Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dirani (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 1664 Hearing dates: 13 December 2023 Date of orders: 15 December 2023 Decision date: 15 December 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Sweeney J Decision: 1. The offender is sentenced to 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years, 6 months imprisonment to date from 13 November 2015. Catchwords: SENTENCING — Terrorism offences — After trial Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276 Hatahet v R [2023] NSWCCA 305 Lodhi v The Queen (2007) 179 A Crim R 470 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Khaled [2020] NSWCCA R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (Crown) Mustafa Dirani (Offender) Representation: Counsel: D Staehli SC with B Anniwell (Crown) N Steel with D Pace (Offender) Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Fourtree Lawyers (Offender) File Number(s): 2015/335067 Publication restriction: Nil JUDGMENT 1. On 31 March 2023, after a trial by jury, Mustafa Dirani was found guilty of one offence of conspiring with Raban Alou and others to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts between about 6 August 2015 and 2 October 2015. The maximum penalty for that offence is life imprisonment. Section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires the court to impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. 2. For the purpose of sentencing Mr Dirani, I make the following findings of fact, based on the evidence in the trial which the jury must have accepted to return its guilty verdict and consistent with the jury's verdict. There was a dispute between the Crown and Mr Dirani about the extent of his participation in the conspiracy, based on what Senior Counsel for the Crown described as "the relative sparseness of the evidence of his involvement." Findings of fact adverse to Mr Dirani must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 3. By way of background of Mr Dirani's offence, I note the following facts. On the afternoon of 2 October 2015, a teenage boy named Farhad Mohammad walked to the outside of the Police Centre in Parramatta and paced up and down. When Mr Curtis Cheng, an employee of the police came out of the building, Farhad Mohammad shot and killed him. 4. Farhad Mohammad was then shot and killed by Police Special Constables. On his body was found a note which indicated that the shooting of Mr Cheng was a terrorist act, intended to indicate support for Islamic State. Mr Cheng was not known to Farhad Mohammad. 5. The gun used by Farhad Mohammad had been provided to him by Raban Alou at the Parramatta Mosque, immediately before Farhad Mohammad walked from the mosque to the Police Centre to commit his crime. 6. The offence alleged by the Crown against Mr Dirani which the jury found proved was that on 2 October he assisted Raban Alou while Mr Alou sought to obtain a gun. Raban Alou having obtained a gun from a man named Talal Alameddine, he provided it to Farhad Mohammed. 7. Mr Dirani was a friend of Raban Alou. He did not know Farhad Mohammad and he did not interact with Farhad Mohammad in the commission of his offence and before Farhad Mohammad committed his crime. The evidence does not permit a finding that Mr Dirani knew precisely what was intended to be done with the gun by Raban Alou or anyone else, although the jury's verdict involved a finding that he assisted Mr Raban Alou to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act, that being an element of the offence. 8. At the time of the offence, Mr Dirani was 22 years old. Raban Alou was 18 years old. They were part of a friendship group, a group of young men whose interests included sharing and discussing on social media extremist ideological material, including material depicting terrorist acts, extolling teenage martyrs and displaying anti-police and anti-defence personnel attitudes. The purpose of that evidence in the trial was to show Mr Dirani's state of mind, that is, that he joined the conspiracy. 9. Raban Alou, Farhad Mohammad, Milad Atai and some other young men were involved in meetings and activities relating to a conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act before 2 October, which meetings and acts did not involve Mr Dirani. Those activities included attempting to have an ISIS flag made, and several attempts to obtain a gun from different people. 10. On 1 October Mr Alou was focussed on Talal Alameddine as a person who may be able to provide him with a gun. On the night of 1 October Raban Alou had tried unsuccessfully to meet with Talal Alameddine, including going to his home with Milad Atai, although Mr Alameddine was not at home. 11. Talal Alameddine provided Raban Alou with a gun on 2 October, and Raban Alou then gave that gun to Farhad Mohammad. Mr Dirani's actions with Raban Alou on 2 October while Raban Alou met with Talal Alameddine to arrange to obtain a gun are the gravamen of his offence. 12. Mr Dirani and Raban Alou arranged by text message on the night of 1 October 2015 that they would meet for Friday prayers at the Parramatta Mosque the next day, at the 12.30 session. Around 10.30am on 2 October Raban Alou again went to Talal Alameddine's home. At around 11.30 on 2 October Raban Alou went to Parramatta Mosque and sat in the prayer room with Farhad Mohammad, who had arrived at the mosque earlier. Shortly after 11.30 Mr Dirani sent Mr Alou a message asking him to confirm which prayer session he was attending, and Mr Alou told him, as he had done in the messages exchanged the night before, the first. Mr Dirani arrived at the mosque at about 12.20pm. Inside the prayer hall, he sat separately from Mr Alou. The prayer service occurred in the mosque. After the service Mr Alou and Mr Dirani spoke with people outside the mosque, and sometimes with each other. 13. While Mr Alou was outside the mosque Talal Alameddine called him and they arranged to meet. Mr Alou spoke to Mr Dirani. They both left the mosque, driving separately in their own cars, which were parked outside the mosque. They drove together from Parramatta Mosque to Jones Park at Parramatta. 14. Mr Alou got out of his car and spoke with Talal Alameddine, who arrived on foot. Mr Dirani stayed in his car while that conversation or interaction between Mr Alou and Mr Alameddine occurred. Then Mr Alameddine and Mr Alou got into Mr Alou's car and they drove off, followed by Mr Dirani in his car. They drove to Merrylands and stopped in a street near Mr Alameddine's home. 15. There, Mr Alameddine and Mr Alou got out of Mr Alou's car and had a conversation on the footpath for about seven minutes, while Mr Dirani sat in his parked car. Mr Alameddine then walked away towards his home. Mr Alou went to Mr Dirani's car and spoke to him. They both then drove to Merrylands Park. 16. They parked their cars next to each other. They spoke to each other from within their cars. The conversation was recorded by a device in Mr Alou's car. The recording was not of good quality. The conversation was a lynchpin in the Crown case. The Crown relies on what Mr Alou could be heard saying, "You know I told you when he's going to thing. Did I tell you where?". It was the Crown case in the trial that in this conversation Mr Dirani well knew the subject matter of his offence. Mr Dirani's case at trial was that this conversation was a conversation with his friend Raban Alou about Mr Alou's family problems. The jury by their verdict must be taken to have rejected that alternative explanation. 17. Counsel for Mr Dirani accepted that in this conversation, Mr Dirani was told that "it" would affect Parramatta and Parramatta Mosque. He also pointed to Mr Dirani saying "can't get involved but." However, Mr Dirani did get involved, albeit for a short time and in a limited capacity. 18. After this conversation in their cars Mr Alou and Mr Dirani got out of their cars and sat in the park talking for about 10 minutes. They then went back to their cars, and shortly afterwards, Mr Alameddine arrived and had a conversation with Mr Alou, at one point next to Mr Alou's driver's window, while Mr Dirani stood at the back of his car. Mr Alou and Mr Alameddine then walked away together and spoke together. 19. Mr Alou and Mr Dirani then drove to Wentworthville where Mr Alou's family lived. Mr Alou parked his car in the driveway of his family's unit block. Mr Dirani parked his car on the street. 20. While driving to Wentworthville and after he had parked his car, Mr Dirani had a phone conversation with a friend. After about 10 minutes Mr Alou came out to the street and he and Mr Dirani spoke. Mr Dirani then drove off and went to visit his friend with whom he had the phone conversation. The time in which Mr Dirani had been with Mr Alou since they left the mosque until Mr Dirani drove off to his friend's place was about an hour. 21. Mr Alou then returned without Mr Dirani to Merrylands Park, and Mr Alameddine again arrived and interacted with Mr Alou. It was the Crown case that Mr Alameddine gave Mr Alou the gun which he gave to Farhad Mohammad at either this last meeting or at the previous meeting at Merrylands Park. The evidence does not permit a finding as to at which of those meetings the transfer of the gun occurred. 22. After the shooting of Mr Cheng was reported in the news media that evening, Mr Dirani posted messages on social media which suggested he did not know of the plan for the act committed by Farhad Mohammad, as he expressed some surprise and an apparent lack of knowledge of the details of what had occurred in messages which said "wow", "three dead at Parra," I think they are Muslims". 23. The next day, 3 October, Mr Dirani tried several times to contact Mr Alou by phone, and after he did, they met at McDonald's. Mr Alou had previously met up with Milad Atai separately that day. That night, Mr Dirani posted on the WhatsApp forum he shared with Mr Alou, Mr Atai and others an image of a man giving an ISIS salute. On 4 and 5 October, he posted messages which seemed to praise Farhad Mohammad's act, albeit after the event when its nature was known. 