he had originally drafted a version of the "Kayman Masters" letter addressed to "Khod_Mas_", referring to "Brother Kh_der'' and "You and Balluch".

78. The Offender's earlier draft further stated:

"Go forth in the name of Allah with no regrets & know that you will only be given 1 of the 2 great things. These are either victory or Janna [paradise]. Do not worry about what is happening around you. Just go forward & do not take a backward step. Both of you are well aware of the rewards as I told you before I came to jail".

79. The Offender's fingerprints were also found on the letter.

80. Police investigations in relation to Masri indicated that he had previously owned both a BMW motor vehicle and a van, which had subsequently been sent to a scrap yard owned by his uncle.

81. Police located and searched the vehicles. In the boot of the BMW motor vehicle, next to the spare tyre well, were a number of CDs with titles indicating they contained readings from the Quran. Subsequent police analysis confirmed the CDs were readings from the Quran and a religious lecture although no extremist material was identified. Police did not find any firearms, bullets or material relating to a terrorist attack in the vehicles. Tests on the vehicles for explosive and gunshot residue were negative.

82. JCTT police interviewed Masri under caution, during which, amongst other things, he denied that he held religious belief or supported Islamic State. He said that he had never engaged in planning for a terrorist attack.

83. After investigations were conducted, no evidence was found that Masri or Baluch held extremist religious views or that they were involved in the preparation or planning of a terrorist attack. They have not been charged in relation to the offences. I make clear that the Court makes no finding adverse to Masri or Baluch with respect to the Acts in Preparation Offence. The reasons why their names were mentioned in this context cannot be further explained or usefully explored.

The Threat to Kill Offence Against the Commissioner of Corrective Services

84. On 20 May 2016, the Offender approached a Corrective Services officer within the HRMCC and handed him an envelope containing a letter he had written addressed to “Peter Severin, Commissioner of Corrective Services”. The Offender asked the Corrective Services officer how to send the letter to the Commissioner.

85. The letter was retained by Corrective Services officers for further examination. The letter threatened that, on the Offender's release from custody, he would kill the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW if a number of demands were not met.

86. Amongst other things, the Offender said in the letter:

“I will turn your jails into slaughter houses … Do not think for a second I care about getting extra time added to my sentence because I don’t. As I demonstrated quite clearly when I turned your army soldier into an Islamic State sketch pad.”

87. A little later, the Offender wrote:

"This is not a threat it is a direct promise with Allah as my witness. I want you to keep in mind the fact that I will one day be released from your control whether you like it or not. It could be tomorrow or in 20 years time the fact is it will happen and when that day comes, if you do not stop your staff from oppressing me then I will personally execute you in public".

88. The Offender further stated in the letter:

"I do not care about any materialistic or worldly consequences that your legal systems can bestow. Trust me if I care I would not write to you but obviously this is why me and you a[re] different. You fear death you want to live [a] long life and watch your grandkids grow old whereas me on the other hand cant wait to die so I can meet my creator and rejoice in an eternal reward of paradise".

89. In his interview with JCTT police on 14 September 2016, the Offender stated that:

1. he wrote the letter to the Commissioner for Corrective Services NSW as he was unhappy with his conditions in the HRMCC;

2. he intended to carry out the threats in the letter as he did not make threats unless he could carry them out; and

3. he would wait until his release to carry out the attack and, if he had the chance to do it sooner, he would.

The Offender’s Conduct in Custody at the HRMCC in May-June 2016

90. In May and June 2016, after being transferred to the HRMCC, the Offender spoke to an associate in the community using an authorised prison telephone on a number of occasions. In one call, the Offender said that Corrective Services officers from Head Office had asked him if he was interested in a deradicalisation program to which he replied "I'm not radicalised to start with" and "I don't think it's going to be happening. I don't think it's in the best interests of mine. I don't think I'm radicalised".

91. In a subsequent call, the Offender said to his associate "I know that they are listening to every word. There is nothing that these people can do that's going to break my iman [religious faith], brother. And it's going to make me think twice about what my actions are". In another call, the Offender praised the Islamic "brotherhood" he shared with other inmates in the HRMCC who shared his views, whom he called "lanterns of light".

92. On about 18 May 2016, whilst accessing the prison telephone area within the HRMCC, the Offender drew on the wall an Islamic State flag, signed his Kunya or Islamic name "Abu Zayd", and wrote the words "Victory or Martyrdom Islamic State Australia 2190", being a reference to the postcode for Greenacre in Sydney where the Offender had been residing.

93. On 22 May 2016, a Corrective Services officer inspected the Offender's cell and located a religious book from the prison library, in which the Offender had written his name, his Kunya, his MIN, and the words "Islamic State Australia”. The Corrective Services officer also located a handwritten sheet of paper that contained a list of different types of flammable material and hand-drawn diagrams of a bomb.

Record of Interview with JCTT Police on 14 September 2016

94. As mentioned earlier, the Offender was transported to Goulburn Police Station on 14 September 2016 where he agreed to participate in a record of interview under caution with JCTT police. The Offender's admissions in relation to the specific offences have been summarised earlier in this judgment.

95. In a boasting and self-congratulatory manner which was devoid of any contrition or remorse, the Offender made the following additional comments in the interview:

1. he confirmed that he would tell the truth to police, even if it incriminated him, but he would not name other people or say anything that would incriminate "my brothers";

2. he praised the killer of Curtis Cheng as a "Little lion" for the "fear he put in the hearts of Australia";

3. he said that he could not be deradicalised because he regarded it as his religion, stating "There's nothing to deradicalise ... There's no such thing as extremism. How is it extreme? You know what I mean? It's in the Quran. It's the religion, end of the day";

4. he explained his reasoning process was that Western leaders like George W Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Malcolm Turnbull should also be regarded as terrorists because of their actions towards Muslims, and they would go to hell, but in contrast the Offender said he thought of himself as belonging to terrorists that Allah was pleased with;

5. he confirmed that he wanted attacks to keep occurring until Sharia law was established in Australia;

6. he expressed his dislike for gay people and gay marriage;

7. he said he knew his mother and father were against his extremist views but he did not care what they said;

8. he looked forward to beheading someone because of the feeling he believed it would give him;

9. he emphasised that the decisions he makes are based on his considered study of the Quran and the Sunnah;

10. he explained that when he had been younger in the community he had been doing drugs, going to parties and was not that interested in religion, but that his views started to change after visiting Lebanon where he claimed to have seen Muslims being mistreated, as well as seeing similar things on videos he had watched;

11. he said he had formed his own views and had supported Islamic State, from about 2014, but he did not think of himself as being radicalised or brainwashed as it was part of fighting in the way of Allah;

1. he had wanted to obtain Lebanese citizenship so that he could leave Australia, because of Australia's support for gay marriage, imprisoning his fellow Muslims and sending Australian soldiers to fight Muslims overseas; and

2. he confirmed that if he were out in the community, he would not hesitate in carrying out an attack, even though he would not have immediate access to firearms, as he would just steal a car and run someone over.

96. Following the interview, the Offender was charged with the Acts in Preparation Offence and the Threat to Kill Offence.

97. On 20 June 2017, the Offender and another inmate at the HRMCC were involved in setting fire to the Offender’s cell. As will be seen, the Offender was sentenced for this offence in the Goulburn District Court in April 2018.

Facts for Offences Prosecuted by the NSWDPP Arising from the Attack on Mr O’Keefe

98. Michael O'Keefe was born in December 1975. As at 7 April 2016, he was 40 years of age. He was incarcerated at the MNCCC serving a relatively short sentence and was due for release on 22 September 2016. He was housed in E­Pod, but on 7 April 2016, was moved to A-Pod due to cell shortages.

99. As at 7 April 2016, the Offender was in custody at the MNCCC serving the balance of his parole, as well as sentences of imprisonment for break, enter and steal offences. Those sentences commenced on 8 December 2015 and the Offender’s earliest date of release was 18 August 2018. He was housed in A-Pod at the MNCCC.

The Two Men Share a Cell

100. Mr O’Keefe and the Offender were designated to share Cell 30 in A-Pod at the MNCCC.

101. On the afternoon of 7 April 2016, Mr O’Keefe and the Offender met for the first time and had a short conversation. In that time, Mr O’Keefe told the Offender that he had served in the Australian Army between 1992 and 2000, having been based in Townsville whilst enlisted, and at Port Macquarie when in the Army Reserve. He had never served overseas on deployment. Mr O’Keefe states that he told the Offender nothing more than he had been in the Army for eight years. He did not tell him that he had served overseas as that was not the case.

102. As they were to share Cell 30, the Offender discussed with Mr O’Keefe some cell rules.

103. About five to 10 minutes after meeting the Offender, Mr O’Keefe left the cell and spoke with other inmates. He perceived everything between himself and the Offender to be “normal”. Mr O’Keefe remained outside in the yard, associating with other inmates, until it came time for them to be locked in the cell between 3.10 pm and 3.30 pm.

