Faheem Khalid Lodhi v. Regina.

AuthorBroadbent, Nicholas J.
PositionTerrorism

Introduction

Faheem Khalid Lodhi was charged with four discrete terrorism-related offences under three sections of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (1) ('the Code'): s 101.4, s 101.5 and s 101.6, all of which relate to the procurement and possession of articles in preparation for a 'terrorist act'. Born into a 'well-established family' (2) in the Punjab region of Pakistan, Mr Lodhi graduated from Lahore University with a degree in architecture. In 1998, he emigrated to Australia and enrolled at the University of Sydney, completing additional subjects that allowed him to graduate with a Bachelor of Architecture from that institution in 2000. At the time of his arrest in April 2004, he was in his mid-thirties and working at an architecture firm in Alexandria, Sydney.

After a lengthy trial that was characterised by high security, substantial in camera argument, closed court proceedings, and procedural adjournments, the jury deliberated for a period of several days, and eventually found the defendant guilty of three of the four charges. Whealy J, at first instance, sentenced Lodhi to a term of 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and the sentence. This case note will consider the legislative framework for the charges, the nature of the offences, and some of the arguments put forward at Lodhi's appeal. The case exposes a number of disquieting legal developments in the field of anti-terror law in Australia, particularly in relation to the presentation of evidence, identification procedures, and the rapid rise of a class of crimes related to 'preparation' for a terrorist act.

  1. Terror-Related Offences Under the Code

    Appropriate consideration must be given to the statutory framework underlying the charges against Mr Lodhi. Under s 100.1(b)-(c) of the Code, a 'terrorist act' is any action, or threat of action, that is done with the intention of 'advancing a political, religious or ideological cause', in conjunction with the intention of either 'intimidating the public' or 'coercing, or influencing by intimidation' a state, territory, the Commonwealth Government, or the government of a foreign country.

    For the purposes of the section, an act must cases death or serious harm to a person, endanger lives, create a serious risk the health or safety of the public, cause serious damage to property, or disrupt electronic systems of information, financial systems, telecommunications, or other essential government services. Certain activities are specifically excluded from s 100, including 'advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action', provided they are undertaken without an intention to cause death or a risk to the health and safety of the public. Yet as George Williams and Andrew Lynch point out, there are numerous scenarios, which might not ordinarily be associated with terrorism, that ostensibly fall within the scope of a terrorist act under the Code. (3)

    Section 101 covers offences by individuals in relation to a terrorist act. In addition to the primary offence of engaging in a terrorist act under a 101.1, a number of ancillary offences are contemplated within the section for an act 'that is connected with preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act'. They include s 101.2, which pertains to an individual who 'provides or receives training' in relation to terrorist acts; a 101.4, which targets and individual who 'possesses a thing' connected with preparation for or assistance in a terrorist act; and s 101.5, which applies to an individual who 'collects or makes a document' likely to facilitate terrorist acts. Offences under each of these sections are punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment. Section 101.6, of somewhat broader scope and attracting a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, makes it an offence to intentionally undertake 'any act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act'.

    Attempts to undertake any of the above are criminalised under s 11.1 of the Code. The offences may be committed regardless of whether an attack actually occurs or whether the action is connected with a specific terrorist act. On the issue of specificity, it should be noted that around Christmas 2005, Parliament enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004 (Cth) ('ATA'), which, inter alia, repealed ss 101.4(3), 101.5(3) and 101.6(2) of the Code, replacing the words 'A person commits an offence ... even if the terrorist act does not occur' with 'A person commits an offence ... even if a terrorist act does not occur' (emphasis added). The Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005 (Cth) ('ATA (No 2)') rendered this change retrospective as of 16 February 2006, by which time Lodhi's trial had commenced.

  2. The Charges Against Faheem Lodhi

    On the first charge of the indictment, under s 101.5 of the Code, the prosecution alleged that, on or about 3 October 2003, Lodhi procured a desk map and a wall map of the Australian electricity supply system in connection with preparations to bomb a part of that system. The prosecution presented evidence that in ordering the maps from a Sydney supply company, Lodhi had supplied a false name, 'M Rasul', as well as a bogus post office box address, telephone number and company name, 'Rasul Electrical', of which he had held himself out to be a 'partner'. While Lodhi accepted that it was he who had ordered the desk maps, he submitted that he had procured them for an electrical business he had planned to establish, the name of which was to include 'Rasul'.

    The second charge, under s 101.6, alleged that a week after ordering the maps, in preparation for that same terrorist act, the defendant had sent a facsimile from his architecture firm to a Sydney chemical company. The document contained a request for a price quotation on a number of chemicals, and explained that the sender was planning to start a detergent business. In the facsimile presented into evidence, the defendant had included a false post office box address and the unregistered business name 'Eagle Flyers', signing off as 'Fahim' using an irregular signature.

    On the third count, under s 101.5, Lodhi was charged with making a set of aerial photographs, on or around 24 October 2003, of a number of Australian Defence Force establishments, including Victoria Barracks, Holdsworthy Barracks and HMAS Penguin, with the intention of committing a terrorist act upon one or more of those sites.

    On the fourth and final count, Lodhi was charged under s 101.4 with possessing a notebook which contained information on the manufacture of a number of poisonous substances, explosives, and other incendiary devices. The information, recipes and procedures in the notebook were written in Urdu in the defendant's handwriting.

    At trial, Lodhi was found guilty on the first, second and fourth counts, but was acquitted on the third.

  3. The Terms of the Indictment and its Retrospectivity

    Prior to the commencement of the Lodhi trial in earnest, counsel for the defendant, Mr Phillip Boulten, SC, and Mr Peter Lange, appealed to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) against a decision of Whealy J at first instance. Whealy J had ruled against the defendant regarding the validity of the retrospectivity provisions in the ATA (No 2). The defence further...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT