The Queen v Shoma [2019] VSC 367

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

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

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

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

5 His terror for himself and his young child at that moment is beyond imagining. But you wanted precisely that, and more. At the scene you told police that you had come to Australia to carry out the attack because you were ordered to do so by the caliph of the Islamic State and in response to Muslim people being bombed by westerners. You expressed the hope that Mr Singaravelu would die.

6 Your deeds and words, and the intentions accompanying them, are chilling. They have sent ripples of horror throughout the Australian community. But they do not make you a martyr. They do not make you a beacon of Islam. They do not guarantee you green wings to ascend to Jannah. They make you an undistinguished criminal. You should not mistake your passing notoriety for importance, nor equate it with achievement.

7 The Islamic State ('IS') is a terrorist organisation.[2] It follows an extreme, Salafist interpretation of Islam. It is anti-western. It promotes violence against those who do not agree with its views.

8 On 29 June 2014, IS declared a caliphate in northern Syria and northern Iraq with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi as its caliph. IS called upon all Muslims to declare their allegiance to the new caliphate. IS uses social media platforms to denounce the west and recruit members, particularly though its online publications Dabiq and Rumiyah.

9 On 22 September 2014, Shaykh Abu Muhummad Al-Adnani Ash-Shami ('Al-Adnani') issued a widely publicised fatwa ordering IS followers to make hijrah to Syria or, if that was not possible, to target (amongst others) the Australian government or community due to Australia's involvement in the conflict in Syria and northern Iraq. Al-Adnani said:

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European - especially the spiteful and filthy French or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill them in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him or poison him.[3]

10 IS engaged in a widespread and sophisticated communications and propaganda campaign in support of the fatwa, including producing a number of English language videos by its English media arm, the Al-Hayat Media Centre. Typical of such material was a 58 minute video entitled 'The Islamic State: Flames of War II'. It featured graphic and explicit imagery depicting beheadings and other atrocities committed by IS members in Syria.

11 A series of articles in various editions of Rumiyah, called 'Just Terror Tactics', promoted both single and mass casualty events on behalf of IS. They provided guidance to so-termed mujahedeen living in western democracies as to the execution of lone wolf attacks using knives, vehicles and fire. The 'Just Terror Tactics' article in Issue 2 of Rumiyah detailed the method for executing a lone wolf knife attack, advocating 'so when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks, until, when you have overwhelmed them with killing ...'.

12 It is agreed that you began to practice Islam in 2012 and were radicalised to extremist views in 2013. You have told police that the scholar Anwar Al-Awlaki[4] was influential in that path. Upon learning that Al-Awlaki had been killed by a drone strike, you began to seek out his lectures on jihad. When IS declared the caliphate in 2014, you say you were struck by the joy expressed by your online acquaintances then in Syria.

13 By 2015 you desired to travel to northern Syria and northern Iraq, believing that would afford you and other Muslims freedom to practice your faith without oppression. You seemingly believed the promise made by Al-Adnani that you would there find a peaceful life replete with a sense of belongingness.

14 On 13 January 2015 you applied to study at the Atilim University in Turkey. The following month you were accepted. You had by then obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the North South University in Dhaka. You made several unsuccessful attempts over the next year to obtain a visa to travel to and study in Turkey.

15 The Crown argues that admission to the Atilim University was simply a ruse to obscure your true motivation in wishing to enter Turkey: to cross its border into Syria. Turkey was used as a primary access point for those wishing to make hijrah to Syria in compliance with Al-Adnani's fatwa.

16 Senior Counsel on your behalf submitted that these actions were unconnected with any terrorist purpose. Rather, it was internet reports in 2017 of the bombing of Sunni Muslims in Syria and Iraq and of the fall of IS territory in Raqqa that led to your awareness of the call made by IS for women to engage in jihad. It was said that this engendered in you a deep sense of obligation and a fear of the consequences if you remained inactive.