24. I am satisfied by the messages Mr Dirani posted on the evening of 2 October that he did not know the exact details of what was to happen or when, although clearly he knew a gun was to be involved. 25. There was a dispute between the Crown and Mr Dirani about when he joined the conspiracy. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Dirani that I should find he only joined it on 2 October. Part of the submitted reason for that was that Mr Alou had had a conversation the night before with another person, suggesting he did not think he could acquire a firearm for another week, so it was only on 2 October he became aware he could obtain a gun from Talal Alameddine. 26. Further, it was submitted, and I am satisfied, that Mr Dirani was looking for a new mosque to attend because he could no longer attend the mosque he had been attending at Macquarie University, as a non-student. So I accept he genuinely went to Parramatta Mosque for Friday prayers on 2 October, although I also accept his purpose in going there, where Raban Alou was going, could have been twofold. 27. The Crown submitted that there was not time on 2 October for Mr Dirani to have been informed of the conspiracy and decided to join it, and therefore I should draw the inference he joined before that day. 28. The Crown relied in this regard on a message Mr Dirani sent to Raban Alou on 28 September which said: "If you need anything let me know. Patience. Allah is the best of planners. Do you think you will believe and not get tested?". 1. It was the Crown case that this was Mr Dirani participating with Mr Alou in the conspiracy. Mr Dirani's case about this message was that he was offering support to Mr Alou about his family's opposition to Mr Alou's marriage. 2. The Crown's interpretation of the message is open. Equally open is Mr Dirani's. I am unable to find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dirani was involved in the conspiracy on that day by reference to that message. 3. There were opportunities for him to join the conspiracy on 2 October, even as late as during the conversation in their cars at Merrylands. It was Mr Dirani's case that he was with Mr Alou that day to have lunch with him. It was not implausible that Mr Dirani set out from the mosque with Mr Alou to have lunch, although having been told by Mr Alou he had to do something first, and that at Merrylands he was told about Mr Alou's purpose for the day. Mr Dirani's comment in that conversation "can't get involved but" makes sense in that scenario. 4. As the Crown submitted, the evidence is sparse. I am unable to find beyond reasonable doubt when Mr Dirani joined the conspiracy, but I am unable to find beyond reasonable doubt on the available evidence that it was before 2 October. I will proceed on the basis he joined on 2 October, although at what precise time I cannot find. 5. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offence, the relevant principles are as the Victorian Court of Appeal said in the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Fattal [2013] VSCA 276: "While someone convicted of a terrorism offence involving doing acts in preparation for a terrorism offence does not stand to be sentenced as though he had committed the terrorism act he was preparing for, nevertheless what was contemplated must inform the nature and gravity of the preparatory act." 1. In Lodhi v The Queen (2007) 179 A Crim R 470, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal said the main focus in the assessment of objective seriousness of preparatory acts are the offender's conduct and his intention when the offence occurred. 2. In assessing the objective seriousness of Mr Dirani's offence, I take into account the following factors. His role and conduct was to provide support to Raban Alou on 2 October while Raban Alou attempted to obtain a gun in preparation for a terrorist act. Mr Dirani was not directly involved in the provision of the gun to the person who committed the terrorist act. He was not present when Raban Alou gave the gun to Farhad Mohammad. He was removed from that conduct. 3. He was not involved in any of the previous planning and activities by Raban Alou, Milad Atai and others in planning and preparing for a terrorist act. He did communicate with those people in sharing his ideological views but not in support of their conspiracy, only as demonstrating his own views. He did not know Farhad Mohammad or Shadi Mohammad, Farhad Mohammed's sister, and he did not contribute to or reinforce their radicalisation. 4. He did possess quite a deal of material in the form of books, videos, photographs and songs, which showed he was committed to extremist views, and he discussed that material and those views with his friends, including Raban Alou and Milad Atai, though those discussions did not advocate the commission of the specific act which Farhad Mohammad committed. 5. He was involved for only a short time. He accompanied Raban Alou and provided support to Raban Alou in some way which was of value to Raban Alou in his meetings with Talal Alameddine, although most of the interactions occurred away from Mr Dirani's immediate physical presence, and he was not a party, in close proximity, to their conversations. 6. He was not just involved in obtaining a gun for a criminal activity, but in obtaining a gun in preparation for a terrorist act. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the act planned or when it was to occur. That he left Raban Alou to finish off his dealings with Mr Alameddine alone, and went off to visit a friend who was not involved in the terrorist conspiracy, lends support to that, as does his reaction to the news reports of Farhad Mohammad's crime. 7. However, that the terrorist act being prepared for involved a gun obviously connoted an act of high seriousness was being prepared for. 8. The Crown case at trial alleged that Mr Dirani contributed money to the obtaining of the gun by giving or lending Raban Alou $50, but I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the $50 was for that purpose rather than for food, as the messaging between them suggested. 9. Mr Dirani's offence was serious, though less serious, by a significant degree, than Raban Alou's and Milad Atai's, they having been involved in the planning of and preparation for a terrorist act which they identified, and for longer, and Mr Alou being directly involved in providing the gun to Farhad Mohammad. 10. The factors in Mr Dirani's offence pull in different directions. That a gun was to be involved in the terrorist act being planned indicated an act of high seriousness, involving death or serious injury, was being planned. On the other hand, he was involved only for a short time and in a limited way. Taking into account all of those factors, I assess his offence as below the mid-range of seriousness. I use that terminology because it appears to have been used in cases of sentencing for terrorism offences, even though there is no standard non-parole period involved. 11. I must note that Mr Dirani was previously sentenced by Johnson J after an earlier trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed an appeal, and ordered a new trial be held. I will refer later to the chronology of trials. The general principle is that Mr Dirani should not receive a harsher sentence now than the sentence imposed by Johnson J. 12. I consider it necessary to note that my assessment of the objective seriousness of Mr Dirani's offence for sentence differs from Johnson J's, but also to note that the case presented by the Crown against Mr Dirani in this trial was narrower than the case presented before Johnson J, and the findings of fact I made, based on the evidence in the trial before me, are markedly different than those made by Johnson J. 13. The case against Mr Dirani before me showed him to be involved in offending of lesser duration, less conduct and therefore, offending which was less serious than the offending considered by Johnson J. 14. Specifically, evidence that Mr Dirani performed counter surveillance for Mr Alou on 2 October was excluded by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Bellew J excluded some evidence about a conversation in the trial before him. Johnson J found on the evidence before him that Mr Dirani was a party to the conspiracy before 2 October, for weeks, that he indoctrinated others, which was not relied on in the trial before me, that he provided emotional, religious and ideological support to his co-conspirators; he provided financial support to Raban Alou to purchase the firearm before 2 October; and he attended meetings with co-conspirators before 2 October; none of which the Crown relied on in the trial before me. I note those matters to note that I am dealing with Mr Dirani on a different basis than Johnson J did. 15. Ms Selina Tam, Curtis Cheng's widow, provided a Victim Impact Statement. Counsel for Mr Dirani objected to Ms Tam's Victim Impact Statement being taken into account. I dealt with that objection as a preliminary issue, in a separate judgment, permitting Ms Tam to present her Victim Impact Statement. On the day of the sentence hearing, Ms Tam did not wish to read her statement. I therefore read it as part of the materials tendered by the Crown on sentence. 16. In her statement Ms Tam spoke about the pain and the loss of her husband and her children's father, the loss of their shared life and plans, the continuing hurt of the senseless loss of a gentle, loving husband and father. I have taken into account the harm she has suffered from Mr Dirani's offence. 17. Mr Dirani did not give evidence in the sentence proceedings. His subjective circumstances were put before me in a report from a psychologist, John Machlin, letters from his mother and sister, and reports about his physical health and his mother's physical and mental health. 