Directing The Activities Of A Terrorist Organisation

What the law says

Sections 102.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code states:

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) The person intentionally directs the activities of an organisation; and

(b) The organisation is a terrorist organisation; and

(c) The person knows the organisation is a terrorist organisation.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) The person intentionally directs the activities of an organisation; and

(b) The organisation is a terrorist organisation; and

(c) The person is reckless as to whether the organisation is a terrorist organisation.

What the police must prove

In order for the Police to prove their case at Court, they must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section(1)

1. The accused intentionally directed the activities of an organisation; and

2. The organisation is a terrorist organisation; and

3. The person knows the organisation is a terrorist organisation.

Section (2)

1. The person intentionally directed the activities of an organisation; and

2. The organisation is a terrorist organisation; and

3. The person was reckless as to whether the organisation is a terrorist organisation.

It will be necessary for the Police in every offence to prove that the accused was the person who committed the offence. Click here to learn more about identification evidence.

Maximum penalty

The Maximum penalty for the offence of Directing the Activities of a Terrorist Organisation is

Section (1) 25 years imprisonment

Section (2) 15 years imprisonment

Which court will hear the matter

This matter is Commonwealth Offence which means it is dealt with in the Supreme Court.

Possible defences

Possible defences to this offence include but are not limited to

1. The accused did not intentionally direct the activities of the organisation.
2. The organisation is not a terrorist organisation
3. The accused did not know the organisation was a terrorist organisation.
4. Identification i.e. it was not the accused.
5. In the case of Section (2)(c) the accused was not reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation.