Judge Gave Terrorist “The Least Restrictive Sentence”
“Sentencing notes from the terrorist’s trial in July shows he was allowed back into the community with minimal monitoring due to the judge putting the ISIS sympathiser’s considerations before the safety of the community,” says Darroch Ball co-leader of Sensible Sentencing Trust.
“In the sentencing notes from 6 July, Justice Sally Fitzgerald declined the crown's submission to sentence him to intensive supervision which would allow GPS monitoring, and instead sentenced him just to simple supervision instead.”
“Either this is a clear cut case where Justice Fitzgerald needs to resign or our sentencing laws have been shown to have failed our country.”
She stated the following:
“I am sentencing you to supervision, and so I cannot impose conditions relating to electronic monitoring. Nor would I have done so even if I had sentenced you to intensive supervision. In my view, conditions relating to your online activity and monitoring of that activity are much more relevant to reduce the risk of you re-offending.”
“A sentence of intensive supervision would permit me to impose conditions for a longer period of time than a sentence of supervision. That may help support your rehabilitation. It would also permit electronic monitoring. Nevertheless, I am very conscious of the lengthy time you have already spent in custody, and that I must impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate.”
“The sentence should be appropriate for the safety of the community – not what’s appropriate for the offender. This serves to highlight the fact that the current sentencing act is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.”
“Justice Fitzgerald was “conscious of the lengthy time” the ISIS terrorist had already spent in custody. The same dangerous offender who all of our top agencies know is going to offend, who is not only on a watch list but under 24 hour surveillance.”
“How is this doing ‘everything that can possibly be done under the law’?”
“If the judiciary and the law is meant to protect our community, they have demonstrably failed,” says Mr Ball.
“The flaws in the legislation are one thing, but when we have a system that is so inherently weak, and so blatant in their bias towards offender’s rights, we as a country are on a hiding to nothing.”