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
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Hraichie (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hraichie (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 973
Case
[2019] NSWSC 973
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Hraichie, was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for four serious criminal offences committed in 2015 and 2016. Hraichie pleaded guilty to preparing for or planning terrorist acts against Australian law enforcement officers in support of the Islamic State, threatening to kill the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW, and two violent assaults on fellow inmates. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on Hraichie. The appeal focused on the appropriate assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences, the offender's age at the time of the crimes, his entrenched views in support of violent jihad, the lack of contrition, and the importance of denunciation, protection of the community, and deterrence in sentencing.
The court had to determine whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and whether the trial judge appropriately balanced the principles of denunciation, protection of the community, and specific and general deterrence. The court also considered the issues of accumulation and totality in sentencing for offences committed in a correctional centre. It was necessary to assess the total effective sentence of 34 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 29 years to ensure it was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the relevant legal principles, the court upheld the original sentence. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, taking into account the offender's age at the time of the crimes, his entrenched views in support of violent jihad, and the absence of contrition. The court also determined that the sentence appropriately balanced the principles of denunciation, protection of the community, and deterrence. The total effective sentence of 34 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 29 years was deemed to be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.