## Facts

- Abdul Nacer Benbrika was prosecuted as the alleged leader of a Melbourne-based group accused of planning, encouraging, and preparing for terrorist activity.
- He was tried in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Commonwealth terrorism offences under Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), including directing and being a member of a terrorist organisation and possessing things connected with preparation for a terrorist act.
- The prosecution relied on evidence including intercepted communications, group meetings/teachings, ideological statements, and materials such as detailed bomb-making manuals.
- Graphic propaganda material (including execution videos) was admitted at trial, accompanied by limiting directions.
- Concerns arose during the trial about possible juror exposure to extraneous material (internet use and a dictionary in the jury room).
- Benbrika was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment (reported as 15 years with a 12-year non-parole period).
- Benbrika and others appealed convictions (multiple alleged legal and procedural errors and alleged unreasonableness of verdicts) and appealed sentence as manifestly excessive.

## Issues

1. What constitutes a “terrorist organisation,” “organisation,” “member,” and “direction” under Part 5.3, and whether the evidence proved Benbrika’s leadership and membership.
2. How to construe and apply “connected with preparation for a terrorist act,” “fostering,” and “provision of resources,” including whether a specific target or timetable is required.
3. Whether admission of highly prejudicial material (execution videos) and the trial judge’s directions caused unfairness or miscarriage of justice.
4. Whether alleged juror irregularities (internet use and extraneous reference materials) required discharge, mistrial, or otherwise invalidated the verdicts.
5. Whether the guilty verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence on appellate review.
6. Whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, including whether proportionality and relativity among co-offenders required adjustment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal largely dismissed the conviction appeals and upheld the principal terrorism convictions.
- The Court held the jury could properly find the existence of a terrorist organisation and Benbrika’s role as leader/director and member on the evidence.
- The Court found no miscarriage of justice arising from the challenged evidence rulings, jury directions (including on burden/standard of proof and missing-evidence reasoning), or the handling of alleged juror irregularities.
- The Court rejected the contention that the verdicts were unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence.
- On sentence, the Court resentenced the offenders to ensure proportionality and proper relativity, while maintaining the seriousness with which terrorism offending must be treated.

## Legal Principles

- A “terrorist organisation” for Part 5.3 purposes does not require formal legal structure; sufficient association, continuity, and a proscribed purpose can satisfy “organisation.”
- “Membership” turns on intentional and knowing participation in, or identification with, the organisation and its terrorist purpose; “direction” may be proved by evidence of leadership and organisational control.
- Possession of a “thing” “connected with preparation for a terrorist act” does not require proof of a fixed target or timetable; the connection may be established by context and proved purpose beyond reasonable doubt.
- “Fostering” includes intentional conduct that encourages or makes more likely the commission of terrorist acts, including indirectly, where the statutory mental element is met.
- Highly prejudicial material may be admissible if relevant to contested issues such as intent, knowledge, or ideological commitment, provided careful limiting directions are given and the trial remains fair overall.
- Juror internet use requires attention to whether jurors sought case-related, inadmissible, and prejudicial information; general or innocuous use will not necessarily justify discharge absent demonstrated risk to trial fairness.
- Appellate “unreasonable verdict” review requires independent assessment whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence.
- Terrorism sentencing places substantial weight on community protection, denunciation, and general and specific deterrence, while still requiring proportionality and relativity among co-offenders.

## Conclusion

The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld core terrorism convictions against Benbrika, construed key Part 5.3 concepts (terrorist organisation, membership/direction, preparation-related possession, and fostering), rejected claimed trial unfairness including juror-internet concerns, and adjusted sentences to maintain proportionality while reflecting the gravity and preventive aims of terrorism offences.


Benbrika v. The Queen, 204 A. Crim. R. 457 (Vict. Ct. App. 2010)