R v WE

R v Khalid and ors [2017] NSWSC 1365 R v Khazaal [2009] NSWSC 1015 R v Lodhi (2006) 199 FLR 364; [2006] NSWSC 691 R v Martin (1999) 1 Cr App Rep 477 R v Mokbel (2010) 30 VR 115; [2010] VSCA 11 R v Touma [2008] NSWSC 1475 R v Tran (2002) 4 VR 457; [2002] VSCA 52 R v WE (No. 13) [2020] NSWSC 225 R v WE (No.15) [2020] NSWSC 332 Taupati v R [2017] VSCA 106 The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 Williams v R (2012) 62 MVR 382; [2012] NSWCCA 286 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina - Crown WE - Accused Representation: Counsel: P McGuire SC and B Anniwell - Crown Accused - Self-represented

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) - Crown Accused - Self-represented File Number(s): 2016/305103 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 15A of the Children's Criminal Proceedings Act 1987 (NSW) there is to be no publication or broadcast of the name of the offender in any way that connects him to these proceedings.

INTRODUCTION

1. On 12 February 2020 WE (the offender) pleaded not guilty to an indictment in the following terms: Between about 6 October 2016 and 12 October 2016 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did jointly commit an offence with [HG], namely acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act (or acts).
2. The particulars of the terrorist act(s) included the following: The terrorist act (or acts) was (or were) to involve an action or threat of action, involving the use of a bladed weapon(s), that was or were to be done with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
3. On 7 April 2020 the offender was found guilty by a jury of the offence, which is contrary to ss 101.6 and 11.2A of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. Before turning to the issues which arise on sentence, it is necessary for me to address three matters, the first of which arose in the period leading up to the sentence hearing, and the remaining two of which arose on the day of the hearing.
2. In addressing these matters, it should be noted that part way through his trial the offender withdrew his instructions from both senior counsel and his solicitor, and thereafter represented himself. From that point onwards, the offender chose not to participate in much of the trial. That choice manifested itself in various ways, including repeatedly lying down on the floor of the dock out of the view of the jury, and refusing to answer questions put by the Crown Prosecutor in cross-examination, a circumstance which led to my determination that the offender should be referred to the Registrar for the consideration of the initiation of proceedings for contempt. [1]

The provision of submissions by the offender

1. Following the jury's verdict, I set a timetable for the filing of evidence and submissions for the purposes of the sentence hearing. When the offender did not comply with that timetable, I listed the matter for directions on 28 August 2020 to ascertain his position. When the matter came before me on that day, the offender initially refused to enter the AVL booth at the custodial facility at which he was being held. Having been brought into the booth by force, he deliberately remained off-camera and refused to engage in any discussion concerning the sentence proceedings, or more specifically, the provision of any evidence or submissions upon which he wished to rely.
2. I subsequently received a large volume of handwritten material from the offender, the vast majority of which is pejorative in nature and is of little assistance for the purposes of sentence. To the extent that any parts of it are relevant to any issue I have to determine, I have referred to them later in this judgment.

The offender's voluntary absence from the sentence proceedings

1. On the morning of the sentence hearing, I was informed by officers of the Department of Corrective Services that the offender had barricaded himself in his cell at the High Risk Management Correctional Centre (HRMCC) at Goulburn. This necessitated his removal from the cell by force so that he could be transported to Court. When the proceedings commenced, the offender refused to leave his holding cell. This necessitated him being physically carried into the courtroom by four Corrective Services officers who were thereafter required to restrain him physically in the dock, aided by the application of handcuffs.
2. Having been placed in the dock, the offender commenced to make various statements which included the following: [2] … I don't want to be in this false, corrupt Islamic phobic place, I want to go down… I don't want to be here--… I'm here for no reason you can take me down I don't want to be here. I don't want to be here… You can take me down. … This false trial and this whole frigging false place. … I'm done here.
3. When I asked the offender directly whether he wished to participate in his sentence proceedings, he responded: [3] Obviously I don't want to be in this-- … It's a false proceeding, I don't want to be here… Like I said … corruption, Islamic phobia, your false proceedings but I don't want to be here during it, I don't know… I wish to return to my cell.
4. At that point, I directed that the offender be returned to his previous custody where he remained for the duration of the sentence hearing.
5. Although the circumstances leading to the offender's return to custody, and his subsequent non-participation in the sentence hearing, will be self-evident, I consider it necessary to briefly state the reasons why I took the course that I did.
6. It is a fundamental principle that prima facie, the trial of any accused for an indictable offence must be conducted in his or her presence. [4] However, the application of that principle may be waived by an accused person. In R v Jones [5] Lander J (with whom Wicks and Prior JJ agreed) observed that it was open to a court to proceed in the absence of an accused person in circumstances where he or she had waived the right to be present, although his Honour cautioned that the discretion to proceed in that way should be exercised sparingly. I was mindful of the right of an offender to be present when I took the course that I did. However, it will be evident from the matters that I have outlined that the offender made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions that he did not wish to participate in the proceedings. In my view, his conduct amounted to an unequivocal waiver of his right to be present. [6]

The application by the offender's father to appear as amicus curiae

1. Following the offender's return to custody, his father, who was present in Court, indicated that he wished to appear for the offender. [7] The Crown did not oppose that course, following which the offender's father was provided with a copy of the entirety of the material which the Crown proposed to tender.
2. In the course of a subsequent exchange with the Crown, I made reference to a medical report relating to the offender to which senior counsel who previously appeared for him had referred in the course of the trial, and which was said to record diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Crown did not tender the report on sentence because of his understanding that there was an objection by the offender to doing so. [8] The offender's father then indicated that he wished to tender the report, [9] following which I gave him the opportunity to speak with the offender. [10]
3. Having had that opportunity, the offender's father informed me that he wished the Court to have the report, but that the offender had said that he did not want his father to represent him. [11] The offender's father then sought to make submissions in relation to various matters, a number of which were contrary to the evidence adduced by the Crown in the trial, and sought to minimise the offender's involvement in the commission of the offence of which he had been found guilty by the jury. The offender's father also made various complaints in relation to the offender's conditions of custody, going so far at one point to state that the offender had been "tortured". [12] Having confirmed that the offender had said that he did not want his father to represent him, and that he did not want the medical report tendered, [13] I informed the offender's father that I was not able to hear him any further. [14]
4. Again, I consider it necessary to give brief reasons explaining why I took that course.
5. A decision to allow a person to act as amicus curiae is a matter for the Court's discretion. [15] The factors which inform the exercise of that discretion include whether: 1. the intervention is apt to assist the Court; and 2. it is in the interests of the parties to allow the intervention. [16]
6. In the present case, it was clear that I would not be assisted by allowing the offender's father to appear as amicus. In any event, the offender had apparently made it clear that he did not want that course to be taken.

