Legal Research
Cases
R v Shoma

R v Shoma

Case [2019] VSC 367 5 June 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 0211

THE QUEEN
v
MOMENA SHOMA	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 January 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 June 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Shoma
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 367

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally engage in a terrorist act – Offender entered Australia with express purpose of committing a terrorist act in the name of Islamic State – Pre-determined that form of terrorist act would be knife attack – Knife brought to Australia for that purpose – Terrorist act carried out within eight days of arrival – Offender stabbed sleeping victim in the neck – Offender expressed the hope that the victim would die – Plea of Guilty – Paramount importance of protection of the community, denunciation and general deterrence – No renunciation of ideology – No remorse – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Prospect of deportation not significantly mitigating – Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288 considered – Application of sentencing principles identified in R v Alou (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 221 – Criminal Code (Cth) ss 101.1(1), 105A.23 – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A, 16E, 16F, 19AG – Criminal Code (Terrorist Organisation Islamic State) Regulations 2017 (Cth) – Sentence of 42 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 31 years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S McNaughton SC, Commonwealth DPP, with Mr D Renton	Andrea Pavleka, Solicitor to the Commonwealth DPP
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC with Ms G Morgan	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Momena Shoma, you have pleaded guilty to intentionally engaging in a terrorist act.

On 9 February 2018, some eight days after you had arrived in Australia on a student visa, you stabbed Roger Singaravelu in the neck with a knife you had brought with you to this country intending to use it in a terrorist act. Your attack upon Mr Singaravelu was done with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, and with the intention of coercing or influencing by intimidation a government of this country or another, or part of this country or another, and/or intimidating the public or a section of the public.

The maximum penalty for engaging in a terrorist act is life imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

Mr Singaravelu always intended to remember 9 February 2018. It was to be the last weekday he shared an afternoon nap with his five year old daughter before she started school. He now remembers not a cherished milestone of his daughter’s childhood, but being woken by you, kneeling beside him, stabbing him in the neck and yelling Allah Akbar.[1] The physical force of your attack was such that the knife became embedded in and fractured Mr Singaravelu’s spine.
[1]Meaning God is the greatest.

His terror for himself and his young child at that moment is beyond imagining. But you wanted precisely…

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 Shoma

Details

AGLC: R v Shoma [2019] VSC 367
Case: [2019] VSC 367
Decision Date: 5 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Shoma, the defendant stood trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the intentional commission of a terrorist act in the name of the Islamic State. Shoma had travelled to Australia with the clear intention of carrying out a terrorist attack, specifically planning to stab a person with a knife he had brought with him. Within eight days of his arrival, Shoma carried out his plan, stabbing a sleeping victim in the neck and expressing hope that the victim would die. The offender pleaded guilty to the charges.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence in light of the principles of criminal law, particularly the need to protect the community, denounce the offender's actions, and ensure general deterrence. The court considered factors such as the offender’s premeditation, the lack of renunciation of his ideology, the absence of remorse, and his poor prospects for rehabilitation. The potential for deportation was deemed not to significantly mitigate the severity of the crime.

In delivering judgment, the court emphasised the paramount importance of community protection and deterrence. The offender's lack of remorse and continued adherence to his ideological beliefs further underscored the need for a substantial custodial sentence. The court applied the principles identified in Guden v The Queen and R v Alou (No 4), ultimately imposing a sentence of 42 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 31 years and six months. This sentence was deemed necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to achieve the overarching aims of sentencing in such cases.

The court ordered that Shoma be imprisoned for 42 years, with a non-parole period of 31 years and six months. This sentence was reflective of the need to uphold the principles of community protection, denunciation, and deterrence, while also taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders