| Abstrakt: |
Following the decisions of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Lodhi and Lodhi v The Queen, offences against Division 101 of the Criminal Code (Cth) have resulted in very substantial sentences of imprisonment. This article considers why. It argues that four distinct factors influence the sentencing process. First, the justification for treating terrorism offences as outrageous, abhorrent crimes has changed. The focus has moved from the harm caused or threatened by terrorist acts to the challenge presented by terrorist ideology and, specifically, violent jihad. Second, courts have proven reluctant to mitigate punishment for offences against Division 101 based on the proximity of preparatory conduct to an actual terrorist act. Third, the principle of proportionality has not tempered the protection of society as a sentencing aim in punishing people for terrorism offences. Fourth, rehabilitation is given far less weight as a sentencing goal. The combination of these factors has lead to disproportionate sentences that may be counterproductive in the struggle to make Australia free from terrorist activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
