Resource - Spreadsheet of relevant terrorism sentencing cases v 1.0

This spreadsheet analyses sentencing decisions and appeals for persons convicted of terrorism offences under section 80.2C and Divisions 101–103 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code from 2002 to 2024. 

This analysis was commissioned by the INSLM Office and prepared by counsel assisting the INSLM, Jancis Cunliffe (Key Chambers) and Julia Wang (Owen Dixon Chambers West). 

The Monitor gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in helping to identify relevant cases, and acknowledges that this may not be an exhaustive list.

Methodology

Counsel has reviewed each sentencing decision, and in some cases appeal decisions, and considered any commentary on the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ (i.e. terrorist motive, terrorist purpose, harm, the exception and threats). Establishing these elements proved more challenging than originally envisaged because, in many cases, there is little to no judicial analysis of these elements (particularly where an accused pleaded guilty). In addition, where multiple offenders are involved, the courts often consider these elements generally in relation to the terrorist act, rather than in relation to each individual. As such, categorisation in respect of these elements has, in some cases, had to involve significant judgment calls based on the information available. Counsel has adopted the following methodology in assessing each case:

• where the court (including in the recitation of facts) identifies a relevant factor, or this can be inferred from the judgment, this is indicated as ‘Y’.
• where a case solely involves offences relating to terrorist organisations (generally Islamic State), the terrorist purpose and terrorist motive is identified as that of the relevant organisation (identified via the reasons for the listing of the organisation), except where the court made direct comments about the purpose or motive of the individual
• where the court has not identified a relevant factor, and it cannot be inferred, this is indicated as ‘N’
• where the charge was not related to a particular terrorist act and instead relates to membership/support etc of a terrorist organisation (Division 102), such that the intention in respect of harm is irrelevant, this is indicated as ‘n/a’
• in many cases the harm elements overlap, so, for example, in cases involving preparatory acts intended to cause death, the intended harm is indicated as ‘Y’ for each of ‘death’, ‘physical harm’ and ‘endanger life’ (even when no actual harm resulted), on the basis that an intention to cause death also implies an intention to cause physical harm and endanger life.

It should be noted that it could easily be argued that ideology is an underpinning motive in almost every case. There may also have been underlying political motives in some cases that were not clear on the face of the decisions (for example, based on the aims of a terrorist organisation with which the offender was linked). While these questions will be explored further in the review, in the initial analysis every attempt has been made to differentiate the motives using the methodology above.

© Commonwealth of Australia 2025. Unless otherwise stated, all material presented in the report is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence.