R v Elmir (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 1040

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Elmir (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 1040 Hearing dates: 28 June 2019 Date of orders: 16 August 2019 Decision date: 16 August 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Davies J Decision: For the offence of committing acts in preparation for incursions into a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities, contrary to s 119.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for five years and five months commencing on 22 April 2017 and expiring on 21 September 2022 with a non-parole period of four years and one month expiring 21 May 2021 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – foreign incursion offence – offender pleaded guilty on first day of trial to an offence against s 119.4 Criminal Code (Cth) – offender committed acts in preparation for incursion into a foreign country for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities – offender travelled to Turkey with the intention of crossing into Syria – stayed in an Islamic State safe house in Turkey – sought assistance to cross into Syria and to make contact with persons associated with IS – obtained military equipment – offender ultimately deported from Turkey back to Australia and subsequently arrested – offender had taken serious steps in the commission of the offence – accumulation of military equipment suggested intent to take an active part in hostilities – offender's contacts and connections in Turkey demonstrated at least a moderate degree of planning – offending fell slightly below the mid-range of objective seriousness – whether the offender had changed his extreme views – where the offender did not give evidence at the sentence hearing – where the offender refused to stand – available evidence did not suggest that the offender had changed his views – assessment of remorse and prospects of rehabilitation and reoffending – where a letter from the offender expressing regret was provided to the Court – without evidence from the offender that was capable of being tested the Court did not find remorse – prospects of rehabilitation only fair – offender's criminal antecedents afforded him no leniency – regard had to both general and specific deterrence – discount given for guilty plea