THE EVIDENCE ON SENTENCE

1. The Crown's evidence on sentence included the following: [17] 1. a statement of the facts which the Crown submitted should be found for the purposes of sentence; [18] 2. the offender's criminal history; [19] 3. affidavits of: 1. Brett Favell; [20] 2. Kolin Masella; [21] 3. David Kirwan; [22] 4. Jayne Marchant; [23] 5. Allyson Brown; [24] and 6. Naomi Prince. [25]
2. A confidential background report dated 24 September 2020 provided to the Court by Youth Justice also formed part of Exhibit A. The Crown also provided the Court with written submissions and relevant authorities. As I have noted, a large amount of handwritten material was provided by the offender, the majority of which is of no assistance to me on the question of sentence.

THE FACTS OF THE OFFENDING

1. By reference to the evidence which was before the jury, I am satisfied of the following facts beyond reasonable doubt.

The offender's attendance at East Hills Boys High School

1. In June 2014 the offender and HG were students in Year 9 at East Hills Boys Technology High School. [26] On 17 June 2014, they refused to stand at a school assembly when the Australian national anthem was being played. [27] When asked about his reasons for not standing, the offender stated that his religion instructed him not to stand for anyone except Allah, and that he had formed his religious beliefs from reading books and conducting research online. [28]

The offender's travel to Egypt in November and December 2015

1. On 22 November 2015, the offender left Australia and travelled to Egypt with his family. [29] Whilst in Egypt between 26 November 2015 and 26 December 2015 he used a Huawei mobile phone (the Huawei phone) to: [30] 1. conduct Google searches, on 9 separate occasions, in relation to Dabiq, a magazine published by the media arm of Islamic State; 2. download issue 8 of Dabiq magazine; 3. search, on 17 separate occasions, for footage entitled The Harvest of the Soldiers; 4. conduct Google searches for the following terms: 1. 'Sinai'; 2. 'islamix state videos'; 3. 'is joining the army kufr' [31] ; 4. 'sinai isis'; 5. 'how to download a video from jihadology'; 6. 'islamic state leader'; and 7. 'islamic state leader omar al baghdadi'; 1. access an image of the Islamic State flag; 2. access various YouTube videos, including those entitled: 1. Sinai who is sowing the Thorns; 2. This is what happened between the State of Sinai and the Egyptian army at Arish and Sheikh Zuweid in details; 3. The Black Box Sinai The Backyard; 4. ISIS responsible: who were the Paris attackers; 5. Face to Face with Islamic State - BBC News; 6. ISIS training video revealed; 7. ISIS WARNING: Horrifying map of target countries it wants to dominate in Europe by 2020; 8. Jihadi John's journey from schoolboy to executioner; 9. Three Friends, One Jihadi - The New York Times; 10. Jihadi John apologizes to his family - but for beheading hostages; 11. IS Defector says 'I saw jihadi John kill Hostage Kenji Goto'; and 12. Digitally Unmasking 'Jihadi John'; 1. visit the following websites: 1. ISIS news, Videos, & Propaganda [WARNING: GRAPHIC] Heavy.com; 2. http://jihadology.net/ and related webpages; 3. Top 10 videos | The Islamic State; 4. Fighting for the cause of allah (jihaad); [32] 5. The complete meaning of Jihad in the way of Allah/Faith in Allah [Arabic writing]; 6. When is it waajib for a person to ask his parents permission to go to jihad?; 7. websites associated with chapters of Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir; [33] and 1. save a .pdf document entitled Misconceptions of jihad.
2. On 17 December 2015, the offender left his family and travelled to the town of El-Arish in the Northern Sinai region which was, at that time, an area of conflict where terrorist attacks had occurred. [34] He was detained by Egyptian authorities in the town of El-Arish on that day. [35]

The offender's return to Australia

1. The offender returned to Australia with his family on 31 January 2016. [36] On his arrival, Australian Border Force officials and Australian Federal Police officers examined the family's luggage. They located the Huawei phone which had been used by the offender, and extracted its contents. [37] On the same day, a search warrant was executed at the offender's residence, during which a Samsung laptop computer used by the offender (the Samsung laptop) was located. [38]

The offender's interview with intelligence officers

1. On 19 April 2016 the offender participated in an interview with intelligence officers for the purposes of a security assessment. The offender's father was present at that interview, during which the offender made the following statements about (inter alia) his travel to Egypt: [39] 1. he left for El-Arish on 17 December 2016 and travelled there without his passport or his mobile phone; 2. having arrived at El-Arish, he went to the shops, walked around, had some dinner and then went to the beach, before going back to the bus stop with the intention of catching the bus back to Tanta where he had been staying with his aunt and cousins; 3. the bus driver would not take him back to Tanta because he had no identification; 4. he was then stopped and asked for identification before being taken to a checkpoint where he was detained and questioned by four or five people in army uniforms with rifles; 5. he did not tell anyone that he was going to El-Arish; 6. the purpose of going to El-Arish was to see Egyptian beaches and to scare his parents so he would be sent back to Australia; 7. he had no intentions of joining any militant group; 8. he considered ISIL [40] to be a group which used Islam as an excuse for violence; 9. he considered such groups to be barbaric and he did not support them; 10. he did not support a caliphate; [41] 11. he had watched some Islamic State videos of beheadings on the internet, but could not explain how he came across them; and 12. he had read articles in Dabiq about Syria which he had "probably downloaded".