18. Mr Dirani is now thirty. He was 22 in 2015 at the time of his offence. He told Mr Machlin that his parents separated when he was about two years old and his sister was four. They grew up in his mother's care. He saw his father but did not have a close relationship with him, until he cared for his father, who died of cancer when Mr Dirani was about 19, in the final stages of his life. 19. Mr Dirani also became his mother's carer in his late teens, receiving a carer's pension in recognition of that role, which continued until his arrest for this offence. Since he has been in custody, his mother has suffered hardship which I will address in due course. 20. He did not enjoy high school, he left school around 14, and worked intermittently with family and friends until he assumed his parental care roles. 21. He has a short criminal history of three offences committed in 2012 and 2013. There was an offence of possessing an ecstasy tablet at a music event, for which he was fined, and two offences, an assault and concealing a serious offence, both committed in 2013 and both the subject of an 8 month suspended sentence. 22. Given the nature of those offences and that they occurred over 10 years ago when Mr Dirani was quite young, they are of little significance in sentencing him for the current offence for sentence. 23. Mr Dirani told Mr Machlin that from the age of 20 he began studying Islam and attending a mosque. He described himself as having felt a bit depressed and lonely throughout his life, lacking his father's presence in his life and guidance. He said he began to see what was happening in a lot of Muslim countries. 24. He acknowledged he viewed and possessed extremist material, and engaged with people with extremist ideology, although he said not exclusively. He told Mr Machlin he did not advocate violence in Australia. However, his offence did contemplate violence in Australia. 25. Mr Machlin assessed Mr Dirani as having a depressive reaction to his incarceration. I will refer later to Mr Dirani's custodial conditions. Mr Machlin considered a previous assessment by Doctor Katie Seidler, psychologist, conducted in 2019. She used the Violent Extremism Risk Assessment Tool Version 2, which has since come under criticism about its validity. However, Mr Machlin adopted Doctor Seidler's assessment of Mr Dirani as at moderate risk of reoffending, "more likely as a supporter or conspirator rather than direct action." Mr Machlin was not able to say if Mr Dirani has tempered his extremist views he held at the time of his offence. He said that Mr Dirani is now older, represents a possible reduction in risk. Counsel for Mr Dirani submitted that there is no evidence he has done anything in custody to promote extremism, which I accept. 26. Mr Dirani has completed the few programs which were available to him as an unsentenced prisoner. Once he is sentenced, he will be able to be assessed for a Countering Violent Extremism program. 27. According to Naomi Prince, a manager of those programs, Mr Dirani previously engaged with an assessment for those programs, but when his appeal was allowed and his sentence was quashed, the assessment was paused. That he engaged in that assessment is a positive indicator of Mr Dirani's attitude and willingness to rehabilitate himself. That it was paused until he is sentenced again is not a matter adverse to him. 28. The letter from Mr Dirani's mother expressed stress at her son's incarceration. A letter from Doctor Mohamed El-Dirani states that Mrs Dirani has a number of physical health conditions, but also that her mental health has declined since Mr Dirani, who was her carer, was taken into custody. Doctor El-Dirani says Mrs Dirani suffers depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder, which have become more severe since Mr Dirani's incarceration. 29. Mrs Dirani said in her letter that she has struggled in the absence of her son's care, and she has not been able to see her son often in Goulburn, although when she did, they were separated by glass. Mr Dirani's sister, Nouha Dirani, confirmed her mother's decline in Mr Dirani's absence, how she and her family feel his absence, and how she has had to take on her mother's care in addition to her commitments of her family. 30. I take into account the hardships to Mr Dirani's mother and sister as a result of his being imprisoned. I note also that he told Mr Machlin he was concerned about his mother, and I also take that into account. 31. There is evidence that Mr Dirani suffers chronic pain in his lower back and leg, the latter as a result of a chronic compression of a nerve, which he has experienced for about two years. There is a dispute between the Crown and Mr Dirani about the appropriate treatment for his condition and whether he needs surgery. Doctor Ette of Justice Health attributes Mr Dirani's back pain to a disc protrusion affecting nerves. Whatever the appropriate treatment is, chronic back and leg pain are conditions which make Mr Dirani's time in custody more onerous, and I take that into account. His conditions in custody, even excluding his physical pain, have been quite onerous. 32. Other than when he has been attending his trials, Mr Dirani has been held in the High Risk Management Correctional Centre at Goulburn. He told Mr Machlin that his conditions have involved daily isolation and limited associations. He said his security classification limited his association initially to one other person and now four. He has endured Covid lockdowns. 33. Joshua Whitby, a Senior Correctional Officer in the High Risk Management Correctional Centre, confirmed in his affidavits that inmates are allowed out of their cells from 8.30am until 2.30pm. When lockdowns occur, inmates remain in their cells during those hours. He said during Mr Dirani's time in the centre there have been 542 lockdowns. Counsel for Mr Dirani calculated that those 542 lockdowns, during which Mr Dirani was confined in his cell for twenty-four hours or more, was the equivalent of about a year and a half in total confinement. 34. Mr Whitby confirmed what the Court has come to know about the restrictions caused in prisons by Covid. He said there were restrictions on contact visits, and when a Covid outbreak occurred in the HRMCC, all inmates in the unit where the outbreak occurred would be in lockdown, and at times, the centre went into lockdown because of staff shortages arising from Covid. In R v Khaled [2020] NSWCCA 73 Harrison J, as his Honour then was, said about onerous conditions of custody "Offenders receive sentences of imprisonment as punishment; they are not imprisoned for punishment". 35. Mr Dirani has experienced onerous custodial conditions in his eight years in custody to date. They are likely to continue in the future, although the restrictions brought about by Covid are likely to be less intense or less frequent now, given those intense years of the pandemic have passed. I do note however that Mr Dirani has had Covid recently, and I note that it still exists in the community, and therefore in prisons. I take into account his past and future onerous conditions in custody. 36. Mr Dirani has experienced a delay of eight years between his offence and arrest and being sentenced. The chronology is as follows. He was arrested on 13 November 2015 and arraigned in July 2017. His first trial occurred between June and August 2018, and the jury was discharged during deliberations. 37. His second trial took place between January and March 2019, and he was found guilty. He was sentenced by Johnson J on 9 August 2019. He shortly thereafter lodged a Notice of Intention to Appeal. In August 2021, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed his conviction and ordered a new trial. 38. He had a further trial then before Bellew J, beginning on 19 September 2022, and the jury was discharged on the second day. His next trial before Bellew J commenced on 26 September, and the jury was discharged on 11 October 2022. 39. His next trial before Bellew J commenced on 17 October, and on 8 December 2022 the jury were discharged because they were unable to reach a verdict. His last trial occurred this year between 22 February and 31 March, when the jury found him guilty. 40. Mr Dirani told Mr Machlin that the proceedings had been arduous, exhausting mentally, emotionally and physically. Each time he went to trial he was transferred from Goulburn to Silverwater, where he was held in segregation, and when he was taken to court he was strip-searched and placed in handcuffs and leg chains. It would be fair to say the criminal justice system has not worked well in Mr Dirani's case. 41. The applicable principle was stated by Street CJ in R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517. "Where there has been a lengthy postponement… fairness to the prisoner requires weight to be given to… the circumstance that he has been left in a state of uncertain suspense as to what will happen to him when… he comes up for sentence, and the fact that sentencing for a stale crime long after the committing of the offence calls for a considerable measure of understanding…. at times, this can require what might otherwise be a quite undue degree of leniency being extended to the prisoner." 1. That principle was confirmed as correct by the High Court in its decision of Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59. 2. The lengthy delay in which Mr Dirani has been left in uncertain suspense, and his arduous experience of multiple trials, I take into account to markedly reduce the sentence to be imposed on him. 3. Sentencing principles require that the sentence imposed on Mr Dirani for his offence must punish and deter him, denounce his offence and protect the community by incapacitating him. 4. Section 19AG of the Crimes Act 1914 requires that a non-parole period for a terrorism offence, which Mr Dirani's offence is, be at least three quarters of the head sentence imposed. Section 19ALB of the Act provides that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth must not make a parole order for a person who has been convicted of a terrorism offence unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify making a parole order. 