104. After lock up, Mr O’Keefe placed his dinner on the end of his bed, which was on the left-hand side of the cell as you enter. The Offender gave Mr O’Keefe his own dinner to eat.

105. Mr O’Keefe lay on his bed and was ready to “chat and relax”.

The Offender Attacks Mr O’Keefe

106. Mr O’Keefe stated he was lying on his bed with his head furthest from the door. Without any prior warning, the Offender began punching him to the face and jaw. Mr O’Keefe lost consciousness and when he came to, the Offender was speaking in a language which he did not recognise. Mr O’Keefe moved in and out of consciousness.

107. Mr O’Keefe recalled the Offender holding him against the cell door whilst yelling in another language and hearing other males yell back in the same language. As this was occurring, Mr O’Keefe became aware that his face was bleeding.

108. Mr O’Keefe said the Offender pushed him into the shower area of the cell and he recalled being sprayed in the face with something from a bottle. The Offender then punched Mr O’Keefe to the face and neck a couple of times.

109. Mr O’Keefe's next recollection was lying on the bed on his back. The Offender had placed something around his throat and had covered his face with a blanket which was pulled tight. Mr O’Keefe then felt hot water being poured onto the blanket and soaking through into his mouth. Mr O’Keefe felt like he was drowning. The Offender said "Die soldier, die soldier" before removing the blanket. As the Offender told police later, he was “waterboarding” Mr O’Keefe at this point of the attack. The Offender then spat on Mr O’Keefe's face.

110. Mr O’Keefe recalled struggling to breathe and was spitting up water. He recalls hearing the Offender using the intercom and saying to the guards something like, "Just seeing if it works, nothing wrong chief''.

111. The Offender produced a blade and started cutting Mr O’Keefe's face, neck and back. Mr O’Keefe lost consciousness. His next memory was seeing a few people in the cell.

112. Mr O’Keefe's next recollection after that was waking up in Port Macquarie Base Hospital. He was under guard and his mother was also present.

113. Mr O’Keefe told Police he did nothing to upset or provoke the Offender.

Response by Corrective Services Officers

114. At about 4.30 pm, a radio call came through from Officer Marsden, who was working in the monitor room to Officer Nelson, who at the time was in H-Block. Officer Marsden said words to the effect, "You'd better go to cell 32 [sic] in Alpha pod. Celly reckons he's flogged his cell mate".

115. Officer Hughes obtained a hand-held video recorder and gave it to Officer Nelson. Each of the officers went to A-Pod. Officer Nelson activated the video camera as he approached the cell.

116. Officer Cooper opened the cell door.

117. The Offender was handcuffed by the officers and it was noted that he had blood on his hands. He was removed from the cell and taken to another area of the prison.

118. Mr O’Keefe was lying on his bed, unconscious and covered in blood. He had cuts to his neck, and his hair was matted with blood. He had a towel around his head which was soaked in blood.

119. Mr O’Keefe began moaning and groaning in an incoherent way. He was helped off the bed and then carried outside the cell where he collapsed. Officer Nelson observed that a sheet had been cut up and wrapped tightly several times around Mr O’Keefe's neck. Officer Nelson attempted to remove the sheet, but it was too tight. Officer Cooper subsequently had to cut the sheet from Mr O’Keefe's neck. This procedure was video recorded.

120. Mr O’Keefe was spitting up blood and was drifting in and out of consciousness.

121. Mr O’Keefe was treated by Justice Health nurses. A number of red marks covered his back. They were not bleeding, but were fresh and raw.

122. Ambulance personnel attended and provided first aid, with the assistance of the Justice Health nurses, for approximately 30 minutes. Mr O’Keefe was then transferred to Port Macquarie Base Hospital for evaluation and treatment of his injuries.

123. Mr O’Keefe was triaged at the Port Macquarie Base Hospital at 6.34 pm on 7 April 2016.

124. According to hospital records, Mr O’Keefe sustained the following injuries as a result of the Offender’s attack:

1. letters (“E4E”) carved into his forehead and cuts to the back of the neck with a sharp object;

2. facial abrasions/contusions;

3. laceration to his nasal bridge and laceration to his face (five centimetres);

4. bruising and lacerations to his neck and throat;

5. extensive whip marks, small lacerations and extensive bruising to his back;

6. multiple rib fractures on both sides; and

7. fractured sternum.

125. Mr O’Keefe was discharged on 13 April 2016, with hospital notes recording that he was anaemic due to blood loss and extensive bruising.

126. The scarring to the forehead of Mr O’Keefe was conservatively treated. He did not undergo plastic surgery to remove the letters. The surgeon advised it would simply be easier to use makeup to disguise the scarring and Mr O’Keefe accepted that advice.

127. Mr O’Keefe continues to suffer ongoing back pain as a result of the attack.

128. In addition, Mr O’Keefe was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He experiences disturbing memories and dreams of the attack.

129. Police attended the MNCCC at approximately 5.30 pm on 7 April 2016 and were shown to Cell 30 by Correctives Services officers.

130. As they approached the cell, they observed a length of blood-stained fabric at the top of the stairs. Officer Cooper informed police that he had cut that fabric from Mr O’Keefe’s neck whilst first aid was being administered.

131. Several photos were taken, and evidence seized for forensic examination. Police noted a blood-soaked pillow on Mr O’Keefe’s bed. Photographs of the crime scene were tendered by the NSWDPP on sentence. They depict a scene of carnage with blood-spattered walls and bed clothing, together with the items used by the Offender during the attack. The photographs confirm the sustained ferocity of the attack using implements which the Offender had gathered for the purpose of a terrorist attack upon a Corrective Services officer, but used instead against Mr O’Keefe who had the bad fortune to be placed in a cell with the Offender.

Interview with New South Wales Police on 7 April 2016

132. At 8.19 pm on 7 April 2016, the Offender agreed to participate in an electronically recorded interview with New South Wales Police concerning his attack on Mr O’Keefe. It is appropriate to set out extracts from that interview. In doing so, it should be noted that the Offender said to JCTT police in a later interview that he told lies to police in the interview on 7 April 2016.

133. In the interview of 7 April 2016, the Offender stated:

1. He returned to his cell at 2.00 pm and saw Mr O’Keefe in his cell (Q/A22).

2. The Offender “didn't really speak to him. I just asked him, 'Are you in the room here?'” to which Mr O’Keefe replied “Yeah”. Mr O’Keefe told the Offender about the “house rules”, such as that the Offender had to sit down to use the toilet. Mr O’Keefe then went out and walked around until they were locked in their cells that afternoon (Q/A31).

3. After being locked in, the Offender and Mr O’Keefe started talking (Q/A34).

4. The Offender said Mr O’Keefe asked the Offender what religion he was, to which the Offender replied that he was Christian. The Offender asserted that Mr O’Keefe told him that he used to serve in the Army and that he had served in Timor. The Offender said he asked Mr O’Keefe whether he had killed anyone and Mr O’Keefe replied, "I was killing Muslims ... killing Muslims 1, 2, 3". Mr O’Keefe was alleged to have told the Offender he had killed "too many", but that he remembered killing a 13-year old child by running up to him and shooting him twice in the chest and executing him. The Offender said Mr O’Keefe started saying “racist shit”, something about the Prophet that angered the Offender (Q/A38 to Q/A42).

5. The Offender stated that he got off his bed and said to Mr O’Keefe, "Brother, you know I'm Muslim". The Offender said Mr O’Keefe looked at him "and it clicked straight away, that I'm about to have a go with him". The Offender said he and Mr O’Keefe then exchanged a number of punches, some of which connected. The Offender said he punched Mr O’Keefe which "dropped" him, and the Offender stood over him punching him repeatedly. The Offender said he got his disposable razor and said to Mr O’Keefe "You're lucky I don't kill ya". The Offender used the razor to carve "E4E” (being an “eye for an eye”) into Mr O’Keefe's forehead. The Offender continued to “bash” Mr O’Keefe saying that he did not feel bad for him but did not want him to die either (Q/A43 to Q/A47).

6. The Offender said he put Mr O’Keefe in the shower to clean the blood and gave him a couple of towels. The Offender said that there was "blood everywhere ... l started cleaning it ... it was too much". The Offender admitted slicing Mr O’Keefe's neck a couple of times on the front and back but described them as not "bad cuts". The Offender then tied a sheet around Mr O’Keefe’s neck and head in an effort to stop the bleeding (Q/A48 to Q/A56).

7. The Offender said he gave Mr O’Keefe water and told him to lie down and that he (the Offender) would clean the cell. The Offender told police that he had a knife in his cell, which he did not use, and that it was down his pants at the time. He told police that whilst cleaning up, he turned around and noted that Mr O’Keefe was holding a coaxial cable (Q/A58 to Q/A61).