Communications between the offender and HG in September and October 2016

1. In September and October 2016, the offender and HG (whose details were stored in the Huawei phone) exchanged numerous text messages in which they arranged to meet up with one another. They also exchanged phone calls. [42]

6 October 2016 - The attendance of the offender and HG at the Bankstown Gun Shop

1. On 6 October 2016, the offender and HG attended the Bankstown Gun Shop together. [43] They walked around inside the shop looking at various knives, including a machete, [44] before HG approached the counter and advised the sales assistant that they were going 'pig hunting and were looking to buy pig hunting knives'. [45] The sales assistant asked if they were over the age of 16, and how much they were willing to spend. HG said he was looking for something cheap and pointed to a Black MTech America knife. [46] HG and the offender then examined the knife and HG stated: That's perfect. [47]
2. HG handed the sales assistant the money for the purchase of two MTech knives for $40.00 each. [48] He also purchased a knife sharpener. [49] HG then handed the offender the plastic bag containing the two knives and they left the shop together. [50]

11 October 2016 - The attendance of the offender and HG at HG's residence

1. On 11 October 2016, whilst the offender was at HG's residence, [51] HG used his phone (the Samsung phone) to take screenshots of the opening hours for the Bankstown Gun Shop, as well as the Google Chrome application showing options for 'Clear browsing data'. [52] On the same day, the offender received two text messages from HG in the following terms: Akhi remember to be good to ur mother and to ask her to forgive u. Constantly ask her to forgive u.

12 October 2016 - The attendance of the offender and HG at Revesby Pool

1. The offender was phoned by HG at 6:31am and 9:29am on 12 October 2016 [53] before catching a bus from Bankstown to Beaconsfield Street, Revesby, alighting at 9:33am. [54] At about 9.56am, he and HG left HG's residence. Both were carrying backpacks. They walked to, and entered, Max Parker Leisure and Aquatic Centre (Revesby Pool). [55] Between about 10:00am and 10:20am, while at that location, they sat behind a grandstand on a park bench facing each other and engaging in conversation. [56] They then walked from behind the grandstand towards the exit, at which time the offender was holding what appeared to be folded piece of white paper in his hand. [57] They left Revesby Pool and walked back to HG's residence. [58]

12 October 2016 - The attendance of the offender and HG at the Bankstown Gun Shop

1. At about 10:36am, the offender and HG left HG's residence and walked to Bransgrove Road, Revesby where they caught a bus to Bankstown [59] at about 11.03am. [60] HG carried a bag over his shoulder (the camouflage bag) and a blue/grey camouflage backpack (the grey backpack). The offender carried a dark blue backpack (the blue Caribee backpack). [61]
2. At about 11.14am, they got off the bus at Bankstown, [62] and went to the Bankstown Gun Shop. HG entered the shop at about 11:15am, whilst the offender waited by himself on the footpath outside, in possession of the two backpacks. [63] Whilst inside the shop, HG examined a single M9 Bayonet knife whilst holding a number of $50 notes. [64] He asked whether the knife was a fixed blade. [65] The attendant, Marino Paronis, asked: Are you over 16? HG said: Yes.
3. HG then asked for a second knife for his friend who was going away with him, [66] following which he purchased two M9 Bayonet knives and a knife sharpener, paying in cash. [67] Each M9 Bayonet knife had a fixed blade with a sharp point, a cutting edge on one side of the blade and saw-tooth serration on the other side. [68] Together, the blade and the handle were about 12 inches long. [69] Having received his change, HG left the shop carrying a white plastic shopping bag and went outside to where the offender was waiting. [70] He gave the offender the change, which the offender accepted and placed into his wallet. [71]
4. At around 11.25am, HG entered the Bankstown South Newsagency and Post Office which was adjacent to the Bankstown Gun Shop. Holding up a small plastic bag, he said: I want a big plastic bag to cover this box. [72]
5. The cashier, Cindy Nguyen, said that she did not have one. [73] HG then left the newsagency and met with the offender who was still standing outside on the footpath. [74]
6. The offender then re-arranged the items in the blue Caribee backpack in order to make room for the two M9 Bayonet knives. In doing so, he removed a number of personal items, including school exercise books, a pencil case and a calculator bearing his first name on the inside of its case, and disposed of them in a nearby garbage bin. [75] He and HG then walked to a bus stop on Chapel Road South, Bankstown and boarded a bus. [76]

12 October 2016 - The attendance of the offender and HG at the Musallah located at 108 Adnum Lane, Bankstown

1. At about 11.39am, HG and the offender arrived by bus at Bankstown City Plaza and walked to the Musallah at 108 Adnum Lane, Bankstown. [77] At about 12.00pm, they were overheard by two residents talking in the bathroom with the door locked. [78] One of the residents knocked on the bathroom door and asked who was there. A voice from inside the bathroom said: We're coming, we're coming. [79]
2. Another resident then came out of his room and said: If you don't come out I will open the door.
3. A voice from inside the bathroom replied: No, we're coming out.
4. The second resident then returned to his room. A voice from inside the bathroom was then heard to say: We're coming out. [80]
5. The offender and HG then came out of the bathroom, saying: We are sorry.
6. When the resident asked what they had been doing in the bathroom, HG responded: I'm teaching my friend how to wash; we're doing ablution. The resident said: If you want to teach him how to wash, you can use the laundry because it is not allowed for two people to go into the bathroom. [81]
7. The resident then left and went back to his bedroom where he started praying. HG then went back to the bathroom. [82]

12 October 2016 - The arrest of the offender and HG at the Musallah

1. At about 12.00pm a number of police responded to an alert and went to the Musallah. [83] When they arrived, they saw the offender sitting on the floor inside leaning against a wall. HG and the offender were then arrested and cautioned. [84] When they were separated, HG was escorted down the stairs of the Musallah. He then said: Look at you all, you're all pigs, like lambs to the slaughter, you'll burn in hellfire. [85] You will all die in the hellfire. [86]
2. When police asked HG to be seated while waiting for a police vehicle, HG replied: No. I only obey Allah.
3. When police asked HG to sit down, he replied I won't obey you. You'll have to make me. [87]
4. Police then assisted HG to a seated position, following which he stated: You're just a coward. Allah will see you burn, you will be slaughtered and die in hell. … burn in hellfire. [88]
5. Police asked HG to stop yelling and cautioned him that he did not have to say anything, to which he responded: I'm not scared of any of you. I'm only scared of Allah. … I can say whatever I want. [89]