17 Even if your failed attempt to study in Turkey was not a ploy to make hijrah to the caliphate to engage in violent jihad (a matter to which I shall return), international post-graduate study was certainly used by you to mask the alternative to hijrah mandated in the fatwa - attempting to kill an Australian (or western) disbeliever - as the facts that follow demonstrate.

18 In late 2017 you began making enquiries about university and college scholarships at Australian and English universities, including Deakin, Oxford and Surrey. On 29 November 2017 you undertook online research into currency exchange rates between Bangladeshi taka and Australian dollars.

19 On 14 December 2017 you received a scholarship offer of admission to La Trobe University in Melbourne. You accepted that offer and applied for a student visa to Australia. That application was granted on 15 January 2018. And, on 1 February 2018, you arrived in Australia from Bangladesh.

20 Prior to your arrival, you had organised accommodation through the 'Australian Homestay Network', which facilitates housing for international students with host families. Your nominated host family lived in Bundoora and you went to that home directly from the airport.

21 You had absolutely no intention of studying at La Trobe University. Your sole purpose for entering this country was to carry out a terrorist act: the stabbing and killing of a person rendered vulnerable by sleep, in pursuit of violent jihad and to intimidate the Australian government or people. As I have already said, you brought with you a large kitchen knife for that purpose.

23 On 3 February 2018 you purchased a pair of night vision goggles and batteries from two different stores in Reservoir, after earlier that day conducting a search for such items using Google and Amazon websites.

24 On 6 February 2018 you rehearsed the physical act of stabbing. While the members of your host family were absent, you entered their bedroom and stabbed their mattress between six and nine times in the areas where they would have been lying had they been asleep in bed.

25 Unsurprisingly, upon their return, your host family contacted the Australian Homestay Network and asked for you to be removed due to fears for their safety.

26 On 7 February 2019 you were relocated to the Mill Park home of Mr Singaravelu, Mrs Solomon and their daughter, arriving at about 7.20 pm. It was a temporary measure, they were informed, arising from an emergency situation with your previous host family.

27 But this disruption to your accommodation did not impede your purpose and preparations. At 4.57am on 7 February 2018 you had used your mobile telephone handset to conduct a search using Google for 'are people in deep sleep when they snore' and 'how can you tell if someone is in a deep sleep_'_. You repeated that search at 7.09 pm the same day.

28 Your preparations also extended to what you thought of as gathering courage, but was in truth, a swilling of propaganda designed to close the mind to reason and excite base blood lust.

29 On 6 February 2018, in a Whatsapp message sent to an unknown associate, you said that you needed to 'gather more courage and tawakkul[5] to recap all His blessings'. In an email to your sister that day you wrote 'please make dua[6] I can get over my fear. inshaaAllah qareeb ... I love u for the sake of Allah. Thanks for the email. JazakAllahu ashshu[7] ... delete these emails once uve read it x'.

30 Throughout 8 and 9 February 2018 you downloaded 'The Islamic State, Flames of War II' and 'Execution Nasheed - Instaudio', watching and listening to each three times. On 9 February 2018 you also downloaded and watched another Al-Hayat video with an alphanumeric title depicting female IS fighters physically engaged in combat in Syria and northern Iraq.

31 During the afternoon of 9 February 2018 Mr Singaravelu was at home with his five year old daughter. You were also in their home. Mrs Solomon was out at work. At about 2.00 pm, Mr Singaravelu and his daughter fell asleep on a single bed mattress on the floor of the rumpus room. Mr Singaravelu was lying on his right hand side.

32 At about 4.00 pm, you armed yourself with your kitchen knife and entered the rumpus room. Kneeling down next to Mr Singaravelu, then deeply asleep next to his young, sleeping daughter, you plunged the knife into Mr Singaravelu's neck near his shoulder with both hands and remarkable force, with the intention of killing him. As you did so, you yelled 'Allah Akbar'. You caused a deep and large laceration and fractured his spine. The blade of the knife became lodged in his neck.