8. The Offender told police that Mr O’Keefe tried to whip him with the cable and then the Offender thought "you know, like that's it, you know, game over, fuck him ...” (Q/A64).

9. The Offender said he punched Mr O’Keefe to the face with sufficient force that he thought he had broken Mr O’Keefe's nose, and that Mr O’Keefe had dropped the coaxial cable (Q/A71).

10. The Offender said he grabbed the coaxial cable and kicked Mr O’Keefe in the leg before he “started lashing him, lashing him" on his back with the cable. The Offender said he told Mr O’Keefe not to disrespect his religion. The Offender alleged that Mr O’Keefe said "Fuck the Islamic State, fuck the Muslims”. The Offender continued to lash Mr O’Keefe's back with the cable before kicking him. Mr O’Keefe then started convulsing and the Offender thought that he was going to die and noticed that his sternum was all black and Mr O’Keefe was coughing blood. The Offender used the buzzer inside the cell to alert officers. When doing so, the Offender asserted that Mr O’Keefe told him to “leave it”. The Offender then formed the view that Mr O’Keefe was seriously injured and used the buzzer again, telling the officers that he had bashed Mr O’Keefe (Q/A75 to Q/A80).

11. The Offender told police that he had got “done” the previous Friday for having a photocopy of a book entitled "The Flames of War'', a religious book which was given to the Offender by a “cousin in Supermax”. The book was confiscated by prison authorities and sent to Sydney (Q/A82 to Q/A86).

12. The Offender told police that when Mr O’Keefe asked what religion he was, he became paranoid, thinking that Mr O’Keefe was a member of the Australian Federal Police (Q/A86).

13. The Offender told police that he bashed Mr O’Keefe because he repeatedly talked about killing a Muslim child in Timor, and then called the prophet Mohammed a “rapist" (Q/A97, Q/A101, Q/A104).

14. The Offender told police that he first bashed Mr O’Keefe, then whipped him, then cut him and he stated after he lashed Mr O’Keefe with the cable, he "got very dirty" and filled up the kettle with water and placed a towel over Mr O’Keefe's face. He then poured water over Mr O’Keefe's face for about 10 seconds because Mr O’Keefe had earlier joked about how he (Mr O’Keefe) had water-boarded Muslims in the past (Q/A130 to Q/A136).

15. The Offender confirmed that he cut Mr O’Keefe across the throat a "couple of times" demonstrating one cut to the left, and one cut to the right side of the neck (Q/A170 to Q/A175).

16. The Offender stomped on a razor to get the blade out and "I carved E4E" on Mr O’Keefe's forehead and after that "I lashed him" with the coaxial cable (Q/A112 to Q/A122).

17. The Offender also cut Mr O’Keefe on the left side of his face (Q/A175).

18. The Offender told Police that after he put Mr O’Keefe in the shower and "washed him" and he placed bandages around Mr O’Keefe's neck. The Offender stated that he "got a bed sheet … the bed sheet I ripped it into … , like long shreds, so it's like a, works like a bandage and I just wrapped it around him a couple of times”' (Q/A163 to Q/A167). In his interview with JCTT on 14 September 2016, the Offender expanded upon when he had in fact prepared the “bandages” and their intended use (see [135](b) below).

19. The Offender told Police that he had "flushed" the knife and he described it as a "shiv" (Q/A250 to Q/A253).

20. The Offender told Police that he felt "very bad for it [what he had done] now but like I was in rage, you know …”   and the Offender went on to state “I hope he doesn't, you know, doesn't die or something, you know what I mean. If he dies, yeah, like honestly it's ‘cause of that life. If you kill someone in gaol you're doing life … and I don't want to die in gaol” (Q/A197, Q/A351 to Q/A353).

Interview with JCTT on 14 September 2016

134. On 14 September 2016, the Offender agreed to participate in an electronically recorded interview with JCTT in relation to the offences prosecuted by the CDPP.

135. In that interview, the Offender had more to say about his attack upon Mr O’Keefe. Both the tone and the content of the Offender’s account shed considerable light upon this attack. The Offender boasts about the attack, laughing at one point as he denied being remorseful, noting his “only regret” was that he “didn’t use a bigger knife”. The interview included the following:

1. The Offender said about his placement in a cell with Mr O’Keefe - "I was put in with the ex-soldier, all right, who was put there by the Governor who got stood down and he’s lucky he didn't die. I tried to, ah-ha. He's lucky he didn't" (Q/A159).

2. The Offender referred to the sheets which he used to cut into ropes - "I cut - I cut a few shreds of bed - bed - bed cloth, bed linen whatever that were found - that - that I used to tie up that other idiot [Mr O’Keefe], that O'Keefe on the GBH charge, all right”. The Offender stated he had prepared the “ropes” before the attack on Mr O’Keefe and that he had intended "to tie up the screw”. When asked what he used the ropes for, the Offender replied "well they were used on the other idiot [Mr O’Keefe] to tie him up”. The Offender went on to say that he "tied one around his throat ...They had to cut them off him ... there's pictures of the ropes drenched in blood" (Q/A263, Q/A283, Q/A284, Q/A285, Q/A288).

3. When asked by police about the knife he used in the attack, the Offender said "it was a gaol knife'' that he got the week before the attack. The Offender stated that he "tried to stab that other mutt [Mr O’Keefe] with it and it didn't go - it didn't really go into him. It cut his head, it didn’t go into him". Concerning the use of the knife, he stated "I tried to. It didn't do as much damage as I wanted. I tried to stab him with it. It wouldn’t go into his skin ... So that's why I resorted to the razor to cut his head and try to slit his throat and that …” (Q/A264, Q/A271, Q/A501).

4. Concerning the injuries sustained by Mr O’Keefe, the Offender told police - "Why should I care? I tried to kill him. I wish I - I wish he died... I got no regrets to that. I did that attack and it was Islamic State inspired ... I don't care whether I get ten years or twenty years or thirty years”. The Offender went on to say "Remorse. Do I have remorse for it? Why should I have remorse for it? My only regret is I didn’t use a bigger knife [the Offender laughed at this point]” (Q/A1044). At other times in the JCTT interview, the Offender referred to Mr O’Keefe as a "gronk" (Q/A289, Q/A295).

5. With respect to his claim to New South Wales Police in the 7 April 2016 interview that he provided water to Mr O’Keefe, the Offender said that he had lied when he told them that he was trying to help Mr O’Keefe. He said that "I wanted to kill him. Do you think I wanted to - do you think I wanted to give him what do you call it? I've explained it with you. What I just told now is the truth. I was - my intention was to kill him but at the time I didn't know whether I should try to play the defensive, ‘ah help me’ card or the - reveal my true intention. That's the truth". (Q/A1220). The Offender stated that when he spoke to the New South Wales Police "I cooled down and I had time to refresh my story. Then I played the little eighteen year old innocent, oh, cause I thought I'm goin' to beat it …The only remorse is I didn't use a bigger knife” (Q/A1268).

136. In a letter written by the Offender in October 2016 to an associate (Exhibit B, Tab 4) he boasted about his attack upon Mr O’Keefe whom he described, once again, in disparaging terms.

137. On 24 April 2017, the Offender was committed for trial, for the charges arising from his attack on Mr O’Keefe.

138. On 8 December 2017, the matter was given a trial date of 3 December 2018.

139. On 5 October 2018, the Offender was arraigned in the Supreme Court and entered pleas of guilty to the charges under ss.27 and 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900.

140. It may be observed, to say the least, that each of the offences committed by the Offender was of very considerable gravity. I will return to the findings to be made in this respect after referring to other features of the case.

Objections to Parts of the Statements of Facts

141. At the March 2019 sentencing hearing, objection was taken on behalf of the Offender on relevance grounds to that part of the CDPP’s Statement of Facts which referred to the Offender’s associations with others in juvenile detention, including Raban Alou (see [24] to [34] above). Although accepting that the factual matters contained in those paragraphs were accurate, it was submitted that this material was not relevant to sentence.

142. I was satisfied that this material was relevant as it bore upon aspects of the Offender’s behaviour in custody before 2015, at a time when he was developing a strong interest in Islam which extended to extremist beliefs and support for violent jihad. The Offender’s association with Raban Alou bore upon this issue.

143. Objection was taken to parts of the Statements of Facts which referred to the Offender’s later offence in custody in 2017. The offence committed by the Offender on 20 June 2017 (involving the setting fire to his cell) was relevant to the Offender’s conduct since the commission of the present offences. Of course, the Offender is not to be sentenced again for that offence, for which he has already been sentenced in the District Court. However, the commission of a subsequent offence may be taken into account in assessing the Offender’s prospects of rehabilitation: Douar v R (2005) 159 A Crim R 154 at 179; [2005] NSWCCA 455 at [131]. In addition, as will be seen, the Offender’s explanation for that offence revealed an ongoing attachment to extremist beliefs.