Items located at the Musallah

1. Police located the blue Caribee backpack inside of which were a number of items including: [90] 1. the two M9 Bayonet knives, one of which was still in its cardboard box; 2. a receipt from the Bankstown Gun Shop dated 12 October 2016 for the purchase of the two M9 Bayonet knives; 3. an orange knife sharpener inside a white shopping bag; 4. a folded piece of A4 paper with Arabic and English writing; 5. a black Samsung mobile phone (the black Samsung phone) with no battery or SIM card inside; 6. a phone case; and 7. a pair of goggles.
2. The two M9 Bayonet knives and their boxes were subsequently examined for fingerprints. The fingerprints of both the offender and HG were located on the outside of the box that did not contain a knife when it was located by Police. [91] The offender's fingerprints were also found on the inside of the box which held the one M9 Bayonet knife. [92]
3. The handwritten note located inside the blue Caribee backpack had both Arabic and English handwriting on it. [93] The Arabic handwriting, when translated into English, read: [94] "I advise you to fear God And follow in the steps of the Messenger of God And pledge allegiance to the Caliph Because whoever dies without pledging allegiance will die a pre-Islamic death"
4. The English script was an incomplete sentence and stated: "And I advice [sic] my brothers in the".
5. Both the offender's and HG's fingerprints were found on the note. The offender's left and right thumb prints were found on the back of it, [95] the positioning of his prints indicating that the offender had handled the note in an unfolded state. [96] The handwriting on the note could not be identified. [97]
6. Police located the grey backpack in the bathroom of the Musallah [98] inside of which were a number of items including a camouflage hat with ear flaps, a pair of black fingerless gloves and four neck warmers in camouflage print. [99]

The execution of a search warrant at the offender's residence

1. Police executed a search warrant at the offender's residence on the evening of 12 October 2016 and seized the following items from the offender's bedroom: [100] 1. an ACER brand computer tower; and 2. an LG computer monitor.
2. The offender's thumb print was located on the screen of the computer monitor. [101]

The execution of a search warrant at HG's residence

1. Police also executed a search warrant at HG's residence on the evening of 12 October 2016 and seized (inter alia): [102] 1. the Samsung phone; and 2. two sheets of plain A4 size white paper.
2. Forensic examination and comparison of the handwritten note found in the blue Caribee backpack, and the plain A4 size white paper found at HG's residence, established that the paper in each case had matching characteristics, indicating that each sheet of paper had originated from the same batch or source. [103]

Forensic examination of the Huawei phone

1. The Huawei phone was forensically examined by police. A summary of some of the extremist material which was accessed with, and located on, that phone was tendered at the offender's trial. [104] I have already made reference to some of that material. [105]

Forensic examination of the black Samsung phone

1. Examination of the black Samsung phone established that it had been activated on 17 March 2016, after the offender's return to Australia from Egypt. [106] A summary of some of the material which was accessed with, and located on, that phone was tendered at the offender's trial. [107] The material included: 1. cartoon images of a violent nature, including 'Jeff the Killer' holding a bloodied knife; [108] 2. an image reading: 'Thus if anyone commits aggression against you. Attack him just as he has attacked you. Digital Tawheed'; [109] 3. an image of the back of HG and the offender attending religious instruction at 'DQWS', a Sydney non-profit Islamic charity; [110] 4. a number of YouTube videos, including those entitled: [111] 1. 'Terror Attack in Nice 2016 - Truck Driver /RARE VIDEO /' depicting a truck driving down road, pedestrians running, and police firing shots at the driver; 2. 'Imam Tells Gay Muslims He Should Be Killed' where an Imam discussed the fact that the Quran prohibits homosexuality; 3. 'Richard Dawkins interviewing a Muslim guy'; 4. 'Police Transport Command - update from the Commander' where a spokesperson for the NSW Police outlined the roles and responsibilities of the Police, and the necessity for vigilance to reduce the threat of terrorist activity; and 5. 'Q/A | Should we Listen to Anwar Awlaki ?- Shaykh Abu Usamah At-Thahabi where question asked Can we listen to Anwar al-Awlaki and take knowledge from him?', where the speaker argues that listening to speeches al-Awlaki made before his imprisonment and radicalisation is acceptable, but speeches that he made after his radicalisation are poisonous [112] ; 1. visiting a website titled 'Granville Boys High School: Former student 'Abu Ahmad' makes jihadi salute in Facebook post/ Daily Telegraph'; [113] 2. images of (inter alia): [114] 1. the Lindt Café siege in Sydney, NSW; 2. politicians, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders; 3. the words 'There is no God but Allah, Mohamed is the prophet of God'; 4. the words 'Yesterday we buried a very dear brother, Mohammed Nagi'; 5. a person a on horse holding a flag with the words 'I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. if I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right'; and 6. an elderly man with a beard, with the caption 'But when a Muslim does the same, he is labelled extremist?' and 'I am proud to be a Muslim' and 'Islamship.com'; and 1. Google searches for instructions on anti-surveillance methods, including 'how to reset Samsung Galaxy s5 to factory settings' and 'how to restart Samsung galaxy s5'. [115]

Forensic examination of the ACER computer

1. A summary of some of the extremist material which was accessed with, and located on, the ACER Computer seized from the offender's residence was tendered at the offender's trial. [118] It included: 1. YouTube videos which had been accessed, with titles including: [119] 1. Short stories: Prophet Muhammad (saw) by Anwar Al Awlaki; 2. Attacked by ISIS on the road to Mosul; 3. Pinned down by the Islamic State: The Road to Mosul (Part 1); 4. ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh explained; [120] 5. What ISIS Wants; 6. Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?; 7. Alleged Minto terror attack captured on security cameras; 8. ISIS losing ground; 9. Lindt siege police response in question; and 10. The Jihadist Next Door; [121] 1. images of: [122] 1. the 2016 Nice truck attacker, Mohamed Salmene Lahouaiej Bouhlel; 2. people in military attire with helmets and carrying weapons; 3. military-dressed personnel with automatic firearms; 4. a bomb disposal robot and a person inside a van in army camouflage; and 5. emergency service personnel amongst a demolished/ damaged building.
2. On 5 October 2016, the day prior to the purchase of the MTech knives, the offender used the ACER Computer to access the following YouTube videos: [123] 1. Rise and fall of Australia's jihadi recruitment network; 2. Ugly Muslim Face of Islam in Sydney; and 3. The Most Disturbing Video on the Islamic Invasion of Europe You'll Ever See.
3. On 6 October 2016, the day of the purchase of the MTech knives, the offender used the ACER Computer to access the following YouTube videos: [124] 1. A Message To The Scholars - Imam Anwar Al Awlaki & Sa'eed Ali; 2. Qualities of The Right Group To Join - Imam Anwar Al Awlaki; 3. The Great Fitnahs - Times of Trials and Tribulation; 4. The Highest and Lowest Status in Jannah - Imam Anwar Al Awlaki; 5. How many Gates are There for Jannah (Paradise); and 6. Ayat Al Kursi: Anwar Al Awlaki.
4. On 7 October 2016, the day following the purchase of the MTech knives, the offender used the ACER Computer to access the following YouTube videos: [125] 1. Can you Defend Yourself against a Knife Attack? WATCH THIS; 2. Knife Defense Social Experiment; and 3. "20 Seconds to Attack Me": Knife Defense Social Experiment.
5. On 11 October 2016, the day prior to the purchase of the M9 Bayonet knives, the offender used the ACER Computer to access the following YouTube videos: [126] 1. Anti US Protests by Muslims Turns Violent in Sydney Streets of Australia; 2. Muslims Try to Murder a Man for Handing Out Anti-Islam Pamphlets; and 3. Four wog teenagers get arrested in Broadmeadows, Melbourne, Australia after assaulting a police.

Forensic examination of the Samsung laptop

1. A summary of some of the extremist material which was accessed with, and located on, the Samsung laptop was tendered at the offender's trial. [127] The offender's activity, and material located, on that device included: 1. two downloads of issue 1 of Dabiq magazine, the first on 15 December 2014 and the second on 14 February 2015; 2. a Word document discussing the 'lies' surrounding Islamic State; 3. a document titled Tafsir Ibn Kathir (online chapters of which were also accessed by the offender using the Huawei phone); [128] and 4. nasheed [129] videos, including one which translated states: 'what a victory for he who has received martyrdom with sincerity … stand up for the call to Jihad'.

Forensic examination of the Samsung phone

1. A summary of some of the extremist material which was accessed with, and located on, the Samsung phone was tendered at the offender's trial. [130] The material located on that device included: 1. an image of a pig standing next to a Police vehicle with the word 'mum?'; 2. a download of Rumiyah [131] magazine issue 1 on 8 and 15 September 2016; 3. a download of Rumiyah magazine issue 2 twice on 6 October 2016; 4. a screenshot of a message from Facebook removing a post about a 'Murtad Kuffir… becoming a policeman' for not complying with Facebook's Community Standards; 5. a video where preaching can be heard at Bankstown Train Station, and in which the offender is depicted with a pamphlet in his hand; and 6. a video which, when translated to English, provided instructions on how to dismantle a Samsung mobile phone for the purpose of anti-surveillance.
2. Prior to the attendance of the offender and HG at the Bankstown Gun Shop on 6 October 2016, the Samsung phone was used by HG to download issue 2 of Rumiyah magazine on two occasions. [132] Rumiyah issue 2 consisted of 38 pages and its cover depicted a bloodied knife. An article entitled 'Just Terror Tactics' which was included in that edition provided advice to the reader on choosing the right weapon for an attack. The two M9 Bayonet knives purchased by the offender and HG and located in the blue Caribee backpack matched the description of the type of knife which was recommended in the article as being effective for carrying out knife attacks. The handwritten note located in the same backpack was consistent with what was referred to in the same article as an "insignia identifying the motive and allegiance to the Khalifah".

GENERAL SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

1. The seriousness of this offending is reflected in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. By prescribing that penalty, the Parliament has given a clear indication that the threat of terrorist activity requires the imposition of severe punishment. [133] There are a number of general principles which apply to sentencing for such offending.
2. Firstly, in passing sentence for the most serious terrorist offences, the object will be to punish, deter and incapacitate, such that rehabilitation is likely to play a minor, if any, part. [134]
3. Secondly, in circumstances where protection of the community, punishment of the offender, denunciation of the offence and deterrence are the dominant sentencing factors, the subjective circumstances of an offender will necessarily be given less weight (subject, in this case, to a consideration of the offender's youth which is discussed further below). [135]
4. Thirdly, in the case of sentencing an offender for the offence of doing acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts, the concern of the Court is not confined to future criminal conduct of a recidivist character, but extends to the possibility of perfection of the very crime for the preparation of which the offender has been found guilty. [136]
5. Fourthly, substantial sentences which reflect the need for general deterrence are warranted for offending of this nature, even though the force of ideological or religious motivation may mean that deterrence is unlikely to be effective. [137]
6. Fifthly, the obligation of the Court is to denounce terrorism and to voice its disapproval of activities of that kind. [138]
7. Sixthly, where an offender has not resiled from an entrenched extreme ideology, a significantly heavy sentence will be required to protect the community. [139]
8. Depending on the facts of the particular case, matters which may be relevant for the Court to consider on sentence will include: 1. the degree of planning, research, complexity and sophistication involved; 2. the extent of the offender's commitment to carry out the act(s) of terrorism; 3. the period of time involved in the offending generally, and the duration of the involvement of the offender in particular; 4. the depth and extent of the radicalisation of the offender as demonstrated (for example) by the possession of extremist material, and/or the communication of extremist views to others; and 5. the extent to which the offender has been responsible, by whatever means, for indoctrinating, or attempting to indoctrinate, others, and the vulnerability or otherwise of the target(s) of the indoctrination, be it actual or intended. [140]

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1. In sentencing the offender, I must also have regard to s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which is in (inter alia) the following terms: Matters to which court to have regard when passing sentence etc.--federal offences (1) In determining the sentence to be passed, or the order to be made, in respect of any person for a federal offence, a court must impose a sentence or make an order that is of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. (2) In addition to any other matters, the court must take into account such of the following matters as are relevant and known to the court: (a) the nature and circumstances of the offence; (b) other offences (if any) that are required or permitted to be taken into account; (c) if the offence forms part of a course of conduct consisting of a series of criminal acts of the same or a similar character--that course of conduct; (d) the personal circumstances of any victim of the offence; (e) any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence; (ea) if an individual who is a victim of the offence has suffered harm as a result of the offence--any victim impact statement for the victim; (f) the degree to which the person has shown contrition for the offence: (i) by taking action to make reparation for any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence; or (ii) in any other manner; (fa) the extent to which the person has failed to comply with: (i) any order under subsection 23CD(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; or (ii) any obligation under a law of the Commonwealth; or (iii) any obligation under a law of the State or Territory applying under subsection 68(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903; about pre-trial disclosure, or ongoing disclosure, in proceedings relating to the offence; (g) if the person has pleaded guilty to the charge in respect of the offence: (i) that fact; and (ii) the timing of the plea; and (iii) the degree to which that fact and the timing of the plea resulted in any benefit to the community, or any victim of, or witness to, the offence; (h) the degree to which the person has cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence or of other offences; (j) the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on the person; (ja) the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on other persons; (k) the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished for the offence; (m) the character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition of the person; (ma) if the person's standing in the community was used by the person to aid in the commission of the offence--that fact as a reason for aggravating the seriousness of the criminal behaviour to which the offence relates; (n) the prospect of rehabilitation of the person; (p) the probable effect that any sentence or order under consideration would have on any of the person's family or dependants. …

The nature and circumstances of the offence - s 16A(2)(a)

1. I have set out at considerable length the facts of which I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and which establish the nature and circumstances of the offending. However, a determination of the nature and circumstances of the offending necessarily involves an assessment of its objective seriousness which is a fundamental aspect of the sentencing task.
2. In considering that issue, the first matter to be emphasised is that this offending was not spontaneous. It was planned. Whilst a number of the acts in which the offender engaged took place on 12 October 2016, his activities in the days leading up to that cannot be ignored. Those activities included his attendance at the Bankstown Gun Shop on 6 October 2016 at which time two MTech knives were purchased. It is not a coincidence that on 5, 6 and 7 October the offender used the ACER computer to access a large quantity of extremist material which, significantly, included YouTube videos dealing with the subject of knife attacks. [141]
3. The events of 12 October are obviously significant. I am satisfied that the attendance of the offender and HG at the Revesby Pool that morning was for the purposes of discussing what was to occur later that day. Although the offender did not subsequently enter the Bankstown Gun Shop, in light of the evidence that HG handed the offender the change from the purchase, and in light of the fact that the offender then put the change in his wallet, I am satisfied that it was the offender who funded the purchase of the two M9 Bayonet knives on that day.
4. Following the purchase of the knives, the offender discarded a number of items from the blue Caribee backpack. I am satisfied that he did so for the purpose of concealing the two knives as he and HG made their way to the Musallah. The offender and HG were not in the bathroom of the Musallah for any religious purpose. They were there to privately discuss the commission of a terrorist attack. The blue Caribee backpack which had been in the offender's possession carried the knives which I am satisfied were to be used in that attack, as well as the handwritten note, the terms of which directed that those who do not pledge allegiance to ISIS will not find themselves in paradise when they die. [142] In 2016, the only person calling for such allegiance was the leader of Islamic State. [143] Whilst the offender has been found guilty of engaging in preparatory acts, I am satisfied that a terrorist attack, to be perpetrated on innocent members of the public, with the use of the knives which had been purchased, was imminent. A combination of the facts and circumstances to which I have referred bespeak no other conclusion.

Contrition - s 16A(2)(g)

1. The offender has not given sworn evidence and has not otherwise demonstrated any remorse or contrition for his offending.

Personal deterrence - s 16A(2)(j)

1. There is, in my view, a need for the offender to be personally deterred from any similar offending in the future. This need stems principally from his adherence to the violent ideology I have identified, and the absence of any evidence that he has resiled from it.

General deterrence - s 16A(2)(ja)

1. Notwithstanding the offender's age (which I have discussed further below), and consistent with the principles to which I have referred, general deterrence remains a significant factor to be taken into account on sentence.

The need for adequate punishment - Section 16A(2)(k)

1. I have dealt with the factors relevant to this consideration in my assessment of the nature and circumstances of the offending.

Character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition - s 16A(2)(m)

1. The offender was born on 3 July 2000 and was 16 years old at the time of his offending. He is now 20 years old. He has no prior convictions of any kind. I take that matter into account, although the authorities establish that in sentencing for offending of this kind, such a factor is of limited weight.
2. During the course of engaging in a hunger strike whilst in custody awaiting sentence, [146] the offender was referred for a psychiatric assessment with which he refused to engage. To the extent that any conclusion could be reached about his mental state in such circumstances, it was reported that there was no indication of any mental illness or psychiatric disorder, and no arrangements were made for a further review. [147] Justice Health also advised that the offender did not meet the threshold for admission to a mental health facility. [148] A case note prepared in the context of the offender's hunger strike noted that he had no significant mental health or cognitive concerns and had the capacity to make his own decisions, although it was also recorded that if he continued to refuse to eat, his physical and mental health would obviously deteriorate. [149] In circumstances where the offender is not represented, the Crown made arrangements for the offender to be examined by Dr Ellis, a psychiatrist. The offender did not attend that examination. [150]
3. It follows that there is no evidence that the offender is suffering from any mental illness.
4. The present case gives rise to the need to consider the principles which apply to the sentencing of a young offender. In R v Khalid [151] I summarised those principles in the following terms: [109] The principles governing the sentencing of youthful offenders have been discussed on many occasions. Those cited by McClellan CJ at CL in KT v R [152] may be summarised as follows: (i) considerations of general deterrence and principles of retribution are, in most cases, of less significance than they would be when sentencing an adult for the same offence. In recognition of the capacity for young people to reform and mould their character to conform to society's norms, considerable emphasis is placed on the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation (at [22]); (ii) the law recognises the potential for the cognitive, emotional and/or psychological immaturity of a young person to contribute to their breach of the law. Accordingly, allowance will be made for an offender's youth and not just their biological age (at [23]); (iii) where the immaturity of the offender is a significant factor in the commission of the offence, the criminality involved will be less than if the same offence was committed by an adult (at [23]); (iv) although accepted to be of less significance than when sentencing adults, considerations of general deterrence and retribution cannot be completely ignored when sentencing young offenders. There remains a significant public interest in deterring antisocial conduct (at [24]); (v) the emphasis given to rehabilitation rather than general deterrence and retribution when sentencing young offenders may be moderated when the young person has conducted him or herself in the way an adult might conduct him or herself, and has committed a crime of violence or considerable gravity (at [25]); (vi) in determining whether a young offender has engaged in "adult behaviour", the Court will look to various matters including the use of weapons, planning or pre-meditation, the existence of an extensive criminal history and the nature and circumstances of the offence. Where some or all of these factors are present the need for rehabilitation of the offender may be diminished by the need to protect society (at [25]); (vii) the weight to be given to considerations relevant to a person's youth diminishes the closer the offender approaches the age of maturity. A 'child offender' of almost eighteen years of age cannot expect to be treated substantially differently from an offender who is just over eighteen years of age. However, the younger the offender, the greater the weight to be afforded to the element of youth (at [26]). [110] In BP v R [153] Hodgson JA accepted the correctness of those principles set out by McClellan CJ in KT [154] before emphasising [155] that Courts should not be "over-ready" to discount the relevance of an offender's youth on the basis that the offender has engaged in adult behaviour or acted as an adult. In the same case Johnson J, having set out the principles in KT said [156] : [75] [T]he law recognises the potential for the cognitive, emotional and/or psychological immaturity of a young person to contribute to their breach of the law. The law considers youth and not just biological age. Where immaturity of an offender is a significant contributing factor to the commission of the offence, the criminality involved will be less than if the same offence was committed by an adult." [111] In JM v R [157] Simpson J (as her Honour then was), having reviewed the authorities, said: [108] It seems to me that the weight of authority is that the seriousness of an offence is relevant to the emphasis that can be given to the youth of an offender. That does not mean that youth is not an important consideration; but retribution and deterrence cannot, in a case as serious as the present, give way entirely or even substantially to the interests of rehabilitation… [112] In R v Tran [158] Callaway JA observed that in the case of a youthful offender, rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. At the same time, his Honour emphasised that there are cases where just punishment, general deterrence, and other sentencing objectives carry at least equal importance. In Azzopardi v R [159] it was observed that whilst, as the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigatory effect of an offender's youth, it is only in the circumstances of the gravest criminal offending, and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation, that the mitigatory consideration of youth is viewed as being all but extinguished. More recently in HJ v R [160] Garling J (with whom Hoeben CJ at CL and R S Hulme AJ agreed) observed: [56] It is undoubted that the youth of an offender is a relevant factor to be considered in assessing what sentence ought be imposed. The Court makes an allowance for the youth of the offender because immaturity is usually involved. Where that immaturity is a significant contributing factor to an offence, then it may fairly be said that the criminality involved is less than it would be in the case of an adult of more mature years: R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37 at [25]. [113] Finally, DPP v MHK (A Pseudonym) [161] was a case of a 17 year old offender who had pleaded guilty to doing acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act. In terms of his youth, the Court made the following relevant observations [162] : As the authorities, to which we have referred, make plain, while youth is relevant in determining the weight to be given to general deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing equation, its weight is diminished, quite measurably, in cases such as this, in which a youthful offender either participates in, or plans to carry out, actions of extreme violence. The protection of our society, and the upholding of its most fundamental values, necessitate that in cases such as this the sentencing considerations of general deterrence and denunciation must be given primacy above the ameliorating effect of youth.

Prospects of rehabilitation - s 16A(2)(n)

1. Although rehabilitation assumes less significance in light of the nature of the offending, it remains a factor to be taken into account. [164]
2. There is some evidence which points positively towards the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. He obtained his Higher School Certificate when in custody between 2016 and 2018, [165] and has successfully engaged in other rehabilitative courses. [166]
3. However, in the last two years those positive signs have largely evaporated. In her affidavit of 29 July 2020, Jayne Marchant, the Centre Manager at Cobham Youth Justice Centre where the offender was held for some time, stated that the offender was "frequently unable to conform to standard centre and unit routines, rules and expected behaviours", [167] and that he defied staff directions in relation to his religious practices. [168] Ms Marchant explained that the offender's behaviour was primarily managed through a Detainee Incentive Scheme which rewards positive behaviour with regular incentives, and which seeks to manage negative behaviour through a "misbehaviour process". [169] Whilst in custody at Cobham Youth Justice Centre, the offender received more than 100 incident misbehaviour reports, relating to non-compliance with directions, rules and regulations, as well as security breaches, assaulting staff and possessing contraband. The offender also refused to participate in assessment meetings and centre routines which resulted in his being placed on an individual plan designed to provide strategies to minimise the risk of harm. [170]
4. Ms Marchant also stated that there had been occasions on which the offender's behaviour in custody had posed a threat to the order and security of the centre(s) at which he was being held. These occasions included: 1. an incident in April 2019 where the offender accessed the top of cricket nets at a detention centre and remained there for approximately 65 hours; 2. non-compliant behaviour when being escorted to and from Court; and 3. other non-compliant behaviour including refusing to communicate with staff and causing other security breaches. [171]
5. The various observations of Ms Marchant are entirely consistent with the confidential background report which was provided to the Court for the purposes of the sentence proceedings and which forms part of Exhibit A. That report includes the following observations by the author: [172] On the occasions I met with [the offender], I attempted to build rapport by exploring his history and future plans with regards to areas such as, family, education, employment, accommodation and community activities. However, after five direct contacts with [the offender], he declined to accept further support, on the next eight occasions. [The offender] appeared guarded, and later advised me that on the advice from his solicitor at that time, Ms Zali Burrows, he was unsure of how the information he provided would be handled, and who this would be reported to. Attempts were made by myself, with other YJC staff to rectify this situation by offering opportunities to his family and [the offender], to learn about my role and the purpose of custodial support. A case meeting was also held with Ms Burrows to explore the young person's reticence to engagement and to encourage participation. However, these attempts were unsuccessful. Other attempts were made by YJNSW to engage [the offender] in custodial support, that included reallocation to two other caseworkers. … [The offender] also did not engage in their offers of custodial support. Additionally, caseworkers at both Cobham and Frank Baxter YJC, encouraged [the offender's] involvement with community caseworkers and support available, without success. … [The offender] has continued to not participate in all approaches for either report assessments or custodial support.