33 Upon being woken in such horrific circumstances, Mr Singaravelu struggled with you and pushed you off him. He removed the knife from his neck, causing the tip of the blade to break. Bleeding heavily, he gathered his daughter to him, ran from his home into the street and sought assistance from his neighbours.

34 One of those neighbours, bravely, approached you. You told him that you had stabbed Mr Singaravelu. Unrepentant and defiant, you said the same to the first police officers on the scene, adding that you were ordered to do so by the caliph of the Islamic State in response to the bombing of Muslim people by westerners. You said you had come to Australia to attack someone and expressed the hope that Mr Singaravelu would die.

35 No doubt you thought that his death would add to your achievement. But, you have achieved nothing except, as I have said, to make yourself an insignificant criminal of transitory notoriety, notwithstanding your adherence to a now defunct caliphate and its unmasked falsehoods.

36 Mr Singaravelu was taken from the scene to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where he underwent emergency surgery on his cervical spine. Mr Singaravelu also suffered a laceration to his left thumb and a deep laceration to his neck. He requires continuing medical treatment, including plastic surgery.

37 Mr Singaravelu also requires, as do Mrs Solomon and their daughter, ongoing counselling.

38 I have received and considered the victim impact statements of Mr Singaravelu and Mrs Solomon. They are deeply affecting.

39 Mr Singaravelu speaks of suffering constant physical pain that affects every aspect of his daily life, and which is a constant reminder of your attack upon him. He despairs of ever fully recovering psychologically. Suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, he feels unsafe all the time, both in public and at home. He constantly relives the incident; he recalls the look on your face and the blood spatter on the walls.

40 Mr Singaravelu speaks of his distress at watching his daughter suffer flashbacks, severe nightmares and night sweats. And he speaks of his heartbreak that his daughter, for whom he was the primary caregiver, now has difficulty being around him and no longer wants to hug him.

41 Mrs Solomon speaks of the utter shock of being told by telephone when she was at work that her husband had been stabbed. She, too, speaks of her distress at her young daughter waking screaming in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. She says her family has been ripped apart.

42 This Australian family, generous enough to open their home to a stranger, now suffers physically, emotionally and financially. Mr Singaravelu has been unable to return to paid employment. Mrs Solomon experiences difficulty in maintaining hers.

44 It is necessary to say something about your personal circumstances.

45 You were born in Dhaka, Bangladesh on 14 April 1993. You were 24 years old at the time of this offence. You are now aged 26.

46 You are the elder of two daughters born to your parents, who provided you both with a loving and financially secure family. Your father is the Vice President of an insurance company. Your mother, who died in 2015 after a lengthy illness, worked within the home.

47 Your family are Sunni Muslims, but it would seem that religion did not feature heavily in your upbringing beyond praying and fasting. While your father would usually attend Friday prayers at the mosque, the female members of your family did not.

48 You attended a series of schools teaching the British curriculum and you were an excellent student. After achieving your A Levels, you earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the North South University in 2015, with a major in Linguistics and English language.

49 You have never been in paid employment; you lived at home and were financially supported by your father throughout your education.

50 You have never taken drugs or alcohol. You have no prior criminal history.

51 As a result of your offending, your father has been unwilling to have contact with you. You have no contact with any other family members in Bangladesh.

52 This sentence marks a regrettable legal milestone. It is the first time in Australia that a sentence will be imposed for the offence of intentionally engaging in a terrorist act.

53 That said, there is a body of case law concerning the offence of doing an act or acts in preparation for or planning a terrorist act, which also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Australian courts have also considered the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a terrorist act. It is common ground between the parties that legal principles derived from these cases are apposite in this matter. I agree.

