Transnational Crime: Legal Analysis of the Anzac Day Terror Plot Case

This report analyzes a transnational crime case concerning an 18-year-old individual charged with planning a terrorist act on Anzac Day. It examines the legal definition of transnational crime, referencing Article 3, section 2, and explores the challenges in defining terrorism due to its political and economic implications. The report delves into the legal framework, including the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the concept of urging violence, advocating terrorism, and the punishments associated with such acts. It references key cases like R v Thomas [2006] VSCA 165 and R v Mallah [2005] NSWSC 317 to illustrate the legal principles. The application section discusses a case where a British teen incited an Australian man, Sevdet Besim, to commit a terror attack, leading to their imprisonment. The report highlights the use of encrypted messaging and concludes that both Besim and the British teen were rightfully punished for their actions, emphasizing the legal consequences of inciting and committing terrorist activities. References from Aridi (2020), NewsComAu (2020), and Southworth, Evans and Hymas (2020) are included to support the analysis.

Running head: TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
Issue
The issue to be discussed in the present scenario is whether the 18 year old boy had been
rightfully charged with the planning of a terrorist act on Anzac Day.
Relevant Law
An offence under Article 3, section 2 is considered to be transnational in nature if the
offence has been committed in more than one State or if the offence has been committed in a
state and a substantial part relating to its preparation or planning or direction along with control
takes place in any other state. It can also be considered to be a transnational crime if the crime or
the offence has been committed in a state but involves some kind of an organized criminal group
that engrosses or participates in criminal activities in more than one state. It would be considered
to be a transnational crime if the offence has been committed in one state but would be
considered to have substantial effects in some other state or another state.
There has not been any exact definition relating to the word terrorism and the several
legal systems along with the government agencies are considered to use separate definitions as
the government are considered to be reluctant to create or formulate any agreed-upon definition
which would be binding. The challenges are considered to arise from certain facts as such term is
charged politically as well as economically. The general definition is considered to be the act
which causes and uses violence or threat and such is in pursuit of the various political, religious
as well as ideological objectives. These are acts which have been committed by non-state actors.
And they do so by creating immediate target victims.
Under the national security context if anyone is considered to commit an urging violence
offence then they would have to intentionally urge some other person or individual or any other

2TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
person or group to use force or any other violence. Such force would be used to overthrow the
government, the Constitution, or any lawful authority. It would also be against a group or any of
the members relating to a group, which have been separate or distinguished by race or religion,
nationality, ethnic or national origin, or any other political opinion. There can also be a defense
against an urging violence offence if the particular action is considered to be done in good faith.
Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, it is considered to be illegal to urge any kind of violence
under the Division 80.
Advocating terrorism is also considered to be an offence because it is a way of
counseling, promoting, or encouraging the doing of a certain terrorist activity where the
individual is considered to intentionally engage in the conduct which would be reckless and the
other person or the individual would be engaging in a terrorist activity or committing an act of
terrorism which is considered to be an offence.
If any individual were considered to be found guilty of advocating terrorism then such
individual would face up to five years of imprisonment. The terrorism is considered to be an
offence under subsection 3 (1) of the Crimes Act and the individual involved in such an act
would be punished for at least five years of imprisonment. It is not considered to be an ancillary
offence in Part 2.4 of the Criminal Code It can be understood from the case of R v
Thomas [2006] VSCA 165.
The sub section 3 (1) of the Crimes Act is considered to define terrorism as an offence
against the Subdivision A of Division 72 of the Criminal Code which are the offences relating to
the explosives and other lethal devices. It is also considered to be an offence against the
Subdivision B of Division 80 of the Criminal Code which relates to the treason offences. In
addition to such it is an offence against Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code which deals with terrorism

3TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
along with 5.5 of the Criminal Code which relates to the foreign incursions and other recruitment
offences or either of the provisions which have been dealt with in the UN Charter. It can be
understood from the case of R v Mallah [2005] NSWSC 317 ; [2005] NSWSC 358 There have
been a defense relating to this offence if such an act is considered to be done in good faith and
such a defense would protect the implied freedom for political communication and such
particularly excludes from other offences or by publishing any report or any commentary which
would be about a matter of public interest relating to good faith.
Application
In the present scenario, there was a British teen who was considered to have urged an
Australian man to commit an attack which was a terror attack at the Melbourne’s Anzac Day
parade. As per the above-mentioned rule, urging someone to commit a violence was considered
to be an offence and such was punishable. The teen boy was 14 who had exchanged a lot of
messages with Sevdet Besim who was considered to be 18 involving the usage of a sharp large
knife. It was concluded as a weapon by both of them as such can be used as a blade which would
be perfect in order to tear through a throat of another individual. Besim was considered to be
jailed and imprisoned for 10 years after he had pleaded guilty for plotting and planning a terror
attack and the boy who had urged Besim to commit a terror attack was jailed or imprisoned for
inciting terrorism overseas (Aridi 2020). The conversations between Besim and RXG or the
British teen were revealed in the court during the time the pair had been sentenced as they had
conversed about the large knife being perfect for cutting the throat through a human neck and
Besim had stated that he would love to take out some of the cops whom he was going to meet
and then kill them. Besim was considered to think that he had been talking to an individual who
was married and was considered to have children and he was not aware that the individual he had

4TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
been talking to was a slightly built teen who had gained or procured 24,000 Twitter followers
after pretending to be someone who was older Besim was considered to conspire to carry out a
terrorist act and therefore, he had been punished for such as he had committed an offence. Under
the above-mentioned rule, it can be understood that terrorism was considered to be a punishable
offence and if any individual was involved in such an activity then that person or the individual
would be imprisoned and punished. The prosecutor had provided that in preparation for such an
attack Besim had sent a message that read that “suggest you break into someone's house and get
your first taste of beheading.” In response to such comment Besim stated that such an act seemed
risky and the aspect relating to the preparations appeared to have drifted away. The prosecutors
in the United Kingdom had also dropped a second charge against the British teenager for inciting
the terrorism overseas and on the other hand, the relevant authorities in Australia had considered
to charge Besim along with another teenager for conspiring to commit a terrorist act. After such
Besim along with the other teenager had been under investigation and an Australian task force
had monitored troubling behaviour which included waiving of an ISIS flag at a shopping mall. It
had been informed to the Court that both Besim along with the teenager has supported ISIS and
the two men had arranged a plot through texting of an encrypted messaging service as an
alternative to WhatsApp or Line which were considered to be other messaging applications
(NewsComAu. 2020). The self-destructing feature of the Telegram permitted the users to set
some kind of a timer for deleting the messages without leaving any kind of trace on any other
device. Although the secretiveness of such has been under dispute, it had raised a certain kind of
security concerns (Southworth, Evans and Hymas 2020). Therefore, it can be understood from
the current scenario that the British teen boy had urged and encouraged Sevdet Besim to commit
an act of terrorism and for such Besim as well as the British boy had been punished. As per the

5TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
above-mentioned rule, advocating, promoting, encouraging or motivating someone to commit an
act or any offence which would cause a terror attack. Therefore, if any individual or any person
has been involved in such then that person would face consequences or punishment, which
would be in the way of imprisonment for both the individual involved in inciting, or advocating
terrorism along with the individual involved in committing such an act.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be understood from the above scenario, that Besim had been involved in
terrorism against lawful authority and therefore he would be punished for such and along with it
the British boy would also be punished for inciting and encouraging Besim for committing a
terrorist activity.

6TRANSNATIONAL CRIME
References
Aridi, S. (2020). UK teen admits to inciting ISIS-inspired plot in Australia. [online] The
Christian Science Monitor. Available at:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2015/0723/UK-teen-admits-to-inciting-ISIS-
inspired-plot-in-Australia [Accessed 4 Mar. 2020].
Crimes Act 1961.
Criminal Code Act 1995.
NewsComAu. (2020). ‘The blade is perfect for tearing through [a] throat’. [online] Available at:
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/teenager-who-wanted-to-kill-aussie-cops-now-wants-
his-name-kept-hidden-forever/news-story/5deaf46e7eeb71b980bb9c653b02528f [Accessed 4
Mar. 2020].
R v Mallah [2005] NSWSC 317 ; [2005] NSWSC 358.
R v Thomas [2006] VSCA 165.
Southworth, P., Martin Evans and Hymas, C. (2020). Ministers urged to review lifelong
anonymity order for teenage terrorist who plotted to behead his teachers. [online] The
Telegraph. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/29/britains-youngest-
terrorist-gets-lifelong-anonymity-lawyers/ [Accessed 4 Mar. 2020].