Impact of the Offences Upon Mr O’Keefe

144. Reference was made earlier to the immediate effect upon Mr O’Keefe of the attack carried out by the Offender in the cell at the MNCCC on 7 April 2016. Photographs tendered at the sentencing hearing depict graphically the serious nature of the attack upon Mr O’Keefe and its immediate physical consequences. To describe the attack as being horrific for Mr O’Keefe involves an element of understatement.

145. Also tendered at the sentencing hearing were photographs of Mr O’Keefe taken on 10 April 2016 and 12 March 2019 indicating areas of scarring which remain on his cheek, forehead, neck and back.

146. Crime scene photographs taken in the cell on 7 April 2016 reveal that substantial blood loss resulted from the attack.

147. Also contained within the material tendered by the NSWDPP (Exhibit B, Tab 11) are discharge notes and medical reports prepared concerning the grave physical and mental harm suffered by Mr O’Keefe in the attack carried by the Offender on 7 April 2016.

148. Unsurprisingly, the report of Dr Christopher Canaris, psychiatrist, dated 13 November 2016 concludes that Mr O’Keefe’s presentation is consistent with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

149. An affidavit of Mr O’Keefe affirmed 12 March 2019 was read at the sentencing hearing. Mr O’Keefe stated that he continues to suffer from scarring to his face, throat, back of neck, chest and back together with chest pain, back pain, discomfort when swallowing and headaches. In relation to the scarring to his forehead, Mr O’Keefe covers it by wearing a hat or a beanie so that people cannot see it. As a result of the assault, Mr O’Keefe stated that he continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (including flashbacks), anxiety and sleeping difficulties. He does not like being in crowds because of feelings of heightened anxiety and stress. He took medication for a period after the attack, but no longer uses it because of adverse effects which the medication was having upon him.

150. Although a formal victim impact statement was not placed before the Court on sentence, it is hardly necessary in this case. Self-evidently, the attack upon Mr O’Keefe was ferocious and terrifying with very significant physical and psychological injuries being caused to him which will likely have permanent consequences.

151. Further, it is clear that the Offender had made a plan to carry out an attack upon a Corrective Services officer within the MNCCC at about the time of his attack upon Mr O’Keefe. He prepared for that attack by arming himself with cutting weapons and also items to tie up and further harm his chosen victim. As it happens, Mr O’Keefe became the unlucky victim through his misfortune to be placed in a cell with the Offender. Those circumstances have no doubt also served to exacerbate the mental stress from which Mr O’Keefe continues to suffer and will undoubtedly continue to suffer for a very long time.

The Offender’s Subjective Circumstances

152. As noted earlier, the Offender was born on 15 April 1997. He is the eldest child in a family of four. He has a younger brother and two younger sisters.

153. Tendered in the Offender’s case on sentence were references from his mother, Mouna Hraichie, and his father, Ahmad Hraichie, which provided some family history. Also tendered was the psychological report of Mr Woods dated 15 November 2017 to which reference has already been made. From that material, it appears that the Offender left school at about 14 or 15 years of age. Apart from some brief periods, he has never held any form of employment since then.

The Offender’s Criminal History

154. The Offender has an extensive criminal history with his first offence committed when he was 13 years of age. Offences of larceny, break and enter a dwelling house with intent and aggravated entry of a dwelling house with intent in company were committed in 2011 and 2012, and were dealt with between July and November 2012 by way of a good behaviour bond and probation in the Children’s Court.

155. The Offender committed further offences of dishonesty of different types in 2012 and 2013, for which bonds were ordered and, in some cases, juvenile detention by way of control orders.

156. On 2 September 2013, for an offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon (committed on 22 January 2013), the Offender was sentenced in the Parramatta Children’s Court to juvenile detention for six months by way of a control order commencing 28 March 2013.

157. On 19 June 2013, the Offender was sentenced in the Parramatta Children’s Court for several offences of aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence (committed in March 2013) for which juvenile detention by way of a control order for 12 months commencing 19 June 2013 was ordered.

158. On 18 February 2014, the Offender was sentenced in the Parramatta District Court for an offence of robbery whilst being armed with a dangerous weapon (committed on 27 March 2012), for which a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was imposed with a non-parole period of six months to date from 19 December 2013.

159. On 27 July 2015, the Offender appeared before the Parramatta Children’s Court for sentence for a range of offences committed when he was 17 years of age including destroying property (five counts), larceny, aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence in company and destroying property by fire, in relation to which juvenile detention by way of control orders was imposed for a period of 18 months with a non-parole period of six months commencing 29 April 2015.

160. On 20 January 2016, the Offender appeared before the Bankstown Local Court for a range of offences committed when he was 18 years of age. These offences included break, enter and steal, dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, entry of a vehicle or boat without consent, larceny, take and drive a conveyance without consent and licence offences. With respect to these offences, the longest term of imprisonment was for 19 months and six days, with a non-parole period of 14 months and 11 days commencing 8 December 2015 and concluding 18 February 2017.

161. As mentioned earlier, on 28 October 2015, the Offender was released to parole. He remained at liberty until 8 December 2015 when arrested for a range of offences for which sentence was imposed at the Bankstown Local Court on 20 January 2016.

162. On 17 April 2018, the Offender was sentenced by his Honour Judge Arnott SC at the Goulburn District Court following his plea of guilty for an offence of destroying property by fire in company under s.195(1A)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an offence punishable by imprisonment for 11 years. His Honour’s sentencing remarks are before this Court. The offence was committed in the company of his cousin, Mohamed Al-Maqiue, who occupied the adjoining cell to the Offender in the HRMCC at Goulburn. The two men placed an item dipped in flammable solution into a power point in the Offender’s cell, setting the contents of the cell on fire. Damage to the value of $62,506.00 was caused, rendering the cell uninhabitable. The sentencing Judge found that the Offender played the prominent role in this offence with his cousin providing assistance. According to the sentencing remarks, the Offender told the sentencing Judge that “he did it as an act of defiance against what he perceived to be the oppressive Government in this country and Corrective Services being an arm of the Government”. The Offender was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months commencing on 19 February 2017 with a non-parole period of 18 months.

The Report of Mr Woods

163. The psychological report of Mr Woods dated 15 November 2017 provided some personal and family background of the Offender. Mr Woods expressed the opinion that the Offender satisfied the diagnostic criteria for anti-social personality disorder and polysubstance use (misuse) disorder, previously chronic and heavy, but in remission since the Offender had entered a controlled environment (in custody). Mr Woods raised a provisional diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition, he raised the possibility that the Offender had suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in behaviour disturbances. It is noted that no further evidence has been placed before the Court with respect to this possible diagnosis, in circumstances where there has been ample time for any appropriate medical investigation to be carried out. This aspect can be put to one side.

164. Mr Woods’ report purported to express opinions concerning the Offender’s views. Mr Woods said with regard to “the question of radical/extremist Muslim (Terrorist) ideology” that the Offender “continues to identify in terms of having been a member of the Brothers 4 Life criminal gang as opposed to that of a Jihadist”. Mr Woods continued:

“Having come to this opinion, I would also seek to express my (strong) concern in relation to the risk of Mr Hraichie becoming ‘radicalised’ if he continues to be held in the ‘Supermax’ facility where he is exposed to inmates who hold Jihadist ideology.”

165. In this regard, Mr Woods appeared to have merely accepted what the Offender had told him and based his opinion on that without any further explanation as to the process undertaken by him to express an opinion. There was a failure by Mr Woods to explain his reasoning process so that his conclusion was effectively worthless: Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588 at 605; [2011] HCA 21 at [42]. Further, it is difficult to understand how Mr Woods could have accepted uncritically such a statement by the Offender in the face of the entrenched pattern of extreme jihadist-inspired offending which he undertook in 2015 and 2016 before he went to the HRMCC at Goulburn, as disclosed in the factual material which had been supplied to Mr Woods. Once there, the Offender continued to act criminally in support of violent jihad. Although, as will be seen, the Offender appears to have expressed support in custody for “Brothers for Life”, this was a minor feature compared with his entrenched support of violent jihad.

166. It is little wonder, in these circumstances, that Senior Counsel for the Offender did not seek to rely upon Mr Woods’ opinion concerning the risk of radicalisation of the Offender. Regrettably, the Offender was already radicalised by the time he saw Mr Woods.

167. In any event, as will be seen, the Offender has made clear his extremist beliefs in his recent letter to the Court.

References from the Offender’s Parents

168. The references provided by the Offender’s parents contain background information concerning their family circumstances. Neither parent was called to give evidence nor were they present at the sentencing hearing. Both the CDPP and the NSWDPP submitted that limited weight should be given to any controversial parts of the references. I accept this submission.

169. The reference from the Offender’s father stated that the Offender was not a radical Muslim as a young child and had shown limited interest in religion, with his father believing that he had become radicalised in custody. Material referred to earlier in this judgment supports the development of radical and extremist beliefs whilst the Offender was in juvenile detention.

170. To the extent that the reference from the Offender’s mother indicates that he had expressed regret and remorse for his past criminal actions, great care is required. The Offender himself did not give evidence at the sentencing hearing so that there is no direct evidence from him asserting the existence of contrition and remorse. Indeed, the protracted and serious nature of his offending, and the attitude displayed by him in his police interviews indicated deeply entrenched radical views accompanied by strong justification, in the form of boasting and expressions of pride for his criminal acts, including the attack upon Mr O’Keefe and the other threatening conduct which has given rise to the matters for which he will be sentenced.

171. Once again, the Offender’s recent letter to the Court demonstrates why no weight could be given to the reference from his mother to the extent that it was asserted that he has expressed remorse to her. If he did say that, he was not being truthful.

The Offender’s Custodial Conditions

Evidence of Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen

172. An affidavit of Senior Assistant Superintendent Geoffrey Poulsen sworn 1 March 2019 was tendered without objection by the CDPP. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen is currently posted to the HRMCC where he has served since October 2015.

173. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen described the structure and operation of the HRMCC. He described the behavioural management plan under which inmates are managed, which includes a staged progression pathway with a multi-disciplinary approach involving custodial, psychological and welfare support. An inmate’s progression takes into consideration the inmate’s behaviour whilst in the HRMCC. He described the three behavioural management levels (“BML”), with BML reviews conducted generally on a monthly basis for each inmate.

174. The documents attached to the affidavit of Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen reveal that the Offender had not risen higher than BML 1.2 up to March 2018 but that, on 20 March 2018, he was approved to progress to BML 1.3. The Offender continued to progress during 2018 to BML 2.1 (on 15 May 2018), BML 2.2 (on 12 June 2018), BML 2.3 (on 9 August 2018), BML 3.1 (on 4 October 2018) and BML 3.2 (on 25 December 2018) (Exhibit E).

175. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen stated that the Offender was, as at 1 March 2019, on BML Level 3.2 which dictated sanctions and privileges which applied to him within the HRMCC.

176. A further affidavit of Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen sworn 29 May 2019 was tendered by the CDPP at the resumed hearing on 21 June 2019 (Exhibit H). That affidavit revealed that the Offender progressed to BML 3.3 on 19 March 2019.

177. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen described the classification regime under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW). He stated that inmates convicted of terrorism offences are initially housed in the HRMCC. After a period of time, inmates have the capacity to progress through the classification system. He stated that there are a number of inmates (whose offences are terrorism related) who have progressed out of the HRMCC into other mainstream correctional centres as part of the classification process. He stated that these inmates are assessed for a national security designation, which allows a continued level of monitoring of the inmate’s communications with a capacity to allow contact visits and access to funds.

178. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen stated that the Offender was transferred to the HRMCC on 9 April 2016 where he has since remained. The Offender was classified as an A2 inmate at that time. On 28 September 2016, the Offender was assigned a Category AA security classification by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. This classification has only been varied since that time to reflect his sentencing status between Category AAU (unsentenced) and AA (sentenced).

179. On 25 May 2016, the Offender was assigned an Extreme High Risk Restricted (“EHRR”) designation by the Commissioner of Corrective Services on the basis of the criteria set out in Clause 15(3) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW). This designation has not changed since that date.

180. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen explained that a person may only visit an EHRR inmate if the person has been approved by the Commissioner of Corrective Services to visit that inmate. An inmate provides a list of intended visitors to be checked prior to authorisation, and the intended visitor or visitors must be prepared to go through security vetting which includes a criminal record check and assessment prior to being authorised as a visitor. The vetting process is repeated at least every 12 months.

181. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen stated that the Offender currently has personal visitors approved for non-contact visits being his mother, father, brother and one of his sisters.

182. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen stated that the Offender is able to spend $95.00 on buy-ups each week involving purchases from the canteen of a variety of goods including toiletries and food stuffs.

183. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen stated that the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network provides health care to all inmates housed in the HRMCC, with inmates able to access all medical and mental health services irrespective of their classification and designation. Mental health services at the HRMCC include two senior psychologists, and one senior psychologist who provides assessments and other functions with mental health services from the psychologists being available almost every weekday.

184. With respect to access to amenities, inmates at the HRMCC are permitted to have access to a television, fridge, radio, fan, kettle and sandwich maker in accordance with their BML. Inmates have access to the HRMCC library book service and legal computer room on request each morning. The HRMCC has a running track, two half-sized basketball courts, multiple exercise yards, two legal computer rooms, shared yards and property available as per BML allowances.

185. The HRMCC also retains the services of two Islamic chaplains who visit the HRMCC from time to time with visits scheduled to occur on each Tuesday. However, Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen understood that staffing and resourcing issues prevent the chaplains from making this attendance on every Tuesday.

186. Senior Assistant Superintendent Poulsen outlined the Offender’s access to amenities and recreational facilities, noting that these are available to the Offender on every day when the centre is operational. It was noted that the Offender has frequently accessed amenities during his time in custody.

187. With respect to the Offender’s behaviour in custody, it was noted that the Offender had been involved to varying extents in 14 incidents and has been the subject of several misbehavioural reports.

188. I will have regard to the Offender’s custodial conditions when passing sentence. In some respects, those conditions are onerous. Those conditions flow essentially from the nature of his offences and the need to manage him in a custodial setting.

278. The Offender stated that “this is a short explanation as to why Democracy can not in no circumstance [sic] be accepted as a law by any Muslim or person in general”.

279. The Offender said:

“I noticed that during the submission proceeding you asked as to why I would not stand for you.

The reason is simple. You are the representative of Democracy. A Taghoot - ie false deity. and I will never stand for a Taghoot. Nor will I acknowledge, respect, accept or submit to this Disbeliever.

Instead I say we are free of that which you worship besides Allah. Free from your wretched laws, methodologies, customs constitutions and values. Free from your repugnant governments, courts, media and distinguishing characteristics.

We have rejected you and there has become apparent between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone.”

282. The Offender made entirely clear that he rejects the authority of the Court and, indeed, all three limbs of Australian democratic government - the legislative, executive and judicial arms of government. He condemns the media as well in this context.

283. The Offender then explained “jihad” to be “not only defensive but also offensive” with “the purpose of offensive jihad [being] to spread Islam”.

284. In an entirely repugnant manner, the Offender praised the murder of Curtis Cheng, describing his killer as a “martyr”.

285. The Offender then referred in praising terms to Osama Bin Laden.

286. Returning to his attack upon Mr O’Keefe in prison in April 2016, the Offender said:

“The final issue to address is that of my present day views and stance regarding the attack on O’keefe.

I will begin with the latter. I do not denounce attacking O’keefe as he knows full well what he said and claimed to of done whilst in the Army.

This was done for Islamic reasons and it is an honourable and praiseworthy act that I hope to be rewarded for by Allah.

However I regret waterboarding and cutting him as torture and mutilation are both forbidden in Islam and I take that back I am regretful that I did that and I hope Allah forgives me for that.”

287. Concerning his parents’ references, the Offender said:

“As for my parents affadivts [sic] I make disassociation from their claims that I have made comments pertaining to my actions of a remorsful [sic] nature. I only express regret for that which I just stated and for that which follows.

But never did I express regret or remorse from the religion of Allah. Perhaps they misunderstood as this can occur seeing that you barbarians only give us a 6 minute phone call once every 2 days. I make disassociation from the Islamic States actions as they have deviated from the correct path. Thy [sic] are still Muslim and I love them for the sake of Allah. I accept their jihad against non believers but reject it against the Muslims.”

288. The Offender said soon after:

“I will always support jihad as it is part of Islam and I love my brothers from Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the other mujahid soldiers.”

289. The Offender concluded the letter with the suggestion that the Court should “look into Islam” with the observation that “otherwise if you die a kafir then your abode is hell fire” with other adverse consequences said to follow.

290. What emerges from the Offender’s letter? He remains firmly committed to violent jihad. He rejects the laws of Australia and the authority of the Court.

291. He has a fixated view which is adverse to democracy and the institutions which are part of a free and democratic society, including the media. He defends the random murder of an innocent man such as Curtis Cheng. He expresses limited regret for part of his attack on Mr O’Keefe, not because he is sorry for it, but because he considers that some of the things he did to him were not strictly authorised by his religious beliefs. He dresses his beliefs in a cloak of religious dogma which is far removed in history and is based upon a distorted understanding of Islam. He supports Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the actions of Islamic State against non-Muslims.

