The King v HatahetCitation:[2024] HCA 23Before:Gordon ACJ, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:12 Jun 2024Case Number:S37/2024Read more

The sentencing judge was not required to consider the application of s 19ALB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or the likelihood of parole being refused when sentencing the respondent.

Parties: Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 June 2024
Procedural Posture: Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Sentencing, Parole, Terrorism, Foreign Incursions

Criminal Law Sentencing Parole Terrorism Foreign Incursions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sentencing judge should have considered the application of s 19ALB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) when sentencing the respondent
2 Whether the expectation that parole would be refused due to s 19ALB warranted imposition of a lesser sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was not required to consider the application of s 19ALB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or the likelihood of parole being refused when sentencing the respondent.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

The appeal is allowed
The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is set aside