R v Mo (No 1)

[2016] NSWDC 144

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v MO (No 1) [2016] NSWDC 144
Hearing dates:	29 January 2016
Date of orders:	29 January 2016
Decision date:	29 January 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	For all three offences I sentence the offender to imprisonment to date from 23 December 2014. I set a head sentence of two and a half years imprisonment but the offender is to be released pursuant to a reconnaissance release order after serving 18 months. Thus that means that the offender is to be released on 22 June 2016.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Breach Control Order – Terrorism offence
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown MO
Representation:	Counsel: T Anderson – Crown Mr P Lange- Offender   Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Hanna Legal - Offender
File Number(s):	2014/376830
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the name of the offender or of any material which may tend to identify the offender

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: Few in the community would be unconcerned by the prospect of terrorist acts taking place within Australia. The Commonwealth parliament has responded in a number of ways to the increasing threat of terrorism. One particular way of particular relevance to today’s proceedings is the introduction of provisions concerning control orders to which citizens can be subject by which means their behaviour can be controlled in an effort to protect members of the public from terrorist acts.

2. In this case the offender MO was subject to an interim control order. He has breached it, he admits, in three ways. He was served with the control order on 18 December 2014 it having been made the day before. One of the terms of the control order expressly prohibited the offender from using a mobile telephone service that had not been approved by the Joint Counter-Terrorism Team. Another term of the control order expressly prohibited the offender from using a public telephone service that had not been approved by the Joint Counter-Terrorism Team.

3. It is clear that the offender knew and understood the requirements of those orders because four days after being served with the order he obtained permission from the Joint Counter-Terrorism Team to use a particular telephone service, that permission was granted. So when the offender breached the control order by using a public telephone on two occasions, one very shortly after the other, and by using a mobile telephone on another occasion he was fully aware that he should not be doing so. He explains his behaviour now as by saying that he was simply naïve. Clearly he did not take the control order seriously, nor it would seem the fact that he was at liberty on bail when he committed the offences for which I must now sentence him.

4. The offender called the same person on each occasion and as the Crown concedes the contents of the discussions between them were trivial. We know that because fortunately procedures were in place which…