Stephen Blanks and Corinne Reichert [New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties]: "In February 2010, the NSW Supreme Court sentenced five Australian citizens who were found guilty of conspiracy to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act or acts to terms of imprisonment ranging from 23-28 years. The offenders had been arrested in 2005, and their trial lasted almost 11 months during 2009.

The evidence that the men were preparing to plan a terrorist act was limited. After months of wiretaps, searches and surveillance, the Australian Federal Police found stockpiles of firearms, ammunition, dangerous chemicals, bomb-making instructions, material glorifying Osama Bin Laden, images depicting violent hostage situations, and evidence showing that three had been on a "paramilitary-style camp". One had also been to a similar camp in Pakistan, run by terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba. However, no acts of violence or terrorism were actually planned, let alone ever committed. Although there was testimony that the offenders had considered attacking a football final, a former Prime Minister, a government nuclear facility, the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Sydney Opera House, there was insufficient evidence to support any of these claims.

Thus, traditional conspiracy charges at common law would have failed, and the convictions were obtained on specific anti-terrorism laws passed by the Commonwealth in the period 2002 to 2005. The Court was not "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any of the offenders intended directly to kill or take human life."

However, the Court found that it was "clear beyond argument that the fanaticism and extremist position taken by each offender countenanced the possibility of the loss of life, if that were to occur."

The length of the sentences appear to equate with sentences that would have been imposed had an actual conspiracy to commit a terrorist act taken place. Unfortunately, the decision of the police to intervene by laying criminal charges at the point they did leaves open the question as to whether these offenders posed an actual threat or whether there may have been other avenues available to reduce any threat they did pose. "