R v Musleh

R v Musleh - [2018] NSWSC 1927 - NSWSC 2018 case summary — Zoe

[1]

Introduction

On 6 August 2018, Muhammad Abdul-Karim Musleh (the offender) pleaded guilty to an offence against s 7(1)(e) of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth) (the Act) of performing services to promote or support foreign hostile activities (the Principal Offence). The maximum penalty for the offence is 10 years' imprisonment. All references in these reasons to legislation are, unless otherwise indicated, references to the Act.
The indictment charged the offence against s 7(1)(e) as follows: "Between about 13 June 2013 and 11 July 2013, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, the Republic of Turkey and elsewhere, did perform services for other persons, namely Caner Temel (also known as Abu Musa), Mehmet Biber (also known as Abu Abdul Malik) and Tyler Casey (also known as Abu Qaqa) with the intention of supporting or promoting the commission of offences against section 6 of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 (Cth), being the entry by those persons into a foreign State, namely the Syrian Arab Republic, with intent to engage in a hostile activity in that foreign State, namely, engaging in armed hostilities."
The services which the offender performed helped progress the movement of Caner Temel (Temel), Mehmet Biber (Biber) and Tyler Casey (Casey) from Sydney to the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) via Turkey. The services included arranging air tickets, meetings, hotels and foreign currency exchanges as well as liaising with those who were to meet the group at the border between Syria and Turkey and with Hamdi Alqudsi (Alqudsi) who was in Sydney.
A form was filed pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which gave particulars of another Federal offence, against s 7(1)(a) of the Act: that between about 13 June 2013 and 11 July 2013 the offender did acts preparatory to the commission of an offence against s 6 of the Act, being the entry into a foreign State, Syria, with intent to engage in hostile activity in that foreign State, namely, engaging in armed hostilities (the Form Offence). The act of preparation was travelling from Australia to Turkey with intent to engage in armed conflict. The offender has requested that I take into account the Form Offence, when imposing the sentence for the Principal Offence.
As sentencing judge, I may not take facts, other than the agreed facts, into account in a way that is adverse to the interests of the offender unless the facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, if there are circumstances which I propose to take into account in favour of the offender, it is sufficient that they be proved on the balance of probabilities: The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ). There are other matters which can be taken into account in sentencing, or which form part of the narrative, which do not fall into either category: Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629; [2003] HCA 14 at [19]-[24] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[6]

The background to the journey

On 10 April 2013 Baryalei flew from Sydney to Istanbul via Toyko. He has not yet returned (and may be dead). On 13 June 2013, Alqudsi received a text message from an associate, Wasim Fayad, which listed names and phone numbers of 13 men whom Fayad described as "the brothers that I have[,] God willing". The list included the offender, Biber and Temel. Temel phoned Alqudsi on 17 June 2013 telling him that he had "good news . . . in regards to tourism". I infer that the reference to "tourism" was a reference to travel to Syria.
On 19 June 2013 Biber applied for an Australian passport and nominated Temel as his guarantor.
On 22 June 2013 Alqudsi phoned Baryalei who told him that he had "got back yesterday". In the course of the conversation, Baryalei described a battle in which several men had died. He referred to a sniper, tanks, bullets and roadside traps.
On 25 June 2013 Alqudsi rang Baryalei in Syria and told him that he had "four brothers" coming that week who would meet up in Istanbul and travel together to Hatay. The "four brothers" included Temel, Biber and Casey but not at that stage the offender. In the course of that conversation, Baryalei handed the phone to another man, Abdeen, who advised Alqudsi that when the men arrived in Bab Al-Hawa they should contact the Night Arrows Battalion through the AAS headquarters.
It was an agreed fact that, before he left Australia, the offender attended three shuras which took place at Minto Mosque and Alqudsi's residences at Helen's Park and Revesby. A "shura" is a consultation session. The purpose of these shuras was to discuss the travel arrangements for the journey to Syria. The first of the three meetings, at Minto Mosque, did not result in any discussion because of the lateness of the hour. Alqudsi suggested that they reconvene at his home later.
On 27 June 2013 Biber and Alqudsi spoke on the phone about the travel plans of the members of the group, including that Casey would be the first to leave on Saturday 29 June 2013. Shortly after these calls, Alqudsi rang Casey to tell him to "stick to the shura".
Later on 27 June 2013 Alqudsi rang the offender who told him that "the Turks [Temel and Biber] are registered for Monday and the American [Casey] is registered for Saturday". The offender told Alqudsi that he was planning to leave on Monday (1 July 2013) but the booking had not been confirmed. Alqudsi told the offender that he was having a shura the following evening at which he intended to introduce the offender to the others in the group. Alqudsi told the offender, "I'll put them under your command, Allah Willing, Okay?" to which the offender responded, "Allah willing, Allah willing." The offender told Alqudsi that he would go to the travel agent early the following day.
At about 11.13am on Friday 28 June 2013 the offender told Alqudsi on the phone that he needed the names of "the boys" and that they had to be ready to come to Liverpool that day to pay for their tickets or else they would lose the booking. The offender explained that there were "three vacancies for Monday" which were $400 cheaper than "our one". About half an hour later, Alqudsi phoned Temel to inform him that the offender was doing the booking for "three brothers", that the money for the tickets had to be delivered to the offender and that "he [the offender] is one of the boys . . . he's leaving with you". Shortly afterwards, Alqudsi rang the offender to find out exactly how much money he needed, to which the offender responded, "six, six". The offender stressed the urgency of the need for the full names and the money as the booking was only valid for 24 hours and the "bloke" (the travel agent) was not open the following day, which was a Saturday.
At the second shura, at Alqudsi's St Helen's Park residence, which I infer took place on the evening of 28 June 2013, there were several men present with Alqudsi, including the offender, Biber, Temel and Casey, each of whom confirmed their intention to go to Syria to fight. It was agreed that the offender would travel with Biber and Temel. The offender was appointed an emir, or commander, of the group.
Subsequently the group met at Alqudsi's Revesby residence for a third shura. There was further discussion about the travel plans and what the men would say if they were asked about their travel arrangements. Alqudsi reminded them that the offender was to be their emir.
At about 4.49pm on 29 June 2013, Alqudsi told Baryalei that he had "one" leaving that day (Casey) and four leaving on Monday (including the offender, Biber and Temel). Alqudsi informed Baryalei of the plan for the group to meet in Istanbul, fly to Hatay and go to Bab Al-Hawa where they would ask for the Night Arrows Battalion. Alqudsi told Baryalei that he had appointed the offender as the "travelling commander" until they reached Syria, at which point Baryalei would become their commander. Alqudsi and Baryalei spoke again about an hour later. In the course of their discussion, Baryalei told Alqudsi of his "main aim" to become a "martyr" "within a month or whatever". Alqudsi confirmed his appointment of the offender as the emir: "I'm sending you an Arab brother. He is the commander of the travelling, with the brothers, Abu Al-Hasan." Abu Al-Hasan was the offender's Kunya, or Arab nickname.
On 30 June 2013, Baryalei, who was in Syria, told Alqudsi that "the group" had split into two and that he did not know whether to join JAN or Islamic State.

[7]

