For the offence contrary to s 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and taking into account the offence contrary to s 80.2C(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 6 years, backdated to commence on 23 May 2021 and to expire on 22 May 2027, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, to expire on 22 November 2025.
Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Terrorism offence – Doing acts in planning or preparation for terrorist acts – Advocacy of terrorism act/offence taken into account on 16BA schedule – Where offender has not resiled from belief system of violent jihad – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Catastrophic spinal cord injury suffered in custody – Impact of childhood deprivation and mental health diagnoses upon moral culpability
Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A,16BA, 16F, 17A, 19AG
Counsel: J Hannebery KC; R Taylor (Crown) R Wilson SC; R El-Choufani (Offender)
Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
File Number(s):
2021/46726
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: On 12 August 2023, Tukiterangi Lawrence (the offender) pleaded guilty to a count that between about 6 June 2019 and 1 October 2019 he did acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act or acts, contrary to s 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (the indictment offence). It is a “rolled up” count which encompasses the following two particulars, which I will refer to as “Particular (a)” and “Particular (b)”, that he:
Between about 6 June 2019 and 24 June 2019 at Goulburn in the State of New South Wales, intentionally did acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act or acts, namely an action or threat of action in Australia directed at Corrective Services NSW officers, which involved the offender attempting to recruit Witness A to obtain information about NSW Corrective Services officers upon Witness A’s release from prison; and
Between about 3 September 2019 and about 1 October 2019 at Goulburn in the State of New South Wales, intentionally did…
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 Lawrence
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Lawrence [2023] NSWSC 1428
Case
[2023] NSWSC 1428
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Lawrence, the appellant was sentenced for involvement in planning and preparing for terrorist acts. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the key issue was whether the primary judge had failed to adequately consider the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation in imposing a sentence under the Criminal Code. The appellant argued that his prospects of rehabilitation were significantly impacted by his spinal cord injury and the effects of childhood deprivation and mental health diagnoses.
The court examined whether the primary judge had adequately considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and whether the sentence imposed was unjust. The High Court held that the primary judge had appropriately assessed the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, taking into account his spinal cord injury, childhood deprivation, and mental health diagnoses. The court also noted that the appellant had not resiled from his belief system of violent jihad, which significantly impacted his moral culpability.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's involvement in planning and preparing for terrorist acts, his lack of genuine remorse, and the potential danger he posed to the community. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, but found that the primary judge had adequately assessed these factors in imposing the sentence.