R v Sulayman Khalid; R v Jibryl Almaouie; R v IM; R v Mohamed Rashad Al Maouie; R v Farhad Said [2017] NSWSC 1365
Hearing dates:
3, 4, 5 and 6 October 2017
Date of orders:
03 November 2017
Decision date:
03 November 2017
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Before:
Bellew J
Decision:
See [306]-[310]
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts – Intentionally making documents connected with the preparation for a terrorist act knowing of that connection – Possessing firearms – Serious offending – Offending underpinned by an adherence to extremist ideology – Necessity to impose a sentence which would denounce the offending and protect the community - Necessity for general deterrence
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts – Intentionally making documents connected with the preparation for a terrorist act knowing of that connection – Assessing prospects of rehabilitation in the absence of sworn evidence renouncing previously held extremist beliefs – Necessity to adopt a cautious approach to statements made to third parties which are not the subject of sworn evidence and thus not subject to cross-examination
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts – Offender 14 years of age at the time of the offending – Serious offending involving acquisition of firearms as part of the conspiracy – Adult like behaviour – Evidence of immaturity on the part of the offender – Relevance of youth on sentence – Consideration of the extent of the mitigatory effect of youth in cases of serious offending
[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 Khalid
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Khalid [2017] NSWSC 1365
Case
[2017] NSWSC 1365
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Khalid involved a young offender who was part of a conspiracy to carry out a terrorist act. The court was tasked with sentencing the offender on multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit acts in preparation for a terrorist act, making documents connected with the preparation for a terrorist act, and possessing firearms. The offender, who was 14 years old at the time of the offending, was described as exhibiting adult-like behaviour but also had evidence of immaturity. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offending, which was underpinned by an adherence to extremist ideology, with the offender's youth and potential for rehabilitation.
The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of the seriousness of the offending, the prospects of rehabilitation, and the appropriate sentence considering the offender's age. The court needed to determine the extent to which the offender's youth should mitigate the sentence, despite the gravity of the charges. The court also had to consider the necessity of imposing a sentence that would denounce the offending and protect the community, as well as the need for general deterrence.
In reaching its decision, the court highlighted the severity of the charges and the serious nature of the offending, which involved the acquisition of firearms as part of a terrorist conspiracy. The court acknowledged the offender's adherence to extremist ideology but adopted a cautious approach towards statements made by the offender to third parties that were not subject to sworn evidence and cross-examination. The court concluded that the seriousness of the offending and the need for denunciation and deterrence outweighed the mitigating effect of the offender's youth. It imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, aiming to both punish the offender and contribute to the protection of the community.
The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific considerations for rehabilitation and the potential for the offender's extremist beliefs to be renounced. The sentence also included provisions for the offender to be subject to certain conditions upon release, aimed at preventing any future involvement in terrorist activities. The court's decision underscored the balance between addressing the gravity of the offending and considering the offender's age and potential for rehabilitation.