54 Sentencing principles drawn from this jurisprudence and equivalent United Kingdom jurisprudence was recently identified and delineated by Johnson J in R v Alou (No 4).[8] His Honour said:

[165] The primary considerations on sentence for terrorist offences are the protection of the community, the punishment of the offender, the denunciation of the offending and both specific and general deterrence: R v Lodhi (2006) 199 FLR 364; [2006] NSWSC 691 at [92]; Lodhi v R (2007) 179 A Crim R 470; [2007] NSWCCA 360 at [274]; R v Khazaal [2009] NSWSC 1015 at [47].

[166] Subjective circumstances and mitigating factors, including considerations of rehabilitation, are to be given less weight: R v Lodhi at [89]; Lodhi v R at [274]; R v Khazaal at [41]; DPP (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 at [112]- [113].

[167] The religious and ideological motivation of an offender is relevant to the issue of community protection, as well as to the assessment of the objective gravity of the offence: R v Kahar [2016] 1 WLR 3156; [2016] EWCA Crim 568 at [19].

[168] Where it is not established that an offender has resiled from previously held extremist views, the element of community protection will assume even greater importance: R v Lodhi at [82]-[83], [88]; R v Elomar and Ors (2010) 264 ALR 759; [2010] NSWSC 10 at [93]; Benbrika v R (2010) 29 VR 593; [2010] VSCA 281 at 591.

[169] Weight must be given to the need for general deterrence even if the force of ideological or religious motivations are such that deterrence may not be effective: R v Lodhi at [91]-[92]; Lodhi v R at [87]-[88]; R v Barot [2007] EWCA Crim 1119 at [45]; DPP (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276 at [169]; DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157 at [52]- [53].

[170] Whilst youth is relevant to determining the weight to be given to general deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing equation, its weight is diminished quite measurably in terrorist cases where the offender participates in, plans or carries out actions of extreme violence. The protection of society, and the upholding of its most fundamental values, necessitates that in terrorist cases, the sentencing considerations of general deterrence and denunciation must be given primacy above the ameliorating effect of youth: DPP (Cth) v MHK at [66]; R v Khalid and Ors [2017] NSWSC 1365 at [109]- [113], [270].

[171] In considering the nature and gravity of terrorist offences, courts in Australia have utilised a number of facts referred to by the UK Court of Appeal in R v Kahar at [19]: R v Elomar at [62]; R v Benbrika at [564]; R v Kahlid and Ors at [25]. The factors referred to in R v Kahar are:

(a) the degree of planning, research, complexity and sophistication involved, together with the extent of the offender's commitment to carry out the act(s) of terrorism;

(b) the period of time involved, including the duration of the involvement of the particular offender;

(c) the depth and extent of the radicalisation of the offender as demonstrated (inter alia) by the possession of extremist material and/or the communication of such views to others; and

(d) 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.

56 It must always be borne in mind that terrorist offences concern not only acts of a shocking nature, but the multiple intentions which accompany them. It is those intentions that transform heinous enough criminal acts - murder for example - into offences that do much more than disregard the sanctity of human life. Done in the name of a political, religious or ideological cause, and done to intimidate or coerce government or the public, those acts also attack the fundamental assumptions of Australian society, seeking not only to disrupt it but to materially and permanently change it.

57 It is also necessary to consider further matters of principle arising from arguments made by Senior Counsel on your behalf. These were that your completed terrorist act is less egregious than contemplated terrorist acts considered in other cases,[9] because it occurred in a private home rather than a public space, and because it was 'limited' in that it was never intended to cause more than a single death. The issues to be addressed arising from these submissions, are:

(a) Whether a terrorist act done in public is more serious than a terrorist act done in private.

(b) Whether the number of intended and/or actual immediate victims is determinative of or materially affects the seriousness of the contemplated or completed terrorist act.

59 While it is beyond doubt that acts of terrorism conducted in public are designed to, and do, shock the public, I am far from convinced that, in this regard, the division between the public and private spheres is binary.

