appeal against sentence — making a document connected with preparation for a terrorist act and offender knew of that connection offence contrary to s 101.5(1) of Commonwealth Criminal Code — original sentence imposed 9 years’ and 6 months imprisonment, with a 7 year and 1 month non-parole period — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — parity — original sentence imposed before Xiao v The Queen sentencing judge in error in failing to take into account utilitarian value of plea of guilty — necessary for court to independently exercise the sentencing discretion afresh — offender’s argument that offender should receive greater discount of 10% for plea of guilty when one has regard to 3 co-offenders receiving same discount is not persuasive — all pleas late pleas, none entered at first reasonable opportunity — offender’s plea entered 12 days before 6 week trial clearly limited the utilitarian value of plea — prosecution still had to fully prepare trial and the court system had to fully engage in accommodating a 6 week trial up until plea — fact that co-offenders’ pleas may have been entered later does not provide basis for successfully arguing sentencing judge wrongly exercised discretion — while open to sentencing judge to conclude that plea of guilty might be seen as some movement away from previously held ideology, the issue of remorse and acceptance of responsibility could not be put any higher than that — particularly so when applicant did not give evidence as to those matters, and did not given evidence on sentence — 10% discount for utilitarian value of the guilty plea is appropriate — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — objective seriousness of offending is high — seriousness of the contents of document cannot be measured by how many words are written, nor by lack of sophistication of expression — clear from extracts that comparative simplicity of expression did not obscure high objective seriousness of content of documents — each target of proposed killing, building and type of building specified in documents were part of machinery for maintaining law and order in society — content of documents was directed at substantial disruption of part of machinery of government — appropriate conclusion on re-sentence that references to doing “something major” and “something massive” indicated level of premeditation and planning, i.e. that act should be of a martyrdom type so that documents operated as an exhortation to the members of the group to bring about the result referred to — limited dissemination of material in documents added to seriousness of offending in that greater likelihood of them being acted on by a small group, contrasted with unlikelihood of them being acted on if widely published — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — offender’s good behaviour in prison, offender’s depressive disorder, difficult personal background and onerous conditions of custody taken into account — re-sentence — 9 years’ imprisonment imposed with a 6 year and 9 month non-parole period
