Search results

On 26 August 2016, the Larmond brothers and Suliman Mohamed pleaded guilty to terrorist offences related to the Islamic State and Syria. They had planned to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State and had attempted this travel on several occasions. One of the twin brothers, Ashton Larmond, was the group’s leader and had previously had his passport revoked prior to heading to Syria via Turkey. His twin brother, Carlos Larmond, was arrested at the airport on his way to Syria, via India. Suliman Mohamed had planned to travel to Syria but had not been able to obtain a passport. In their sentencing remarks, Judge McKinnon compared home grown terrorists, such as the defendants, to “a particularly virulent form of cancer that must be aggressively eradicated”. Ashton was sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment, and Carlos and Suliman were both sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. 

On 9 October 2015 the Dutch citizen Mohammed G. was arrested because the Netherlands General Intelligence and Security Service AIVD believed he was about to travel to Syria or Iraq. This was not the first time the defendant was arrested; in an earlier judgment Mohammed G. was ordered to spend a year in a psychiatric hospital because he suffered from hallucinations that ordered him to join the jihadi armed struggle in Syria or Iraq.

In the current case, the Court held that the defendant was well aware of the things he would participate in if he were to travel to Syria or Iraq. For example, the defendant was recorded saying ‘I want to fight, I want to kill, I want to be’. The Court therefore ruled that the defendant was guilty of seeking to obtain for himself or for others the opportunity, means or information for the commission of arson and/or causing explosions and/or murder and/or manslaughter. According to the Court, the participation in the jihadi armed struggle can be qualified as those crimes. The defendant committed the crimes with terrorist intent.

A psychological report of the defendant was drawn up, which concluded that the defendant’s intelligence bordered on him being mentally handicapped. The Court concurred with these findings and concluded that the defendant was in a state of partially diminished responsibility. The Court therefore sentenced the defendant to three years imprisonment and a hospital order (TBS), to reduce the risk of recidivism.

On 1 September 2016, Sydneysider Hamdi Alqudsi was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years, for his involvement in assisting seven fighters to travel to the conflict in Syria. Mr. Alqudsi was convicted by a jury on 12 July 2016 after attempting to argue that he was trying to save lives in Syria. Ultimately, it was found through intercepted communications that he was well aware of what the fighters he helped get to Syria and the Islamic State were doing there. Moreover, Judge Adamson acknowledged that he had been a key player in the movement of fighters from Australia to Syria as he linked those who wanted to travel with another fighter who was already there and had joined a jihadi group. 

Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman were both sentenced to 5.5 years’ imprisonment for inviting support for the Islamic State. Both men signed an oath of allegiance to the terrorist group that was published online and had broadcast a series of lectures online in which they denounced democracy and called for Muslims to support the establishment of the caliphate. In sentencing the two defendants, Justice Holroyde emphasised the seriousness of these offences, despite their indirect nature and the lack of violence directly caused, due to “the timing of [the] … communications, [the defendants’] high standing, the size of the audience [addressed] …, and the likelihood that those audiences would include impressionable persons who would be influenced by what” was said (p. 9). Upon release, both Mr. Choudary and Mr. Rahman will be subject to notification requirements for 15 years. 

The case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), represents a landmark legal proceeding focused on the protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, an Islamist militant, was charged with the war crime of deliberately attacking historic and religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012. These sites, revered for their historical and cultural significance, were targeted during a period of armed conflict in the region. 

Al Mahdi's case is notable for several reasons. Firstly, it was one of the first instances where an individual was prosecuted at the ICC solely for the destruction of cultural heritage. This underscored the increasing international recognition of the importance of preserving cultural history amidst armed conflicts. Secondly, Al Mahdi's admission of guilt – a rare occurrence in international criminal law – expedited the legal proceedings and highlighted the potential for reconciliation and acknowledgment of wrongdoing in such contexts. 

Ultimately, Al Mahdi was convicted under Articles 8(2)(e)(iv) and 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute and was sentenced to nine years in prison. His conviction served as a significant precedent, reinforcing the message that the intentional destruction of cultural heritage is a serious crime under international law and will not be tolerated.