The journey from Australia and the arrival in Turkey

On 29 June 2013 Casey left Australia for Turkey via Singapore. At about 4.49pm on 30 June 2013 Alqudsi learned that Casey had safely arrived in Turkey.
On 1 July 2013 Biber, Temel and the offender left Australia for Turkey via Singapore. At about 4.35pm on 2 July 2013 Alqudsi called the group in Turkey and spoke to each of the three men. Alqudsi asked the offender to send text messages to let him know of the group's movements (from Istanbul to Hatay and then to Bab Al-Hawa). Biber obtained advice from Alqudsi about changing money into different currencies. Alqudsi advised them to get Turkish, Syrian and US currency but more Syrian currency because "that's what you're going to be using most of the time inside".
On 3 July 2013 the offender called Alqudsi to report that they were about to board an aircraft to Hatay. Alqudsi informed him that Baryalei would be waiting for them at the airport. About three hours later the offender called Alqudsi to tell him that there was no one at the airport although Baryalei had told him that someone would be there to meet them. At almost 7pm on 3 July 2013, the offender told Alqudsi that they were expecting to be picked up and that he would let Alqudsi know when this had happened. Just before 8pm the offender phoned Alqudsi and told him that they were with "the brother" now, a man who identified himself as Abu Yeha. Alqudsi then spoke directly with Abu Yeha and later confirmed to the offender that Abu Yeha was "trustable".
A few minutes later, at about 8.09pm on 3 July 2013, Alqudsi phoned the offender and told him that Baryalei was waiting for them at Bab Al-Hawa. The offender reported to Alqudsi: "[T]he boys . . . there's not one look of fear in any of their faces . . . the boys are ready . . . they look beautiful and ready."
Alqudsi and the offender also discussed means of transport and changing money. Alqudsi told the offender that he was a "smart Mujahid" who should do whatever he thought best because "I trust you with the boys' lives . . . That's why Allah put you in that position."
At 8.57pm on 3 July 2013, the offender rang Alqudsi and told him that there was an Alawite on the bus who called the police but that when the police had searched the group, the police had let them go. Alawites are a sect of Shiite Muslims from which the Assad ruling family is descended. The offender told Alqudsi that they had lost their guide who was "rubbish" and asked him what they should do. Alqudsi instructed the offender that they should leave the area, go to a hotel room, and stay overnight and that he would advise him further. The offender confirmed that he would go to the airport and then to the Grand Ana hotel. Baryalei, who was working out how to get the men across the border to Syria, was informed of the group's movements.
At about 9.47pm on 3 July 2013 the offender rang Alqudsi to report on their location and what they planned to do. The offender told Alqudsi that he and Biber were going to change money. He hoped that they would not attract attention because he spoke Arabic and Biber spoke Turkish. Alqudsi again told the offender that there was a reason why Allah chose him (to be the emir) and reminded him of the importance of a shura, even if it lasted for no more than five seconds. Alqudsi instructed the offender that he should get the others to express their opinions and he should give his own opinion "as the commander" before finishing with prayers.
Shortly after midnight on 4 July 2013 Alqudsi sent a text to the group asking for the name of their hotel. A response was sent.
At about 12.33am on 4 July 2013 Biber rang Alqudsi. When Biber handed the phone to the offender, Alqudsi told the offender that he entrusted him with the task of sending a text to let him know "every step you take".
At about 4.51am on 4 July 2013 the offender rang Alqudsi to tell him that the group needed to leave Turkey as soon as possible because Biber's parents had alerted the police in Australia and the men feared that the Turkish authorities were looking for them. The offender told Alqudsi that the group was attracting attention in Turkey and that when they went into the street "everyone looks at us". The offender asked Alqudsi to get in touch with Baryalei to tell him and also to text the number of "the base" (in Syria) to Casey's phone so that they could try to ring direct to get someone to come and collect them. The offender told Alqudsi: "[W]e have all our money changed. We are ready to get up and leave, whenever. All our money is in US. We've accomplished that, okay, and . . . we had to do it very strategically."
At 4.59am on 4 July 2013 Alqudsi sent a text message to a Turkish number, which I infer was associated with the group to which the offender belonged, containing a Syrian number, which I infer was "the base".
Later on 4 July 2013 the offender reported to Alqudsi that they were "with the brothers now" on the border waiting to be picked up. Alqudsi asked him whether he was happy with the group he was in to which the offender replied that they were all happy and that it was "[o]ne of the best days of our lives". Alqudsi asked the offender whether "the brother" who would be picking them up would take them to Baryalei, to which the offender answered, "Yes, Allah willing". The group crossed the border into Syria on 4 July 2013.

[12]

The execution of search warrants and the criminal prosecutions of Alqudsi, Mohamed and Biber

On 3 December 2013 Alqudsi was arrested and charged with a number of offences contrary to s 7 of the Act. Search warrants were executed at various properties including his two homes. Mobile phones used by Casey's wife and Temel's sister contained a number of images of Casey, Temel and Biber wearing military style fatigues and Casey and Temel holding firearms. There was an image of a number of men dressed in black holding firearms around the rear of a utility vehicle. A copy of this image was found in one of Alqudsi's homes when the search warrant was executed. It was not suggested that the offender was depicted in any of these photographs, which were taken in Syria.
On 3 December 2013 Mohamed was arrested and charged. His trial was conducted by Lasry J before a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. On 13 October 2015 he was convicted after trial of three counts of doing acts preparatory to incursion into a foreign state with the intention of engaging in hostile activity in that state contrary to s 7(1)(a) of the Act. The relevant acts were applying for a passport; booking aircraft tickets for Turkey; and obtaining contact details from Alqudsi of a person who was to ensure Mohamed's safe passage from Turkey to Syria. After trial, Lasry J imposed three sentences of 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment each which resulted in a total term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months: R v Mohamed [2016] VSC 581.
In about February 2014, Biber, who had left Syria for Turkey, was detained by Turkish authorities and deported to Australia. He arrived in Australia on 9 February 2014. He was not arrested for almost three years.
On 12 July 2016 Alqudsi was convicted, after trial by jury, of seven counts contrary to s 7(1)(e) of the Act of performing services for others with the intention of supporting or promoting the commission of an offence against s 6 (entry by that person into a foreign State, namely Syria, with intent to engage in armed hostilities in Syria). Count 3 related to services provided to Biber; count 4 related to services provided to the offender; and count 6 related to services provided to Mohamed. For each of the offences of providing services to Biber (count 3) and Mohamed (count 6) respectively, Alqudsi was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years. For the offence of providing services to the offender (count 4), Alqudsi was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months. Alqudsi was sentenced to a total term of 8 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years: R v Alqudsi [2016] NSWSC 1227.
On 3 November 2016 Biber was arrested and charged with an offence against s 6(1)(a) of the Act of entering a foreign state, Syria, with intent to engage in hostile activity in that state, which carried a maximum penalty of twenty years' imprisonment. He remained in custody from the time of his arrest. On 27 April 2018, following his plea of guilty, Biber was convicted of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 9 months commencing on 3 November 2016 and expiring on 2 August 2021, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months: R v Biber [2018] NSWSC 535 (R v Biber (Sentence)). A Crown appeal against sentence was dismissed: R v Biber (CCA).

[17]

Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act

The Commonwealth Parliament passed the Act in 1978 to implement Australia's obligations following a series of United Nations resolutions which called on nation states to stop foreign fighters and those who assist them. Section 6 of the Act made it an offence to enter a foreign State for the purpose of engaging in armed hostilities or to engage in armed hostilities in a foreign state and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Section 7(1) of the Act provides: "7 Preparations for incursions into foreign States for purpose of engaging in hostile activities (1) A person shall not, whether within or outside Australia: (a) do any act preparatory to the commission of an offence against section 6, whether by that person or by another person; (b) accumulate, stockpile or otherwise keep arms, explosives, munitions, poisons or weapons with the intention of committing an offence against section 6, whether by that person or by another person; (c) train or drill or participate in training or drilling, or be present at a meeting or assembly of persons with intent to train or drill or to participate in training or drilling, any other person in the use of arms or explosives, or the practice of military exercises, movements or evolutions, with the intention of preparing that other person to commit an offence against section 6; (d) allow himself or herself to be trained or drilled, or be present at a meeting or assembly of persons with intent to allow himself or herself to be trained or drilled, in the use of arms or explosives, or the practice of military exercises, movements or evolutions, with the intention of committing an offence against section 6; (e) give money or goods to, or perform services for, any other person or any body or association of persons with the intention of supporting or promoting the commission of an offence against section 6; (f) receive or solicit money or goods, or the performance of services, with the intention of supporting or promoting the commission of an offence against section 6; (g) being the owner, lessee, occupier, agent or superintendent of any building, room, premises or place, intentionally permit a meeting or assembly of persons to be held in the building, room, premises or place with the intention of committing, or supporting or promoting the commission of, an offence against paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f); or (h) being the owner, charterer, lessee, operator, agent or master of a vessel or the owner, charterer, lessee, operator or pilot in charge of an aircraft, intentionally permit the vessel or aircraft to be used with the intention of committing, or supporting or promoting the commission of, an offence against paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f).
The only offence for which the offender is to be sentenced is the Principal Offence (s 7(1)(e)), although the Form Offence (s 7(1)(a)) is also to be taken into account in that sentence. I have, however, set out s 7(1) of the Act in full to show the range of offences which are covered by it. Neither the Principal Offence nor the Form Offence involved arms, vessels or any substantial degree of organisation unlike many of the offences that would fall within s 7(1). What the offender provided was himself, his capacity to speak Arabic, his willingness to fight, his loyalty to Alqudsi and his preparedness to travel from Sydney to Bab Al-Hawa and communicate with Alqudsi along the way. These were the attributes which he used in performing services for the other men and in preparing himself for entry into Syria to fight in the civil war.
Any judgment about the merits or otherwise of the relevant armed conflict is irrelevant to the criminality associated with offences under ss 6 or 7 of the Act: R v Biber (Sentence) at [93]; R v Biber (CCA) at [29].

[19]

The nature and circumstances of the offence

The facts relating to the Principal Offence and the Form Offence are set out above. The two offences were complete by the time the group which included the offender was ready to cross the border into Syria. The maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for an offence against s 7 is an important indication of the seriousness with which the Parliament views the provision of assistance and support to foreign fighters and preparation for entry to a foreign state with the intention of engaging in armed hostilities.
The offender had an association with Alqudsi, having met him at Charles Sturt University when they were enrolled in a course on Islam. Both Alqudsi and the offender had a Palestinian background. Alqudsi appears to have played a substantial role in grooming the offender and other young men and urging them to go to Syria to fight. On 28 June 2013 Alqudsi introduced the offender to Temel, Biber and Casey and appointed him their commander. The evidence does not reveal the reason for the appointment. I reject Mr Scragg's submissions as to the reason as no more than speculation unsupported by evidence.
The offender accompanied Biber and Temel on the flight from Sydney which left on 1 July 2013, joined Casey in Turkey and remained with the three men at least until they crossed the border into Syria on about 4 July 2013. Throughout this period the offender was an important, although not the sole, point of contact between Alqudsi, the other members of the group and those whom they were to meet. Although Alqudsi regularly spoke to the other members of the group, he entrusted the offender with the responsibility of informing him about the location of the men and their plans. The offender fulfilled that role. However, the men had recourse to Alqudsi for basic information, such as how much money to change into what currencies, as they had little idea what to do and relied on Alqudsi to direct them.
While the offender performed a useful role for the other men, what he actually did for them was relatively basic and largely involved telephoning Alqudsi and answering calls from Alqudsi. The offender's capacity to speak Arabic was thought to be useful to deflect attention from the group, particularly when the men were trying to change money and were fearful of being arrested before they crossed the border. In Turkey, the group was also assisted by the fact that Temel and Biber could speak Turkish. Mr Scragg submitted that the offender was "nothing more than Alqudsi's puppet". I reject this submission. Although the men's real commander was, until they met Baryalei, Alqudsi, the offender was Alqudsi's designated deputy and, as such, was no mere "puppet".
The offender was undoubtedly a willing participant in the journey. It is telling that, on 3 July 2013, when the group was near the border with Syria, the offender reported to Alqudsi that the boys had no fear and were "beautiful and ready" (for martyrdom).
I regard the objective seriousness of the offender's conduct as below the mid-range.

[20]