60 It cannot be said that your physical actions in carrying out the knife attack were seen or intended to be seen by the public, but they were done with the intention to advance your extremist cause and to intimidate a government or the public. In other words, you always intended the result of those actions to be public; the more public the better. You sought notoriety and widespread dissemination of your actions. You wished to be a martyr and, as you told police, to 'trigger the west'. The west could not be triggered if its citizens remained ignorant of your actions.

61 The fact that there were no (adult) witnesses to your attempt to kill Mr Singaravelu does not necessarily, in my view, make the gravity of your offending less than in any potential lone wolf knife attack in public.

62 Further, you violated the legitimate expectation that everyone should be and feel safe in their home. The very idea that a foreign student, welcomed into an Australian home, was there for no reason other than to kill a member of that family in the name of violent jihad is as shocking to the sense of safety that members of our community feel as if your attack had been perpetrated on a random member of the public on a major Melbourne thoroughfare.

63 And, I accept the Crown submission that your selection of your target and your location was driven by your physical capability. You are a woman of very slight stature; standing five feet tall and weighing just 40 kilograms. You could not hope to fatally stab a person in the neck who was not rendered vulnerable in some way. And it was unlikely that you would find a random, sleeping victim in public.

64 The assessment of harm is, of course, relevant to an assessment of the gravity of your offending. And the number of actual or potential immediate victims of a terrorist act must always be relevant to the assessment of its gravity. Here, ultimately, you targeted one.

65 But numbers of intended or actual victims are not, as conceded by your Senior Counsel, determinative in that assessment. That is because irrespective of the number of immediate victims, the assessment of harm must necessarily take into consideration the harm done to the Australian public and the Australian polity. The intention to effect that harm is an essential ingredient of the offence to which you have pleaded. And, there can be no defined mathematical relationship between the number of immediate victims and the degree of that broader, less tangible harm. It all depends upon the circumstances.

66 If illustration is necessary, the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby was notable for its impact throughout the western liberal world.[10]

Assessing Contemplated Terrorist Acts and Completed Terrorist Acts

67 A further matter arises from your offending. As I have already noted, the offence of doing an act or acts in preparation for or planning a terrorist act carries the same maximum penalty as the offence of intentionally engaging in a terrorist act. I accept that the particular circumstances of a preparatory offence may render it more egregious than the particular circumstances of a completed terrorist act.

68 At the same time, I note that there will always be a unique quality to the terrorist act prosecuted as completed as opposed to that contemplated. It is the obvious fact that it happened. It was not thwarted, either by law enforcement activity, a weakened last minute resolve or ineptitude on the part of the offender. The completed terrorist act is not hypothetical, potential, possible or even probable. It is real.

69 That must, in turn, affect the assessment of the gravity of the offending and the moral culpability of the offender for it. The additional factor to consider in sentencing for a completed terrorist act is, if nothing else, the demonstrated resolve and capacity of the offender to execute the act with the prohibited intentions. The completed act makes tangible the potency of the ideological motivation of the offender, as well as the broader harm to Australian society.

70 I now turn to consider the s 16A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)('Crimes Act') and other relevant sentencing factors.

71 Your offending was a grave example of the offence to which you have pleaded. I find the following factors to be relevant to the assessment of that offence.

72 Without hesitation you ruthlessly exploited the generosity and trust of Mr Singaravelu and Mrs Solomon who opened their house to you on the basis that you were a foreign student, away from your home and familiar comforts. You committed your act of terrorism within their home, a place where that family had every reason to think that they were safe. Your violation of the sanctity of that home was an attack on a fundamental value of Australian society.

73 Further, you were utterly indifferent to the presence of a child of very tender years. If your attempt to take Mr Singaravelu's life was not enough, your actions forced him to fear for his daughter as well as himself. And, that child, accustomed to the comforting behaviours of loving and decent family, must have been nothing short of terror-struck.

74 Your actions betray a significant degree of research, planning and preparation subsisting for a considerable time. There was nothing opportunistic or impulsive about your attack. In this regard I recall the following.

75 First, as I have noted, the Crown argues that your multiple attempts to enter Turkey as a student commencing in 2015 were a ruse to enable you to travel to Syria to make hijrah in conformity with Al-Adnani's fatwa and in furtherance of IS ideology. I accept that submission. Your radicalisation was, by that stage, well entrenched. But, those earlier attempts to enter Turkey and find your way to Syria add very little to my finding that your plan to come to Australia, in the guise of a post graduate student, was sophisticated and enduring. While those matters speak to the tenacity of your resolve to follow the strictures of IS, the point is you came to this country with the sole aim to commit a terrorist act on its territory. You pre-determined the form of that attack and, using subterfuge, you navigated your path through both the entrance requirements of an Australian university and this country's visa laws, as well as organised accommodation where you could perpetrate your attack.

76 Second, you brought with you the weapon with which you intended to carry out the terrorist attack. As I have already discussed, Senior Counsel argued on your behalf that the harm of your actions, limited to a single victim, makes your offending less serious. It was said that bringing the knife with you should be viewed in the same light. It was a weapon that could not do as much harm as a bomb, a gun or a car. You did not plan, for example, an act that involved you deliberately driving at speed into a crowd on a public street. But, you could import a kitchen knife to Australia without trouble. You could not bring, without detection, a firearm or an incendiary device. You chose a mode of attack that could be executed with speed and with scant extra planning or preparation after your arrival. In my view, the bringing of the knife coupled with its use within days demonstrates the seriousness of your behaviour.

77 Third, and closely aligned, I accept the Crown submission that you chose a method of attack that, consistent with your physical capability, optimised your chance of murdering someone. It shows intelligence and cunning.

78 Fourth, your preparation extended well beyond the bringing of the knife. Chillingly, you carried out a practice run in the first house which was opened to you. And your preparation was not limited to practical issues, such as sourcing night vision goggles and researching indicators of deep sleep, but extended to the consumption of propaganda material, knowing it would help keep your resolve and belief buoyant.

79 I accept that you did not indoctrinate or attempt to indoctrinate others in this country with your ideology, nor involve them in your plan. I also accept that your selection of a single immediate victim, in the circumstances of your offending, renders your actions less grave than had multiple victims been targeted.

80 In sum, I find your offending to be extremely serious. It is an outrage to our democracy.

Personal Circumstances of the Victims and Victim Impact Statements

81 I have already made mention of the impact of your actions upon Mr Singaravelu, Mrs Solomon and their daughter. I take those matters into account.

82 I also take into account the broader impact upon Australian society. Your attack in a home of kind and generous Australians can only have engendered fear and distrust more widely. But the harm is not limited to potentially making Australians scared of trusting strangers. It also has the very real capacity to fracture society or, indeed, to widen fissures of suspicion that already exist within our nation. A related and additional subversive effect is that non-Muslims may mistakenly, as a result of acts such as yours, associate the overwhelming majority of good and peaceful followers of Islam with violent and unlawful political acts of jihad that have nothing to do with their spiritual beliefs, and which they decry.

83 I have already outlined your personal background. You are an intelligent woman with no prior criminal history. It was submitted that you are naïve. You are young.

84 In some cases those matters would be significant sentencing considerations. But, even if you had been much younger than you are, your age and antecedents are of reduced significance due to the seriousness of your offending and the primacy of denunciation, just punishment, protection of the community and deterrence as sentencing factors for terrorism offences.

85 You have displayed no contrition for your offending. Indeed the only regret you have uttered is that you did not succeed in taking Mr Singaravelu's life. That sentiment is despicable.

86 I have been provided with a copy of materials written by you since you have been in custody. They include questionnaires issued to you by authorities. The following questions and answers illustrate your current thoughts:

What's one thing that you wish people understood about you?

What's one thing that you do on a regular basis that you hate doing, but nobody knows that you despise doing it?

