Legal Research
Cases
R v Mohamed

R v Mohamed

Case [2019] VSC 498 24 July 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0068

S CR 2018 0069
S CR 2018 0070

THE QUEEN

AHMED MOHAMED,
ABDULLAH CHAARANI
HATIM MOUKHAIBER

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	13 May, 14 and 26 June 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 July 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mohamed, Chaarani & Moukhaiber
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 498 (Revised on 25 July 2019)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Engaging in and attempting to engage in a terrorist act – Shia mosque destroyed by fire, after earlier unsuccessful attempt by two offenders – All three offenders Sunni Muslim adherents to ideology of Islamic State – Crimes carried out to advance ideology of Islamic State and to intimidate Shia Muslims – Strength of adherence to ideology – No acceptable evidence of de-radicalisation – Serious terrorist offences – Important sentencing purposes – Sentences of 22 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years for Mohamed and Chaarani – Sentence of 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years for Moukhaiber.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr N Robinson QC with Mr A Sim	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Mohamed	Mr J Kelly SC with Mr M Page	Leanne Warren and Associates
For the Accused Chaarani	Mr P Tehan QC with Mr L Richter	James Dowsley and Associates
For the Accused Moukhaiber	Ms F Gerry QC with Mr J Anderson	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Ahmed Mohamed, Abdullah Chaarani and Hatim Moukhaiber, early in the morning of 11 December 2016, motivated by hatred, intolerance, malevolence, and misguided piety, the three of you went by cover of night into a place of religious worship in a suburb of Melbourne, intent on destroying it by fire. You comprehensively achieved your aim, deriving, so it seems, great satisfaction from the outcome. The crime you committed on that morning was motivated by a strong belief in extreme views which have no place in this or in any civilized society. Your particular purposes were to advance what to most sensible people can only be seen as being a perverse ideology, and more particularly, to strike a blow against, and to intimidate and cause terror to, Shia Muslims. Stated thus, your crime was a heinous one. However, there is more to it than that. What you did reflected an attack upon a fundamental value in our society, namely, religious freedom, an attack upon the conventions and beliefs that all Australians hold dear, and indeed, an attack upon this society itself, a society under whose protection and sharing whose benefits you have lived throughout your lives in Australia. Looked at rationally, your crime is very difficult to understand, and quite impossible to excuse.

You have all been found guilty by a jury of offences connected with terrorist attacks upon the Imam Ali Islamic Centre, (‘the mosque’), a Shia Islamic community prayer and religious centre located at 90…

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 Mohamed

Details

AGLC: R v Mohamed [2024] VSC 788
Case: [2019] VSC 498
Decision Date: 24 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mohamed involved three defendants who engaged in serious terrorist activities targeting a Shia mosque in Australia. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for Mohamed, Chaarani, and Moukhaiber, all of whom were Sunni Muslims adhering to the ideology of the Islamic State. Their actions included the destruction of a Shia mosque by fire, following a previous unsuccessful attempt by two of the offenders. The defendants' crimes were committed to advance the ideology of the Islamic State and to intimidate Shia Muslims. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the offenders' adherence to the ideology, and the lack of evidence of de-radicalisation.

The court addressed several legal issues, including the significance of the adherence to the ideology of the Islamic State, the importance of the sentencing principles, and the specific circumstances of each offender. It was necessary to weigh the gravity of the terrorist offences against the offenders' personal characteristics and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. The defendants' strong adherence to the ideology and the absence of any evidence of de-radicalisation played a crucial role in determining the sentences.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the terrorist offences and the importance of general and specific deterrence. The court found that the offenders' actions posed a significant threat to the community and that their strong adherence to the ideology of the Islamic State made it unlikely that they could be rehabilitated. Consequently, the court imposed sentences of 22 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years for Mohamed and Chaarani, and a sentence of 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years for Moukhaiber. The sentences reflected the need to uphold the rule of law, protect the community, and deter similar offences in the future.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of the aforementioned sentences for each of the three offenders. The court also noted that the sentences were to be served concurrently, reflecting the joint nature of the criminal activities. The offenders were to be subject to the standard conditions of parole, including supervision and restrictions on their activities, to ensure the safety and security of the community.

Orders