Legal Research
Cases
R v Khan (No 11)

R v Khan (No 11)

Case [2019] NSWSC 594 5 June 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Khan (No 11) [2019] NSWSC 594
Hearing dates: 23 May 2019
Date of orders: 05 June 2019
Decision date: 05 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) The offender is convicted.

(2)   The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 36 years, commencing on 10 September 2016 and expiring on 9 September 2052.

(3)   I specify a non-parole period of 27 years imprisonment, commencing on 10 September 2016 and expiring on 9 September 2043.

(4)   The offender will be eligible for parole on 10 September 2043 and his sentence will expire on 9 September 2052.

(5) Pursuant to s 16F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) I explain to the offender that service of the sentence of imprisonment I have imposed will entail period of imprisonment of not less than 27 years and, if a parole order is made, a period of service in the community in order to complete service of the sentence.

(6) Pursuant to s 16F of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) I further explain to the offender that if a parole order is made, it will be subject to conditions, it may be amended or revoked and that if the offender fails, without reasonable excuse, to fulfil those conditions, he may be returned to custody.
(7) Pursuant to s 105A.23 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) I warn the offender that an application may be made under Division 105A of the Code for a continuing detention order requiring him to be detained at the end of his sentence.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Where the offender pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental illness to the commission of a terrorist act – Where the offender was found guilty by a jury – Where the terrorist act involved a stabbing attack – Where the offender had specifically targeted the victim – Where the offending was planned – Where the offender intended to kill the victim – Offender motivated by extreme ideology – Consideration of principles applicable to sentencing for terrorism offences – Necessity for severe punishment

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Practice and procedure – Use of victim impact statements in sentencing federal offenders – Where statements provided by persons who witnessed the offending and who intervened to assist the victim were tendered by the Crown – Whether such statements were properly received in evidence – Whether those persons were properly regarded as victims of the offending

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Where the offender suffered from mental illness – Where mental illness not causally related to the offending – Impact of mental illness on the question of general deterrence

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Where sworn evidence was given by the offender expressing his remorse for the offending and renouncing his previously held extremist ideology – Where offender gave evidence of having previously lied to doctors about that ideology…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Khan (No 11)

Details

AGLC: R v Khan (No 11) [2019] NSWSC 594
Case: [2019] NSWSC 594
Decision Date: 05 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Khan involved the sentencing of the respondent, Khan, who was found guilty by a jury of a terrorist act involving a stabbing attack in Australia. Khan had pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, a plea which was rejected by the jury. The offender had specifically targeted the victim, and the attack was both planned and intended to be fatal. Khan's motivation was rooted in an extreme ideology, leading to the need for the court to consider principles applicable to sentencing for terrorism offences, with a particular emphasis on the necessity for severe punishment.

The legal issues before the court included the proper application of sentencing principles to terrorism offences, the admissibility of victim impact statements from witnesses who intervened during the attack, and the impact of Khan's mental illness on his sentencing, particularly in relation to general deterrence. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect of Khan's sworn evidence expressing remorse and renouncing his extremist ideology on his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court held that the principles of sentencing for terrorism offences required a severe punishment, given the gravity and premeditated nature of the attack, as well as Khan's ideological motivation. The court found that the victim impact statements were properly received in evidence, as the persons who provided them were considered victims of the offending. The court also determined that Khan's mental illness, while not causally related to the offence, did not negate the need for severe punishment but could be considered in assessing his prospects for rehabilitation. The court accepted Khan's evidence of remorse and renunciation of his extremist ideology, finding it had a positive impact on his rehabilitation prospects.

The final orders of the court included a sentence reflecting the severity of the offence and Khan's ideological motivation, along with consideration of his mental health in the context of his rehabilitation prospects. The court's decision underscored the importance of deterring such acts and promoting the rehabilitation of offenders within the framework of terrorism sentencing principles.

Orders