Site Logo

R v Shoma [2019] VSC 367

sentence — engaging in a terrorist act offence contrary to s 101.1(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — offender stabbed victim in neck with kitchen knife, resulting in physical injury — attack occurred in victim’s home where victim was homestay host for offender —victim impact statements — ss 16AB, 16A(2)(ea) — victim impact statements received by court from victim and victim’s wife — victim’s 5 year old daughter witness attack — victim suffers from constant physical pain and post-traumatic stress disorder — distress at watching daughter suffer flashbacks, severe nightmares and night sweats — sentencing terrorism offences — body of case law concerning preparatory offences is apposite to intentionally engaging in terrorist act offences — no clear binary division of objective seriousness between terrorist act done in public than act done in private — fact that no adult witnesses to attack does not necessarily make offending less serious than potential lone wolf attack in public — attack violated legitimate expectation that everyone should be and feel safe in their home — number of intended or actual victims are not determinative of assessment of objective seriousness — irrespective of number of immediate victims, assessment of harm must necessarily take into consideration harm done to Australian public and Australian polity — fact that terrorist act was completed rather than contemplated relevant to assessment of gravity of offending and moral culpability of the offender — nature and circumstances of offence — s16A(2)(a) — offender entered study program from Bangladesh to Australia with ‘sole purpose’ of carrying out terrorist act — bringing large kitchen knife from Bangladesh and carrying out attack within 8 days of arriving in Australia demonstrates seriousness of offending — offender chose weapon that could be brought into Australia without detection, and a mode of attack that could be executed with speed and scant preparation — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — offender’s early plea of guilty has utilitarian value — full, frank and immediate admission does not demonstrate good prospects of rehabilitation as admissions made because offender was proud of her actions ‘believing them to be those of a martyr’ — deportation — offender did not demonstrate that deportation after release from custody will result in hardship — ‘scant evidence’ that offender would be at risk of extra-judicial punishment upon return to Bangladesh — sentence — offender sentenced to 42 years’ imprisonment with a 31 year and 6 month non-parole period
The CSD acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as First Australians and recognises their culture, history, diversity and their deep connection to the land. We acknowledge that we are on the land of the traditional owners and pay respects to Elders past and present.

© 2024 The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA). Powered by

Privacy Policy|Terms and Conditions

top-arrow