Immediate post-offence conduct

Although it is not material to the objective seriousness of the offending conduct, it is necessary to address what occurred after it was completed because of its bearing on other factors relevant to sentencing. I am satisfied that the offender crossed the border into Syria. I regard Alqudsi's report to Fayad in their conversation on 9 July 2013 that the offender went "in and in and in and in" as code for the offender's journey to Istanbul, Hatay, Bab Al-Hawa and, finally, Syria. I also regard Alqudsi's reference to what the offender "saw" as being a reference to a disturbing sight which made the offender decide to return home to Australia rather than fulfil his intention of fighting in the Syrian civil war. This is consistent with the length of the period between 4 July 2013 when the men reached the border and 8 July 2013 when the offender called Alqudsi to tell him that he was coming home. It is also consistent with the Letter of Apology in which the offender said: "But at no time did we think that we would be at the front-line fighting. As soon as I was exposed to this terror, I immediately felt scared and commenced my return to Australia."
I do not accept the first sentence of the extract. However the first sentence makes clear that "this terror" in the second sentence is the terror of front-line fighting. The offender has admitted in this extract that he was exposed to the terror of front-line fighting. In the circumstances, this can only have occurred within Syria itself. The evidence does not reveal the precise reasons for his decision to return. I reject Mr Scragg's submission that "with Alqudsi half a world away the offender broke free" as speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Further, the inference that the offender entered Syria is not a circumstance of aggravation since he has not been charged with an offence against s 6 (entering a foreign state with the intent of engaging in armed hostilities), which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment: The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 at 389 (Gibbs CJ); [1981] HCA 31. It is therefore not to be taken into account against the offender and does not increase the objective seriousness of his offending: Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17 at [29] (Bell and Keane JJ). It belongs to the category of the facts referred to in Weininger v The Queen at [20] which forms part of the narrative and, being neither mitigating nor aggravating, need not be proved to any particular standard.

[36]

Parity

Equal justice requires that, as between co-offenders, there should not be any marked disparity of sentence that gives rise to a justifiable sense of grievance: Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 at 301; [1997] HCA 26. Although the offender, Alqudsi, Biber and Mohamed were not convicted of the same offences, they were co-offenders to whom the principles of parity apply: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 at [30] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel). However, in applying parity principles, it is important to take account of the difference in the offences for which the relevant offender stood, or stands, to be sentenced. The Court is not, under the guise of parity principles, to engage in any review of prosecutorial discretion: Elias v The Queen; Issa v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ) at [30] and [35].
Although the parity principles apply in a broad sense to Mohamed (to whom Alqudsi also provided services, as charged in count 6 of Alqudsi's indictment) there can be no comparison between the sentence imposed for Mohamed's offences and the offender's Form Offence (for which no sentence is imposed). The prosecutor's discretion to include the s 7(1)(a) offence on a form under s 16BA of the Crimes Act rather than as a charge on the offender's indictment is not reviewable and diminishes the effect of parity principles, except with respect to the Principal Offence: Dunn v R [2018] NSWCCA 108 at [20]-[23]. Further, Lasry J found that he could not be satisfied, even on the balance of probabilities, that Mohamed had "fully renounced the religiously motivated desire of going to Syria to engage in hostile activities in that country": R v Mohamed at [39]. This is another point of distinction with the present case.
Alqudsi committed seven offences against s 7 of the Act, of which one related to services provided to the offender, another to services provided to Biber and another to services provided to Mohamed. Biber was sentenced for an offence against s 6 of the Act, which carries a maximum penalty twice that for s 7. The offender is to be sentenced for one offence against s 7(1)(e) and I am to take into account the Form Offence (against s 7(1)(a)) in imposing that sentence.
As the Crown accepted, there are significant differences between the offender's involvement and that of Alqudsi, Biber and Mohamed. Further, as referred to above, the manner of charging them has been different. Alqudsi's offending was more serious overall (and with respect to the particular offence involving services provided to the offender) than that of the offender although Alqudsi's offending did not involve his departure from Sydney. Biber pleaded guilty to a much more serious offence than the offence for which the offender pleaded guilty in satisfaction of the original indictment which gives rise to practical difficulties in making any meaningful comparison.
In June/July 2013, Alqudsi was almost 39 years old, Mohamed was almost 23, Biber was almost 21 and the offender was only 19. Alqudsi, as the older man, influenced and encouraged the three younger men (and others) to travel. The offender was the youngest of the co-offenders. Although the offender appears to have been significantly influenced by Alqudsi, I reject Mr Scragg's submission that Temel, Casey and Biber were "always more committed to Alqudsi and his cause than the offender" as speculative and lacking in evidence.
Subject to the reservations and qualifications referred to above, I have taken into account the sentences imposed on Biber, Alqudsi and Mohamed for the purposes of parity.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (41 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (34)

Cited By (2)