292. And all this reflects his present thoughts after several years in custody.

Absence of Contrition and Remorse

293. In sentencing the Offender, the Court is required by s.16A(2)(f) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to take into account the degree to which he has shown contrition for the Commonwealth offence. With respect to the New South Wales offences, remorse shown by the Offender may be taken into account as a mitigating factor on sentence: s.21A(3)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

294. The Offender bears the onus of proving the existence of contrition or remorse on the balance of probabilities. I keep in mind what was said in R v Atai (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1797 at [295]-[299] with respect to the concepts of contrition and remorse.

295. The Offender made clear in his police interviews in 2016 that he was not remorseful.

296. Second-hand expressions of contrition and remorse directed to his mother carry no weight in circumstances where the statement cannot be tested and was made against the background of deeply entrenched views and beliefs held by the Offender. In any event, the Offender has disowned what his mother wrote on his behalf.

297. In his recent letter, the Offender has expressed selective regret (not based on real contrition) for part of his attack on Mr O’Keefe. He maintains the belief system which motivated these crimes. The Offender’s beliefs continue his support for terrorism.

The Offender’s Prospects of Rehabilitation and Risk of Reoffending

298. These were very serious offences committed by a heavily radicalised offender who believed in the righteousness of his own actions. The Offender’s beliefs were based upon a perverse and criminal adherence to the extreme and poisonous views of the terrorist organisation, Islamic State.

299. The Offender’s further offence committed in custody where he set fire to his cell on 20 June 2017 reflected a continuing manifestation of extremist beliefs on the part of the Offender.

300. The evidence before the Court at the sentencing hearing in March 2019 reflected a limited and very recent move in his attitude. It rose no higher than the possibility of the commencement of a process of disengagement by the Offender. It remained the case that there was no evidence of any interest in deradicalisation on his part.

301. The position has worsened for the Offender since then, given the attitudes expressed in his letter of April 2019.

302. It was submitted for the Offender at the hearing in March 2019 that the onus of proof lay upon the Crown to establish future dangerousness by reference to the Offender’s current belief system. I do not accept this submission.

303. The onus lies upon the Offender to demonstrate a genuine movement away from his heavily radicalised and extremist views which involved acts of serious violence to an approach or belief system which pointed in a different direction. This forms part of the onus which lies upon the Offender to establish a fact which he sought to rely upon to mitigate sentence: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Besim; R v Alou (No. 4); R v Mohamed and Others [2019] VSC 498 at [137]. He has not done so in this case.

304. Before receipt of the Offender’s letter of April 2019, an assessment of his prospects of rehabilitation was required, taking into account the deeply entrenched and radical beliefs which he manifested in 2015 and 2016, and acted on in ways that involved significant acts of violence and plans to carry out other acts of violence. There is no doubt that the Offender was a deeply radicalised person in 2016 who was committed to violent jihad in the cause of Islamic State.

305. The Offender’s refusal to stand at the sentencing hearing provided some insight into his attitudes. However, what was unexplained at the time of the hearing in March 2019 as to his refusal to stand in Court is now explained in his recent letter in a way which demonstrates the Offender’s rejection of the Australian democratic system (see [281]-[282], [290]-[291]).

306. I keep in mind that the Offender will be in custody for a lengthy period of time before being eligible for release on parole, so that there will be an opportunity for change (if he so wished) and for ongoing assessment by authorities of his behaviour and attitude whilst in custody. However, at the present time, his risk of reoffending is high and his prospects of rehabilitation are bleak. In this regard, the Offender’s substantial criminal history, albeit acquired at a young age, must also be taken into account and this does not assist the Offender.

The Offender’s Youth

307. Senior Counsel for the Offender submitted at the March 2019 hearing that substantial regard should be had to his youth at the time of the commission of these offences. Although the Offender was an adult at the time of the offences, being 19 years of age, it was submitted that the principles in BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 at [3]-[6] should apply here with respect to a person not much older than the age of adult responsibility.

308. The CDPP and the NSWDPP accepted that the Offender’s youth could be taken into account to an extent, but contended that the circumstances of these offences were very grave and reflected offences of a kind typically committed by adults.

309. I have regard to the Offender’s youth in determining sentence. He has a significant criminal history involving custodial sentences as a juvenile offender and an adult offender. I do not consider that the Offender’s youth provides any significant assistance to him on sentence given the gravity, variety and circumstances of the offences for which he stands to be sentenced.

310. The Offender’s criminal history does not assist him on sentence. There have been many occasions where non-custodial sentencing options were made available to him, but with the Offender breaching probation or other forms of conditional liberty and returning to custody. The Offender’s criminal history does not assist him with respect to his prospects of rehabilitation and likelihood of reoffending, except for the clear circumstance that he will be in custody for a very substantial period of time before he is eligible for release to parole at some time in the future.

311. The attitude of the Offender displayed in his recent letter to the Court suggests a considered approach to a serious issue written by a 22-year old man. He has had ample time since 2015 to consider his position in custody. If anything, the Offender’s attitude has hardened.

The Relevance of the New South Wales Offences Being Committed Whilst the Offender was in Custody

312. The offences under ss.27 and 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (in which Mr O’Keefe was the victim) and the offence under s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (in which Mr Severin was the intended victim) each constituted an “Offence against the Person” falling within Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

313. The offences against Mr O’Keefe involved offences against the person (both involving an assault) committed by the Offender whilst he was a convicted inmate of a correctional centre. Accordingly, the usual provision concerning concurrent and consecutive sentences contained in s.55 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) does not apply to these offences. Section 56(2) of that Act provides that a sentence imposed for each of these offences is to be served consecutively upon each other, and upon any sentence to which the Offender is subject when the sentences are passed, unless the Court gives a direction that the sentences are to be served concurrently, either wholly or in part.

314. The offence under s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) involved an offence against the person committed against a Corrective Services officer, Mr Severin. Accordingly, the sentence for the s.31 offence is to be served consecutively with an existing sentence of imprisonment and other sentences of imprisonment imposed in the present proceedings, unless the Court is of the opinion that there are special circumstances justifying a direction that the sentence be served concurrently, wholly or in part: s.56(3A) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

315. The rationale for these provisions is clear enough. In R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222, Basten JA (Price J agreeing) noted at [56](b), in the context of a serious offence of violence committed by one inmate against another whilst in custody, the importance of maintaining discipline within the prison system and protecting other offenders from criminal assaults by fellow inmates, a matter which is reflected in the general requirement for such offences to be the subject of cumulative sentences.

316. In R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241, the Court of Criminal Appeal (Meagher JA, Davies and Fagan JJ), in the context of a Crown appeal concerning a sentence imposed for a serious offence of violence committed by one inmate against another in custody, said at [9]-[10]:

“9   Accompanying the need to reflect total criminality is the Court’s concern to maintain public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. The concurrence ordered by his Honour, if allowed to stand, would undermine that confidence and give rise instead to a perception that a person who has committed a serious offence has escaped effective punishment: Regina v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 at [36] – [37]; Pannowitz v R [2016] NSWCCA 13 at [40]. A case such as the present involves an especially important factor relevant to general deterrence which must be taken into account in determining whether concurrence of any degree (and, if so, what degree) will be consistent with the imposition of a sufficient penalty overall. Namely, the sentence must effect sufficient general deterrence to demonstrate that violence and disorder between prisoners in custody will not be tolerated by the courts: R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751 at [33]; R v Hoskins [2004] NSWCCA 236 at [62] – [63]; R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 at [56].

10   This consideration was stated in these terms by Barr J in R v Fyffe at [33]:

‘It is particularly important that courts impose sentences calculated to deter the commission of offences in prison. Officers who administer prison communities are entitled to expect that inmates will be deterred from offending. Equally, inmates serving their sentences as best they may are entitled to as much protection as the courts can afford them’.”

317. Even where the case did not fall strictly within the terms of s.56(2), the Court in R v Jeremiah applied the policy of consecutive sentences at [12]:

“Full accumulation of the sentence in this case would be consistent with the legislative policy underlying s 56(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). That section provides that where a convicted inmate commits an offence against the person while serving a sentence of imprisonment yet to expire, his sentence for the offence committed in custody is to be consecutive upon the pre-existing term, unless otherwise ordered. The respondent was not a ‘convicted inmate’ at the time of the assault. Section 56 does not apply to him. But the full accumulation which the Court on this appeal considers appropriate is certainly not in tension with the objectives of s 56.”

318. In considering the “special circumstances” issue under s.56(3A), it is appropriate to take into account the nature of the s.31 offence which did not involve a direct physical attack upon a Corrective Services officer. That said, the Offender threatened to kill the most senior officer in Corrective Services NSW and he committed this offence whilst being an inmate in a correctional centre. The Offender made the threat to kill in an effort to deter Mr Severin from performing his duty as the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW.