-- Living in this world (although I believe a lot of people know that I despise it!)

87 Another document authored by you has a list of qualities you assume others see in you, followed by a list of qualities you see in yourself. The latter include 'bearer of the flag of tawheed', 'firm as a mountain' and 'a loyal and proud member of Islamic State'.

88 Yet another document speaks of your hope to acquire the green wings of martyrdom.

89 There is no evidence that you have renounced or are close to renouncing the beliefs that led you to commit this offence. On the contrary, you are defiant.

90 It follows that your chances of rehabilitation are poor.

91 In seeking to persuade me otherwise, Senior Counsel on your behalf pointed to your youth, naiveté and intelligence, and also to your engagement with prison staff, your case worker in particular. You have completed two education programs: 'Coping with Change' and 'Managing Emotions'. You have also read a number of texts from the prison library - a list was provided to me. They include some works on Christianity.

92 However, none of these matters dent the ongoing ferocity and strength of your radical beliefs. In any event, your prospects for rehabilitation and personal circumstances are of diminished value in this sentencing exercise.

93 I give your plea of guilty to this offence its proper weight. You indicated your intention to plead guilty prior to the committal hearing. Your early plea has utilitarian value. It has spared the witnesses, Mr Singaravelu in particular, the trauma of giving evidence at a trial.

94 I also accept that you made full, frank and immediate admissions as to your behaviour and your motivations to police.

95 But, I do not accept, as was submitted on your behalf, that those admissions allow a finding that you have guarded prospects for rehabilitation. On the contrary, those admissions were made because you were proud of your actions, believing them to be those of a martyr. In any event, as I have said, your prospects of rehabilitation are of reduced importance in this case.

Deterrence, Punishment and Protection of the Community

96 Protection of the community, punishment of you, and both specific and general deterrence are the most important sentencing factors for me to weigh. Lone wolf attacks are extremely difficult for law enforcement authorities to detect and prevent. They have the potential, made real by your actions, to impact, adversely, the amenity of Australian society.

97 There can be no doubt that the sentence I impose is anything other than a denunciation of your behaviour and the ideology that inspired it. You and any other follower of the repugnant logic that randomly attacking citizens of this country will advance the cause of violent jihad must understand that you will be met with condign punishment. Very significant custodial sentences will be imposed to punish, to deter, and to protect the Australian community.

98 It was advanced on your behalf that you face the prospect of deportation at the conclusion of your sentence. Your student visa has been cancelled and you now are what is termed an unlawful non-citizen. I accept that you will be deported when you are eventually released from custody.

99 It was also submitted that you believe that persons suspected to be involved in Islamic terrorism have been subjected to extra-judicial killings in Bangladesh. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report for Bangladesh was tendered, as relevant to this matter. That report notes that '[i]nternational and domestic rights groups have reported that security operations against militant groups have resulted in high numbers of extra-judicial killings'.[11] That is said to be as part of a 'hard-line' approach by Bangladeshi governments to terrorist violence against government and civilian targets in Bangladesh.

100 In Guden v R[12] the Court of Appeal held that the prospect of an offender's deportation was a factor which could bear on the impact a term of imprisonment would have on that offender, both during the period of actual incarceration and upon release. And, where appropriate, it would also be proper to consider the fact that a sentence of imprisonment would result in the offender losing the opportunity of settling permanently in Australia.

101 Clearly, the second of these factors is inapplicable to you. You never had that opportunity. You were here on a student visa for a defined purpose and for a defined period. And, in any event, you never had any intention of settling in this country. You came to this country not to live and build a life, but to take a life for the purposes of advancing your ideology and intimidating the government and the people of Australia. You have no connection to this community. It follows that you cannot mourn the loss of a potential life in Australian society.

102 But, it was argued that the prospect your deportation is mitigating because you will experience long term anxiety and fear as a result of uncertainty regarding how the Bangladeshi authorities and community will deal with you on your return.

