1. The offender is convicted of the offence of doing acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act or acts.
2. The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years commencing on 12 October 2016 and expiring 11 October 2032.
3. I specify a non-parole period of 12 years imprisonment commencing on 12 October 2016 and expiring on 11 October 2028.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Doing acts in preparation for a terrorist act – Offender arrested in possession of knives and camouflage clothing – Steps taken by offender in an effort to conceal the knives – Where offending motivated by an adherence to extremist ideology – Where the commission of a terrorist act was imminent at the time of the offender’s arrest – Necessity to impose a sentence which would denounce the offending and protect the community – Necessity for general deterrence
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Doing acts in preparation for a terrorist act – Where offender 16 years of age at the time of the offending – Serious offending – Adult like behaviour – Relevance of youth on sentence – Consideration of the extent of the mitigatory effect of youth in cases of serious offending
CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Where self-represented offender waived his right to be present at sentence hearing – Determination that the hearing should proceed – Principles to be applied
CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and procedure – Amicus Curiae – Where offender’s father sought to appear for the offender on sentence – Where the offender did not wish his father to appear – Principles governing leave to a person to appear as Amicus Curiae
[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 We (No.19)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v We (No.19) [2020] NSWSC 1569
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1569
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case, the defendant, a minor at the time of the offence, was arrested while in possession of knives and camouflage clothing. The knives were concealed, and the defendant's actions indicated that he was preparing for a terrorist act. The defendant's adherence to extremist ideology and the imminent nature of the planned terrorist act at the time of his arrest were key factors in the case. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that would denounce the defendant's actions, protect the community, and provide general deterrence, while also considering the defendant's age and the mitigating effect of youth in cases of serious offending.
The court addressed several legal issues, including the need to impose a sentence that would adequately denounce the defendant's actions and the mitigating effect of the defendant's youth. The court also considered the principles to be applied in sentencing a minor who had engaged in adult-like behaviour and the relevance of the defendant's age in determining an appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court examined the principles governing leave to a person to appear as amicus curiae, as the defendant's father had sought to appear on his behalf but the defendant did not wish for his father to do so.
The court determined that the defendant's actions constituted serious offending, warranting an adult-like sentence. However, the court also considered the mitigating effect of the defendant's youth and the fact that he was 16 years old at the time of the offence. The court found that the defendant's adherence to extremist ideology and the imminent nature of the planned terrorist act at the time of his arrest warranted a sentence that would denounce his actions and protect the community. The court also determined that the sentence hearing should proceed, despite the defendant's decision to waive his right to be present. The court further found that the defendant's father did not have leave to appear as amicus curiae, as the defendant did not wish for his father to do so.
The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offending, the need for denunciation, and the mitigating effect of the defendant's youth. The court also ordered that the sentence hearing proceed in the defendant's absence and that the defendant's father not be allowed to appear as amicus curiae. The court's decision emphasised the importance of imposing a sentence that would adequately address the defendant's actions and provide general deterrence, while also considering the mitigating effect of the defendant's youth.