319. I approach this issue upon the basis that there is no closed category of available “special circumstances” under this provision. It remains necessary to keep in mind the statutory purpose for this provision, and the need to guard against any inappropriate double counting when it comes to the question of “special circumstances” for the purpose of varying the ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence for the s.31 offence under s.44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

320. What is clear is that the terms of s.56 alter the usual approach to issues of concurrency and accumulation under s.55 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and the general law. It is necessary to apply the terms of s.56 on these issues in the circumstances of this case.

Statutory Factors to be Taken into Account on Sentence

321. It is necessary for the Court to have regard to a number of factors specified in s.16A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and ss.3A and 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). A number of these matters have already been referred to in these sentencing remarks.

322. The Court must have regard to the nature and circumstances of the Acts in Preparation Offence and the course of conduct involved: s.16A(2)(a) and (c). The s.101.6(1) offence in this case is an extremely serious one which lies at the high end of the scale of seriousness for offences of this type. It is a rolled-up count involving four phases of conduct by the Offender over a six-month period in which he planned the commission of terrorist acts against police officers or Corrective Services officers, both inside and outside prison.

323. With respect to the offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), I have made findings above concerning the substantial gravity of each of these offences (see [230]-[242]). The Court should ensure that the Offender is adequately punished for these offences: s.3A(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is necessary, as well, that the sentences for the offences against Mr O’Keefe recognise the harm to him and the community: s.3A(g).

324. The Court must ensure that the Offender is adequately punished for the Acts in Preparation Offence: s.16A(2)(k) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). With respect to that offence, I have referred earlier (at [223]) to sentencing principles to be called in aid to ensure that adequate punishment is imposed for that offence. One of the characteristics that distinguishes terrorism from other crimes involving violence (or the threat of violence) is that its object is to use serious violence (or the threat of it) as an instrument of coercion or intimidation of the community or governments, in the pursuit of a political, religious or ideological cause: R v Lodhi at [91]-[92]; Thomas v Mowbray at 338 [45]. This aspect must be kept in mind when determining adequate punishment for the Offender’s terrorism offence.

325. For reasons explained earlier, I am not satisfied that the Offender has displayed contrition or remorse: s.16A(2)(f); s.21A(3)(i).

326. I have considered earlier (at [243]-[250]) the approach to be taken to the Offender’s pleas of guilty and the discount to be applied in that regard: s.16A(2)(g); ss.21A(3)(k) and 22.

327. I have considered as well (at [251]-[269]) the approach to be taken to the Offender’s assistance to authorities by way of disclosure of matters to investigating police, and these aspects will be taken into account in the manner referred to earlier in these remarks: s.16A(2)(h); s.21A(3)(m) and s.23.

328. The Court must have regard to personal deterrence: s.16A(2)(j); s.3A(b). A significant element of personal deterrence is required having regard to the evidence before the Court concerning the Offender’s attitude to these offences both in the past and at the present time.

329. The Court must have regard to general deterrence: s.16A(2)(ja); s.3A(b). General deterrence is a very important factor to take into account on sentence for a terrorist offence. A high degree of general deterrence is to be reflected on sentence with the Offender’s s.101.6(1) offence. Likewise, general deterrence is a very important factor on sentence for offences of violence committed in the prison setting for reasons set out earlier (at [316]).

330. The Court must have regard to the character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition of the Offender: s.16A(2)(m). I have referred earlier to aspects of the evidence when considering the Offender’s subjective circumstances. The Offender was 19 years of age at the time of the offences. The youth of the Offender, whilst generally relevant, is to be given limited weight in light of the seriousness of the offences and the absence of any causal link between his age and his criminal conduct: R v Khalid [2017] NSWSC 1365 at [109], [270]; R v Alou (No. 4) at [170], [277]. This conclusion is reinforced by his continuing adherence to the beliefs which motivated the commission of these crimes.

321. The Court is required to consider the probable effect on the Offender’s family: s.16A(2)(p). It is well established that this aspect may be taken into account on sentencing an offender in an exceptional case. The evidence with respect to the Offender rises no higher than a level of upset and concern on the part of his parents arising from his commission of these offences and his imprisonment. As was conceded for the Offender at the hearing in March 2019, concerns of this type are inevitable where a person is sentenced to imprisonment.

322. The factors in s.16A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which I have referred to, in most respects, have corresponding provisions in ss.3A and 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), some of which I have mentioned. It may be taken that the Court has had regard to factors under the State legislation in a similar manner as referred to when considering corresponding matters arising under s.16A.

Other Statutory Matters

333. Section 19AG Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires the Court, in sentencing for a terrorist offence, to fix a non-parole period which is at least three-quarters of the head sentence. The operation of s.19AG should not result in a lower head sentence being imposed in an effort to ensure that a specific minimum term can be found to apply: R v Lodhi at [105]-[108].

334. The Court must impose a discrete sentence for the Commonwealth offence and apply State sentencing law in passing sentence for the State offences. When sentencing for Commonwealth and State offences, the Court must impose separate non-parole periods for the offences: s.19AJ Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

335. When sentencing for Commonwealth and State offences at the same time, the Court is required to direct when the Commonwealth sentence is to commence and must ensure that the Commonwealth sentence does not commence later than the end of the commencement of a sentence which has already been fixed: s.19(3)(c) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

336. I note that the provisions now contained in s.105A.23 Criminal Code (Cth) apply where a continuing detention scheme operates for high-risk terrorist offenders. It is a requirement of that provision that a sentencing court provide a warning to a person at the time of sentence of the existence and operation of that provision and I will do so. The existence of the continuing detention regime after the expiration of the sentence is not to be taken into account in the imposition of the sentence itself: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Besim (No. 3) (2017) 52 VR 303; [2017] VSCA 180 at [59].

337. An offence under s.27 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) is a “serious violence offence” for the purpose of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) so that in compliance with s.25C(1) of that Act, the Court is required to warn the Offender of the existence of that Act and its possible application in his case.

338. I will bear these various provisions in mind when imposing sentences for the various offences in this case.

Issues of Accumulation, Concurrency and Totality

339. With respect to the ss.27 and 33(1)(b) offences prosecuted by the NSWDPP, it was submitted for the NSWDPP and the Offender that the sentences for these offences may be made entirely concurrent. In this respect, it was argued that the Offender’s attack upon Mr O’Keefe constituted a single course of conduct with different features so as to give rise to two separate offences.

340. During the course of submissions, I made clear that I had trouble with this submission. Quite apart from the operation of s.56 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), it seemed to me that these offences should be approached upon the basis that there were two very serious crimes of violence committed against Mr O’Keefe during the course of a sustained and multifaceted attack upon him by the Offender.

341. A broad analogy may be drawn with a course of conduct where a sexual attack is made by an offender against a victim with various forms of sexual assault involving differing types of penetration being committed. As Senior Counsel for the Offender acknowledged during submissions, an element of accumulation is more than reasonably open in those circumstances.

342. There was an attack by the Offender upon Mr O’Keefe in the cell on this occasion, in a way which involved different offences of violence and different physical acts, which gave rise to different and very serious crimes. I do not consider that it is appropriate to proceed upon the basis that the sentences for these offences ought be entirely concurrent.

343. Working within the discretion allowed under s.56(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) there is substantial scope for the offences to be served other than consecutively. As flagged during the course of submissions, I am satisfied that the appropriate way to deal with these offences is by means of an aggregate sentence.

344. I am satisfied that a significant level of accumulation is required as between the aggregate sentence to be imposed for these offences and the separate sentence to be imposed for the offence under s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) prosecuted by the CDPP. This approach gives effect to s.56(2) and also the fact that there are separate victims of these offences against the person.

345. I am satisfied that special circumstances exist for the purpose of s.56(3A) justifying a direction that the sentence for the s.31 offence not be entirely consecutive in this case. In this regard, I have taken into account the nature of the offence, which does not involve an actual attack upon a Corrective Services officer, together with the totality principle to which I will turn shortly.

346. An element of partial accumulation is appropriate with respect to the Commonwealth offence in relation to the sentences to be imposed for the State offences.

347. Senior Counsel for the Offender acknowledged that a substantial total effective sentence would be passed in this case, but urged the Court not to impose a crushing sentence. In this regard, particular reference was made to the age of the Offender.

348. The totality principle is to be applied by a sentencing court, together with other statutory and common law factors and principles, in the process of instinctive synthesis leading to a value judgment comprising the determination of sentence. The totality principle requires the Court, where there is a series of offences, to review the total sentence and consider whether the aggregate sentence is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved. It has been said that the sentencing Judge should “take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong”, with this involving consideration of the totality of the criminal behaviour and a check as to whether the proposed sentence is appropriate for all of the offences: ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim 105 at 122-123; [2017] NSWCCA 132 at [69]-[70].

349. The totality principle serves to ensure that an offender is not subjected to a crushing sentence: ZA v R at 123 [71]. An assessment whether a particular sentence is a crushing sentence must have regard to the offences committed by the Offender, the maximum penalty and standard non-parole periods relevant to those offences and all objective and subjective factors which should be appropriately brought into account on sentence together with principles concerning accumulation, concurrency and totality: ZA v R at 125 [77].

350. It has been observed that an extremely long total sentence may be crushing upon an offender, in the sense that it may induce a feeling of hopelessness and destroy any expectation of a useful life after release, and that this effect both increases the severity of the sentence to be served and also destroys such prospects as there may be of rehabilitation and reform: R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159 at 164; [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [17]. A sentencing court must, however, take care when applying the totality principle, keeping in mind that public confidence in the administration of justice requires the Court to avoid any suggestion that what is in effect being offered is some kind of discount for multiple offending: R v MAK at 164-165 [18]. The principle of totality is directed to the broader question whether the total sentence is proportionate to the Offender’s overall criminality and is not dependent upon the subjective views of the Offender: ZA v R at 126 [81]-[82].

351. I have kept in mind these principles in applying the totality principle to the Offender in this case. On any view, a very substantial sentence of imprisonment is required given the number and gravity of his offences. At the same time, I have considered the total effective sentence to be imposed in the manner outlined in authorities which have discussed the totality principle.

Determining the Appropriate Sentences

352. I move now to determine the appropriate sentences. There needs to be reasonable proportionality between the sentences and the circumstances of the Offender’s crimes: R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 at 354. This brings into play all of the matters which I have considered so far in this judgment.

353. The Offender planned the commission of a terrorist act over a six-month period in 2015 and 2016. His initial plan was to attack police officers. He was not deterred from planning a terrorist act by being detained in a correctional centre. Indeed, he varied his plan so as to make a Corrective Services officer or officers the potential targets of the planned attack.

354. The Offender’s plans were not the subject of idle thoughts or fantasies. He prepared for an attack in prison, arming himself with a blade, rope and other items to permit an attack on a Corrective Services officer as Anzac Day 2016 drew near. When upset by nothing more than having an ex-serviceman in his cell, the Offender launched a ferocious and sustained attack upon Mr O’Keefe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and death to his unfortunate victim. The Offender was prepared to use weapons and other paraphernalia which he had gathered for a terrorist act to inflict a form of torture upon Mr O’Keefe. Although not a terrorist act, it was a hateful and cruel attack.

355. When transferred to the HRMCC at Goulburn, the Offender continued to plan for the commission of a terrorist act against police officers in the community.

356. In addition, in a display of supreme arrogance, he wrote to the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW threatening to kill him unless the Offender got his way.

357. Three years later, in his recent letter to the Court, the Offender has endorsed the beliefs and thought processes which led to these crimes. Even after sober reflection and the passage of years, the Offender remains fixated by the perverse and criminal thought processes which operated at the time of the offences in 2015 and 2016.

358. In sentencing for the terrorism offence, the Court should keep in mind, as the Victorian Court of Appeal has observed, that the objective of terrorists is to “strike at the heart of our liberal, democratic and tolerant society” and that the actions of terrorists are “driven by a depraved and evil ideology and mentality which are anathema to the fundamental values of our nation” with their actions and underlying intent being “entirely morally bankrupt and totally cowardly”: DPP (Cth) v MHK (a pseudonym) at [61]-[62].

359. These observations have direct application to the Offender.

360. The Offender may see himself as a type of warrior for his cause. Nothing could be further from the truth. In sentencing a terrorist offender in Victoria earlier this year, Taylor J addressed the offender in terms that are apt to this Offender as well. Her Honour said that although that person’s “deeds and words, and the intention accompanying them” were “chilling”, they did not make the offender a “martyr” or “a beacon of Islam”. Rather, they made the person “an undistinguished criminal” who “should not mistake … passing notoriety for importance nor equate it with achievement”: R v Shoma [2019] VSC 367 at [6]. Later, Taylor J said (at [35]) that the person had “achieved nothing except … to make [herself] an insignificant criminal of transitory notoriety, notwithstanding [her] adherence to a now defunct caliphate and its unmasked falsehoods”.

361. Similar comments are appropriate concerning the Offender. He is a sad, but dangerous criminal with fixed views which place at risk persons who may be around him. The protection of the community is a central factor on sentence in this case.

362. With respect to the offences committed against Mr O’Keefe contrary to ss.27 and 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), having regard to the objective gravity of these offences and the subjective circumstances of the Offender, together with other factors and principles which I have outlined in these remarks, and having applied the discounts allowed for the Offender’s pleas of guilty and assistance, I state the following indicative sentences for the purpose of the process of aggregate sentencing (after some rounding):

1. with respect to the s.27 offence, after applying a 25% discount, imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of seven years and six months;

2. for the s.33(1)(b) offence, after applying a 15% discount, imprisonment for 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and six months.

363. The aggregate sentence to be imposed for these offences under s.53A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is a sentence of imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. I have declined to make a finding of special circumstances for the purpose of s.44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 with respect to this sentence.

364. For the offence under s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) prosecuted by the CDPP, after taking into account all relevant factors and principles and before applying the 20% discount, the head sentence will comprise imprisonment for eight years. After applying the 20% discount (after some rounding), the head sentence will be one of imprisonment for six years and three months with a non-parole period of four years and seven months. Once again, I have declined to make a finding of special circumstances for the purpose of s.44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

365. For the Acts in Preparation Offence, after taking into account all relevant factors, but before applying the 25% discount, the head sentence will be one of imprisonment for 27 years. After applying the 25% discount (with some rounding), the head sentence will be one of imprisonment for 20 years. Applying s.19AG Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the non-parole period for this sentence will be one of 15 years.

366. Having regard to the provisions in s.56 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and the totality principle, I am satisfied that the sentence for the s.31 offence should commence first. The aggregate sentence for the ss.27 and 33(1)(b) offences should commence four years later. The sentence for the Acts in Preparation Offence should commence 10 years later, being 14 years after the commencement of the sentences for the s.31 offence.

367. I accept the submission of the NSWDPP that the first sentence should commence on 19 August 2018. The Offender was serving a sentence of imprisonment up to 18 August 2018 and since that date has been in custody, bail refused, for the State offences.

368. The total effective sentence will comprise imprisonment for a period of 34 years with a non-parole period of 29 years commencing on 19 August 2018.

369. I am satisfied that an effective non-parole period of 29 years is the minimum period that the Offender should spend in custody in order to appropriately reflect the criminality involved in his offences and having regard to the principles of sentencing: R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 at 718; [2001] NSWCCA 534 at [63]-[65].

370. I am conscious that the parole component of the total effective sentence comprises five years only. I am satisfied however, that this is a sufficient period in all the circumstances of the case.

371. For the purpose of s.105A.23 Criminal Code (Cth), I warn the Offender that an application may be made under Division 105A of the Criminal Code (Cth) for a continuing detention order requiring him to be detained in a prison after the end of the sentence for the offences.

372. In addition, I warn the Offender that an application may be made under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) for his continuing detention as his offences include a “serious violence offence” for the purposes of that Act.

373. Bourhan Hraichie, for the offence under s.31 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), you are convicted and I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of six years and three months comprising a non-parole period of four years and seven months commencing on 19 August 2018 and expiring on 18 March 2023 with a balance of term of one year and eight months commencing on 19 March 2023 and expiring on 18 November 2024.

374. For the offences under ss.27 and 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), you are convicted and I sentence you to imprisonment by way of an aggregate term of imprisonment for a period of 20 years comprising a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 19 August 2022 and expiring on 18 August 2037 with a balance of term of five years commencing on 19 August 2037 and expiring 18 August 2042.

375. For the offence under s.101.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth), you are convicted and I sentence you to imprisonment for a term of 20 years comprising a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 19 August 2032 and expiring on 18 August 2047 with a balance of term of five years commencing on 19 August 2047 and expiring on 18 August 2052.

376. The earliest date upon which you will be eligible for consideration for release on parole is 19 August 2047.

377. As the last sentence to come into effect is the sentence for the Commonwealth offence, I am required by s.16F Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to explain the purpose and consequence of the fixing of the non-parole period for that offence. The total effective sentence which I have just imposed on you entails a period of imprisonment of not less than 29 years from 19 August 2018, being a period expiring on 18 August 2047. After that time, if you are considered suitable to be released on parole, you will serve the balance of your sentence in the community. During that period, you will be subject to various conditions and you will be subject to supervision. If you do not comply with any of the conditions imposed or the reasonable requirements of your supervisor, you are liable to be returned to custody for the balance of your sentence.

**********

Amendments

14 August 2019 - [227] – On the application of counsel appearing for the Offender at the sentencing hearing in March 2019, and with the consent of counsel who appeared for each of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director for Public Prosecutions for New South Wales at the sentencing hearing, this paragraph has been amended to more accurately reflect the submission made on behalf of the Offender at that hearing.

Decision last updated: 14 August 2019