appeal against sentence — one count of doing an act, namely made enquiries about and acquired quantities of firearm ammunition, in preparation for a terrorist act or acts and one count of doing an act, namely made enquiries about and acquired quantities of chemicals in preparation for a terrorist act or acts offences contrary to s 101.6(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code, one count of possessing a thing, namely a collection of documents, including electronic documents, images, videos and audio files, connected with preparation for a terrorist act or acts, knowing of that connection and one count of possessing a thing, namely a collection of items, including two loaded hand guns, 5 litres of battery acid, 5 litres of hydrochloric acid and telephone handset under false name, connected with preparation for a terrorist act or acts, knowing of that connection offences contrary to s 101.4(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 18 years’ and 8 months imprisonment with a 14 year non-parole period — parity — while offender and Touma were initially charged with same offence, the acts said to constitute offences for which they were actually charged and sentenced were discrete and no suggestion they were acting in concert — acts charged not connected — Green made it clear principle can apply between co-offenders when charged with different offences, plurality did not state it applied to situation where persons are charged with similar offences arising out of different criminal acts — fact that offenders initially charged as being part of same conspiracy irrelevant when that charge not pressed and no common activities alleged — not to say consistency of sentencing in similar cases is not of importance — manifest excess — offender sought to rely on “additional” evidence in support of argument that sentencing judge underestimated harshness of conditions — evidence does not establish that sentencing judge failed to appreciate conditions of incarceration as they existed at time of sentence, but that conditions have changed — does not fall in R v Smith principle, irrelevant and should be rejected — intervention for manifest excess warranted only when difference in view is such that in all circumstances appellate court concludes misapplication of principle — assessment of gravity of offence was not based on use to which ammunition could be put — while sentence undoubtedly severe, crimes themselves were very serious — ammunition and chemicals obtained for purpose of terrorist act which, while not intended to kill people, was calculated to damage property, endanger life and cause disruption and fear in the community in pursuit of extremist beliefs — acts warrant severe punishment — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — co-operation — s 16A(2)(h) — sentencing judge justified in only allowing combined discount of 15% for both guilty plea and assistance to authorities — discount reflects plea made extremely late and assistance extremely limited — leave granted to appeal out of time — appeal dismissed