The issue of parity

1. Consistency in the punishment of offences against the criminal law is a reflection of the notion of equal justice. It finds its expression in the parity principle which requires that like offenders should be treated in a like manner. That principle also allows for different sentences to be imposed on like offenders, to reflect differing degrees of culpability and/or differing circumstances. [182] The same principle recognises that as between co-offenders, there should not be a marked disparity which gives rise to one offender having a justifiable sense of grievance arising from a sentence imposed on a co-offender.
2. It is not simply a question of imposing different sentences for the same offence. Rather, it is a question of due proportion being structured between such sentences. That proportion must be determined having regard to the different circumstances of the co-offenders, and the different degrees of criminality. [183]
3. On 11 December 2018 I sentenced HG to imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years. [184] HG was convicted of the offence of committing acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act or acts contrary to s 101.6(1) of the Code. The offender has been convicted of jointly committing that offence with HG.
4. In my view, the positions of the offender and HG are essentially indistinguishable in terms of the objective seriousness of their respective offending. It will be evident from the facts of the offending that the offender and HG acted in concert, both in the period leading up to the events of 12 October 2016, and on that day. There is little differentiation between what each of them actually did. Although it was HG who purchased the knives on 12 October 2016, I have found that it was the offender who paid for them. It was also the offender who took custody of them from HG, and who was primarily responsible for secreting them so as to ensure that they would not attract adverse attention either on the way to, or at, the Musallah.
5. Each of the offender and HG held extremist views. [185] Each retained significant amounts of extremist material on electronic devices which reflected those views. [186] The material accessed and/or held by HG was greater in volume, and in some cases more extreme in nature, than that accessed and/or held by the offender. Moreover, HG made statements to the police at the time of his arrest which left no doubt as to the extent of his views. Taken by themselves, those matters may have the capacity to support a conclusion that HG's views were more extreme, and that his criminality is greater than that of the offender. However, it is necessary to balance those matters against the fact of the offender's travel to El-Arish and his accessing of extremist material around that time. Moreover, the mere fact that HG may have accessed and/or held more extremist material which was of greater objective seriousness does not lead to a conclusion that the offender's extremist beliefs were any less entrenched.

The offender's conditions of custody

1. The offender is housed at the HRMCC as a consequence of his conviction for a terrorism-related charge. [187] Upon entry to the HRMCC he was held in segregation for the purposes of assessing his placement in that facility. Although that period of segregation was intended to expire on 30 September, it was expected to be revoked prior to that time, although the offender's lack of participation in the assessment process extended the period which was required to confirm his placement. [188] There is no suggestion that the offender's segregation will be ongoing. [189]
2. There is evidence before the court as to the offender's conditions of custody at the HRMCC. [190] That evidence includes a comparison between the conditions in the HRMCC and those in the Goulburn Correctional Centre. In many respects, the conditions of those serving sentences in the HRMCC are less stringent. [191]
3. I have had regard to the offender's conditions of custody although in all of the circumstances, it is a factor of limited weight.

CONCLUSION

1. In light of the provisions of the Stronger Communities Legislation Amendment (Crimes) Act 2020 [192] it is not open to me to make an order that the sentence I have determined should be imposed on the offender be served by him as a juvenile up to obtaining the age of 21 years.
2. I therefore make the following orders: 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.
3. Pursuant to s 105A.23 of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), I warn the offender that an application may be made under Division 105A for a Continuing Detention Order requiring the offender to be detained in prison after the end of his sentence for the offence.

Endnotes

1. R v WE (No.15) [2020] NSWSC 332.
2. Commencing at T1.48.
3. T3.39 - T4.17.
4. For these purposes, trial means the entirety of the proceedings, including sentence: Lawrence v R [1933] AC 699 at 708; Jamal v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 585; [2012] NSWCCA 198 at [35].
5. (1998) 72 SASR 281; [1998] SASC 7021 at 294-295; see also R v Mokbel (2010) 30 VR 115; [2010] VSCA 11; Taupati v R [2017] VSCA 106 esp. at [29].
6. Williams v R (2012) 62 MVR 382; [2012] NSWCCA 286 at [95].
7. T4.24 - T4.30.
8. T9.20 - T9.26.
9. T20.10 - T20.13.
10. T20.42 - T21.30.
11. T21.45 - T22.27.
12. T25.1 - T25.45.
13. T26.6 - T26.10.
14. T26.22 - T26.27.
15. Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579; [1997] HCA 31 at 604 per Brennan CJ; Attorney General of NSW v X and anor (2013) 235 A Crim R 17; [2013] NSWSC 1392 at [7].
16. National Australia Bank Limited v Hokit Pty Limited (1996) 39 NSWLR 377 at 381 per Mahoney P.
17. Exh A.
18. Tab 2.
19. Tab 3.
20. Tab 4.
21. Tab 5.
22. Tab 6 Although this was included in the material which was tendered, the Crown withdrew any reliance on it: T5.38.
23. Tab 7.
24. Tab 8.
25. Tab 9.
26. Evidence of Kevin Elgood, T472.21 - T472.26.
27. Evidence of Kevin Elgood, T472.35 - T472.36.
28. Evidence of Kevin Elgood, T474.17 - T474.47.
29. Evidence of Jay Tonkin, T502.11 - T502.23; Exhibit BB.
30. Exhibit BC.
31. "Kufr" means a denial of the truth of Islam - Exhibit BQ.
32. "Jihad" means a "struggle" either in a personal sense of being the best Muslim one can be, or in the sense of undertaking armed actions in the name of God - Exhibit BQ.
33. "Tafsir ibn Kathir" is a book explaining the Quranic text written by a conservative Islamic historian and scholar in the 14th century - Exhibit BQ.
34. Evidence of Adam Jennings, T783.36 - T783.38; Evidence of Rodger Shanahan, T853.18 - T853.28.