AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 9 November 2026

R v RK

[2026] NSWSC 1414

Public order & justice offences
SENTENCING FEDERAL OFFENDERS ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS PENALTIES COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDERS DERADICALISED OFFENDER

Citation: R v RK [2026] NSWSC 1414
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 November 2026
Judge(s): Campbell J

Background

A young person referred to as RK pleaded guilty in the Children's Court to one count of doing acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act contrary to section 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The offending occurred over approximately five and a half weeks between 30 June 2024 and 8 August 2024, when RK was just fourteen years old. He was arrested by the Australian Federal Police on 7 August 2024.

The conduct involved online research into how to make improvised explosive devices, primarily using the encrypted messaging application Telegram and other internet platforms, as well as researching potential target locations including the Sydney Opera House and Sydney marathon. RK also admitted guilt in relation to two additional offences placed on a schedule: transmitting violent extremist material via a carriage service, and possessing violent extremist material through a carriage service. These were taken into account under section 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) when sentencing for the principal offence.

The matter came to the Supreme Court after the Children's Court transferred proceedings for sentencing. RK gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The central question was what sentence was appropriate for a young, deradicalised offender whose conduct, while serious in kind, was assessed as the least serious manifestation of a provision carrying a maximum of life imprisonment.

Legal Issues

  • What was the appropriate assessment of the objective seriousness of the section 101.6(1) offence, given the nature and extent of RK's conduct?
  • How do the sentencing principles under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) interact with the federal sentencing framework under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for a child offender convicted of a terrorism offence?
  • What weight should be given to general and specific deterrence, denunciation, community protection, and rehabilitation for a young terrorism offender who has undergone significant deradicalisation?
  • Whether full-time imprisonment was the only appropriate sentencing option, or whether a community correction order or discharge under section 19B of the Crimes Act could be imposed.

Decision

Objective Seriousness

Campbell J found that RK's offending fell at the lowest level of objective seriousness contemplated by section 101.6(1) (at [42]). The conduct consisted of online research into bomb-making instructions and potential target locations over a short period, without practical steps taken to acquire materials, construct a device, or plan an imminent attack (at [41]). RK did not indoctrinate others and took no meaningful steps to cover his tracks (at [41]). The court rejected the Crown's submission that RK had formed a determined view to commit a terrorist act, finding his evidence of ambivalence, including his description of being "fifty:fifty" about proceeding, credible (at [38], [42]).

Interaction of CCPA and Federal Sentencing Principles

The court confirmed that the CCPA applies as surrogate federal law via section 20C of the Crimes Act, but that the principal offence is a "serious children's indictable offence" requiring the young person to be dealt with according to law under section 17 of the CCPA (at [5]). The lenient sentencing alternatives in Division 4 of Part 3 of the CCPA were unavailable. However, the court held that the sentencing principles in section 6 of the CCPA continue to operate alongside the federal framework, and that the proposition that those principles have lesser relevance for terrorism offences cannot be treated as an overriding rule (at [69]). The court applied the principle that instinctive synthesis remains the correct approach and that all relevant factors must be weighed in the individual case (at [71]).

Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Community Protection

The court acknowledged that general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and community protection are primary considerations in terrorism sentencing (at [67]). However, it found that RK's youth significantly reduced his moral culpability and diminished the weight to be given to general deterrence, as very young offenders are not appropriate vehicles for that purpose (at [79]). The court accepted that RK had genuinely renounced violent extremism, showed sincere contrition, and had excellent prospects of rehabilitation, with very little chance of reoffending (at [77], [85]). The Crown accepted that community protection can be advanced through the rehabilitation of a young offender with a strong subjective case (at [83]).

Sentencing Outcome

The court declined to impose full-time imprisonment, finding it was not the only appropriate sentence in all the circumstances (at [103]). It rejected the section 19B discharge option as insufficient, but found that a community correction order of three years' duration was the appropriate sentence (at [104]-[105]). The court considered the period of remand custody, the strict quasi-custodial bail conditions already served, the utilitarian value of the early guilty plea, and RK's compelling subjective case (at [103], [106]). It concluded that the community's interests were best served by RK remaining under Youth Justice supervision in the community to complete his deradicalisation and rehabilitation, rather than being detained in a juvenile justice centre (at [107]).

Orders Made

  • RK was convicted of the terrorism charge pleaded in the indictment.
  • RK was sentenced to a community correction order for a term of 3 years commencing 9 November 2026.
  • Standard conditions: RK must not commit any offence; must appear before the court if called on to do so during the term of the order.
  • Additional conditions: supervision by a Youth Justice officer until age 18, then by a community corrections officer until expiry of the order; participation in any rehabilitation or educational program as directed.
  • Further conditions: possession of no more than one mobile telephone service and SIM card, with password and device details provided to the supervising officer; prohibition on using or possessing encrypted applications (including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and others listed); provision of access to any internet-capable device on demand, including passwords for any application or program.
  • RK was warned under section 105A.23 of the Criminal Code (Cth) that an application for a continuing detention order or extended supervision order may be made after completion of the sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • Section 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) covers a wide spectrum of conduct, from initial steps to gather information through to advanced planning for an imminent attack; a court must locate the offender's conduct within that spectrum when assessing objective seriousness, without reference to the offender's personal characteristics (at [36], [34]).

  • For a child offender convicted of a federal terrorism offence, the CCPA principles continue to operate alongside the Crimes Act framework even though the lenient sentencing alternatives under the CCPA are unavailable; those principles cannot be treated as overriding or simply displaced by the heightened emphasis on deterrence in terrorism cases (at [69]-[71]).

  • Full-time imprisonment is not an automatic or mandatory outcome for every young offender sentenced under section 101.6(1); the sentencing principles applicable to terrorism offences guide the exercise of a discretion rather than prescribe a fixed result, and a community correction order may be appropriate where objective seriousness is low and the subjective case is compelling (at [102]-[104]).

  • Where a young terrorism offender has undergone substantial deradicalisation, demonstrated genuine contrition, and possesses excellent prospects of rehabilitation, the protection of the community may be better advanced by supervised rehabilitation in the community than by custodial detention (at [107]).

  • Strict bail conditions that impose a significant restriction on a young person's liberty, including quasi-home detention and comprehensive supervision, may be treated as a form of quasi-custody and taken into account as time already served when determining the appropriate sentence (at [88]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) , ss 3, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15A, 17, 25
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) , ss 16A, 16AG, 16BA, 19B, 20, 20AB, 20AC, 20C
- Criminal Code (Cth) , ss 101.6 (1), 474.17(1), 474.45B(1) , 474.45C(1)
- Crimes ( Sentencing Procedure) Act 1995 ( NSW), ss 8, 67

Cases
- Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420; [2009] HCA 48
- AH v R [2023] NSWCCA 230
- Alou v R (2019) 101 NSWLR 319; [2019] NSWCCA 231
- Attorney-General’s Application (2002) 56 NSWLR 16; [2002] NSWCCA 159
- DPP (Cth) v MHK (2017) 52 VR 272; [2017] VSCA 157
- Elmir v R [2021] NSWCCA 19; (2021) 357 FLR 274
- Holt v R [2021] NSWCCA 14
- Hoolash v The King [2026] WASCA 61
- IM v R (2019) 100 NSWLR 110; [2010] NSWCCA 107
- Le v R [2017] NSWCCA 26
- Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
- R v Alou (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 221
- R v Elomar [2010] NSWSC 10
- R v HG [2018] NSWSC 1849
- R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
- Roulstone v R [2025] NSWCCA 7