Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 691 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):
19/04/06 - 19/06/06; 29/06/06; 13/07/06
JUDGMENT DATE :
23 August 2006
JUDGMENT OF:
Whealy J at 1
DECISION:
In relation to the second charge in the indictment I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 20 years commencing on 22 April 2004 and expiring on 21 April 2024. In relation to count 1 in the indictment, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of ten years. This sentence is to commence on 22 April 2004 and will expire on 21 April 2014. In relation to the third charge in the indictment, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of ten years. This sentence should commence on 22 April 2004 and expire on 21 April 2014. The sentences in respect of counts 1 and 3 are to be served concurrently with the sentence in relation to count 1 and with each other. In relation to the three sentences, I fix a single non-parole period in respect of those sentences for 15 years commencing on 22 April 2004 and expiring on 21 April 2019.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal proceedings - Sentence - Terrorism offences - need for deterrent sentence of some length to reflect seriousness of offences
R v Mallah per Wood CJ at CL [2005] NSWSC 317 at para [87] Roach [2005] WASCA 4 Queen v Boutrab [2005] NICC 36 Lamrani (February 2006) R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44 R v Abu Mansha (Guardian Unlimited 29 June 2006) R v Brownlow (2004) NSWCCA 465
PARTIES:
Regina v Faheem Khalid Lodhi
FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2005/1094
COUNSEL:
Mr R. Maidment SC; Mr. G. Bellew - Crown Mr P. Boulten SC; Mr P. Lange - Offender
SOLICITORS:
DPP (Commonwealth) - Crown Michael Doughty (Solicitor) - Offender
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL LIST
WHEALY J
WEDNESDAY 23 August 2006
2005/1094 - REGINA v Faheem Khalid LODHI
SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: On 19 June 2006 Faheem Khalid Lodhi (“the offender”) was found guilty by a jury in respect of three of the four charges on which he had been indicted. The three charges were as follows. First on or about 3 October 2003 at Sydney, the offender collected documents, namely two maps of the Australian electricity supply system, which were connected with preparation for a terrorist act, namely bombing part of the system, knowing the said connection.
2 Secondly, a charge that the offender, on or about 10 October 2003 intentionally did an act in preparation for a terrorist act, namely he sought information concerning the availability of materials capable of being used for the manufacture of explosives or incendiary devices.
3…
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 Lodhi
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 691
Case
[2006] NSWSC 691
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Lodhi involved the defendant, Lodhi, who was convicted of terrorism offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Lodhi, given the gravity of the charges against him.
The legal issue before the court was the extent to which the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the terrorism offences committed. The court considered the need for a deterrent sentence that adequately reflected the gravity of the crimes, while also taking into account any mitigating factors present in Lodhi's case. The court examined the principles of sentencing for terrorism offences, as well as the specific circumstances of this case.
In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that not only punishes the offender but also serves as a deterrent to others who might consider engaging in similar activities. The court found that the offences committed by Lodhi were of a significant nature and warranted a sentence of some length. The court also considered various mitigating factors presented but ultimately concluded that the seriousness of the offences necessitated a custodial sentence. The court sentenced Lodhi to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the need for a deterrent sentence that aligned with the gravity of the terrorism offences.
The final orders of the court included the sentencing of Lodhi to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length and conditions of the sentence provided in the judgment.