5. Those provisions were recently considered by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in Hatahet v R [2023] NSWCCA 305. 6. In these sentence proceedings, Senior Counsel for the Crown advised that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether to apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal against that decision, and asked that I defer sentencing Mr Dirani until that decision had been made. I declined to do so because of the extraordinary delay to date in Mr Dirani's being sentenced, which should not be further extended. At present, the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision is binding on me. The Court therein noted evidence that of 53 applications for parole by people subject to s 19ALB, none has resulted in a parole order. 7. Basten JA, with whom Davies and Cavanagh JJ agreed, said a sentencing judge is not to have regard to the likelihood or otherwise of an offender being granted parole by the relevant executive authority at the end of the non-parole period, but the court can take into account likely more onerous conditions of custody, including that fixing a non-parole period for a person who has no realistic possibility of release is likely to adversely affect the offender and his mental condition. 8. His Honour said the sentencing court should not be "blinkered" as to the practical consequences of imposing a non-parole period which has little if any utility. His Honour held in that case that an expectation that parole would be refused, combined with the prisoner having served most of his sentence in the HRMCC, meant that that prisoner had suffered and will continue to suffer more onerous conditions of imprisonment, which warranted a reduction of the sentence imposed. I have taken a similar approach in sentencing Mr Dirani. 9. The sentences imposed on Mr Dirani's co-offenders were put before me, not for reasons of parity but as some relevant information. Raban Alou and Milad Atai were both sentenced for aiding and abetting the commission of a terrorist act by Farhad Mohammad, to which they each pleaded guilty. Johnson J assessed their offences as of very high objective gravity. Mr Alou was sentenced to 44 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years, Mr Atai to 30 years imprisonment. 10. The Crown accepts that there is a distinction between their offences and Mr Dirani's. Having read their sentencing judgments and what Johnson J found they did, their offending was of significantly greater extent and seriousness than Mr Dirani. 11. Counsel for Mr Dirani sought to call in aid the sentence imposed on Talal Alameddine. The Crown objected to any comparison being drawn between them. 12. Mr Alameddine pleaded guilty to two offences, supplying a pistol contrary to the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), and possessing a revolver which was connected with the preparation for a terrorist act, being reckless as to the connection of that thing to the preparation for a terrorist act, contrary to s 101.4(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (NSW), with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. 13. For that offence, he was sentenced to 7 years and 2 mmonths imprisonment, which involved a 15 per cent discount for his plea of guilty. For supplying the firearm, he was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. The aggregate sentence was 17 years, 8 months imprisonment. 14. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal said that his terrorism offence involved the handing over of a revolver ready for immediate use in circumstances where he was aware of a high degree of risk that it would be used in a terrorist act which would cause death or serious injury to a member or members of the public. By majority, the Court reduced the sentence for the terrorism offence to imprisonment for 6 years and the sentence for supplying the firearm to 12 years, accumulated by 2 years on the first sentence. 15. I have taken into account the information about the sentences imposed on Mr Alou, Mr Atai and Mr Alameddine for their different offences, which differed from Mr Dirani's. I have also read and been assisted by a number of sentences provided by the Crown for people sentenced for other terrorism offences. 16. Before I sentence Mr Dirani, I am required to, and do, warn him that because of the offence you have been convicted of, after your sentence is completed the Commonwealth Attorney-General may apply to this Court for orders that you remain in detention or under supervision in the community. 17. The sentence must be backdated to commence on the day Mr Dirani went into custody. 18. Taking into account all of those matters I have referred to, I sentence you, Mustafa Dirani, to 14 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19. 10 years, 6 months imprisonment to date from 13 November 2015. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 May 2024