103 Guden establishes that the prospect of deportation is a factor which may bear upon the impact of a sentence of imprisonment. It does not however state that a sentencing judge who accepts the prospect of deportation must also accept the impact of that to be mitigating of sentence. Rather, it is necessary for an offender to show that the deportation would, in fact, be a hardship.[13]

104 In this case I do not find that to be well demonstrated.

105 There is scant evidence before me that you are at any such risk of extra-judicial punishment upon your eventual return to your home country. What has been advanced is simply your subjective belief of that risk, without identification of the basis of that belief. In these circumstances, I do not find the prospect of your eventual return to Bangladesh to be significantly mitigating of the appropriate sentence.

106 I accept that the conditions of your incarceration, including a high degree of isolation, the need to be handcuffed at all times outside your unit, and the restriction on you wearing a niqab, mean that you will find your time in custody difficult. At the same time, it was submitted on your behalf that you accept the restrictions and intend to continue constructive activities. When permitted to do so, you plan to enrol in further study through distance education.

107 I am required to have regard to current sentencing practices. But as I have noted, this is the first occasion in which an offender will be sentenced for the offence of intentionally engaging in a terrorist act. Nonetheless, in the manner already explained, I have regard to the sentencing principles and practices regarding terrorism offences.

109 Balancing, as best I am able, the competing considerations laid down in the Crimes Act, and having regard to the matters I have just discussed, for the offence of intentionally engaging in a terrorist act, I sentence you to 42 years' imprisonment. I am required by s 19AG of the Crimes Act to set a non-parole period of not less than three quarters of the length of the head sentence. I fix a non-parole period of 31 years and six months.

110 Pursuant to s 16E of the Crimes Act and s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that this sentence commences today and that 481 days (not including today) be reckoned as served under this sentence.

111 Assuming s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act to be applicable,[14] I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 46 years with a non-parole period of 36 years.

112 Section 16F of the Crimes Act requires me to explain the purpose and consequence of the fixing of the non-parole period. The sentence that I have just imposed on you entails a period of imprisonment of not less than 31 years and six months from the date upon which you were arrested. After that time, if you are considered suitable to be released on parole, you will serve the balance of your sentence in the community. During that period, you will be subject to various conditions and you will be subject to supervision. If you do not comply with any of the conditions imposed or the reasonable requirements of your supervisor, you are liable to be returned to custody for the balance of your sentence.

113 I am required by s 105A.23 of the Criminal Code (Cth) to warn you that an application may be made under Division 105A of the Code for a continuing detention order requiring you to be detained in a prison after the end of your sentence for this offence.

[2] Criminal Code (Terrorist Organisation Islamic State) Regulations 2017 (Cth).

[3] Extracted from the police statement of Adam Foley.

[4] Al-Awlaki was considered by United States law enforcement agencies to be a senior recruiter for Al-Qaida ('AQ') and a planner of terrorist operations in AQ's name.

[5] Meaning reliance on God's plan or trust in His plan.

[7] Meaning may Allah reward you with goodness.

[8] [2018] NSWSC 221 at [165]- [171] ('Alou (No 4)').

[9] Senior Counsel referred to R v Abbas [2018] VSC 553; DPP (Cth) v MHK [2017] VSCA 157; DPP (Cth) v Besim [2017] VSCA 158 and Fattal v The Queen [2013] VSCA 276.

[10] R v Adebolajo and Adebowale (Central Criminal Court, Sweeney J, 26 February 2014)

[12] [2010 VSCA 196.

[14] There is some variance in the practice of this Court. See R v Yim & Ors [2012] VSC 325 at [47] (per T Forrest J); R v Ramazanoglu [2013] VSC 724 at [66] (per Kaye J); R v Rhys Cini [2014] VSC 409 at [77] (per Croucher J); R v Besim [ 2016] VSC 537 (per Croucher J) ; and R v Abbas [2018] VSC 553 at [167].