A man in Sydney whose terror-related plan included killing police officers and attacking government buildings has won a reduction of his prison sentence.
In November 2017, the then 24-year-old Jibryl Almaouie was jailed for 18 years and 10 months with a release-free period of 14 years and two months.
He had pleaded guilty to conspiring with Sulayman Khalid, a youth and others in 2014 to commit acts in preparation for an act of terrorism to promote violent jihad.
He also pleaded guilty to four counts of felony criminal mischief.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal on Friday reduced his sentence to 16 years and six months with a non-parole period of 12 years and six months.
Although the Supreme Court judge had convicted Almaouie in accordance with the law in force at the time, the DPP accepted that he – in the light of a subsequent appeal decision – had erred in his consideration of the conviction.
The Court of Appeal said that the admission was well-founded and that it sentenced Almaouie again in accordance with the “Xiao” decision.
Khalid and the youth have already had their sentences cut in accordance with the decision, which ruled that the usefulness of a declaration of guilt should be taken into account in federal offenses.
In the agreed facts of the conspiracy, Khalid was described as “the leader” and Almaouie as “high up in the group”.
The group’s rough plan involved killing police officers, attacking government buildings, purchasing firearms and engaging in guerrilla warfare with the help of an army of indigenous peoples they had converted to Islam.
In conversations and planning documents, they used passwords like “banana” and “motorcycles” instead of firearms. “Wombat” meant Khalid’s garage – their meeting place.
Khalid also made a series of YouTube videos, including one in which he threatened intelligence services around the world, saying, “Either you become a Muslim and you want to believe in Allah, or you die for the sword.”
In recalculating Almaouie, the Court of Appeal applied a 10 percent rebate because of the usefulness of his guilty plea.
It also accepted that if it did not interfere with his sentence, there would be an “unjustified difference” between his and Khalid’s reduced sentence, given Khalid’s greater role in the offense.
Australian Associated Press