R v Brodie-Hall - [2024] SADC 32

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BRODIE-HALL
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 32
Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Muscat
28 March 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER
The defendant is charged with one count of Possessing a Document or Record for Terrorist Acts (Count 1) and one count of Possessing Extremist Material (Count 2), relating to books located in a bookcase in the common living area of a Unit that he shared with two others.
Possession of the books is disputed in relation to both counts and in addition, in relation to Count 2 only, whether the book contained extremist material.
Verdicts: Not Guilty of each count.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 83CA; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) ss 36, 36A, 37; Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Chapter 5, Part 5.3; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34P and 34R, referred to.
R v G; R v J [2010] 1 AC 43; R v Benbrika (2010) 29 VR 593; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR; R v Myall (1986) 43 SASR 258; Hobson v Impett (1957) 41 Cr App R 138; R v Wood (2017) 131 SASR 291; R v Dimitropoulos S3625 Unreported Judgment of the CCA 18 September 1992; R v Arrol [1999] SASC 293; R v Anderson [2004] SASC 201; R v Britten [2018] SASCFC 36, considered.

R v BRODIE-HALL
[2024] SADC 32
Charges

Cameron Brodie-Hall (‘the defendant’) is charged with the following offences:
Count 1
Offence Details
Possessing a Document or Record for Terrorism Acts. (Section 83CA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
Cameron Brodie-Hall on the 7^th day of April 2021 at Dudley Park, possessed a document or record containing information of a kind likely to be of practical use to a person committing or preparing a terrorist act.
Count 2
Offence Details
Possessing Extremist Material (Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1953).
Particulars
Cameron Brodie-Hall on the 23^rd day of February 2022 at Dudley Park, possessed extremist material without reasonable excuse.
Elements of the offences
Count 1:
Possessing a Document or Record for Terrorism Acts: s 83CA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA)
83CA—Information for terrorist acts
(1)     A person who, without reasonable excuse—
(a)     collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be of practical use to a person committing or preparing a terrorist act; or
(b)     has possession of a document or record containing information of that kind,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(2)…
(3)     …
(4)     In this section—
Commonwealth Criminal Code means the Criminal Code set out in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, or a law of the Commonwealth that replaces that Code;
terrorist act has the same meaning as in Part 5.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The offence was modelled on s 58 of the

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Brodie-Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Brodie-Hall [2024] SADC 32
Case: [2024] SADC 32
Decision Date: 28 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Brodie-Hall was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Brodie-Hall was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1900. The dispute arose from an altercation at a public venue where the defendant was alleged to have used excessive force against the victim, resulting in injury. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted an assault occasioning actual bodily harm and whether the force used was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as defined by the relevant statute. The court needed to assess the nature and extent of the force used by the defendant and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant had a lawful excuse for using such force, such as self-defence. The court also had to evaluate the evidence presented regarding the defendant's state of mind and the nature of the altercation.

In its reasoning, the court examined the evidence presented and found that the defendant's actions did indeed amount to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court noted that the force used by the defendant was excessive and not reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The defendant's claim of self-defence was rejected as the evidence did not support the defendant's version of events. The court found that the defendant's actions were not justified and amounted to an unlawful assault. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of the offence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court determined that the appropriate sentence would be a combination of a fine and a period of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The precise details of the sentence were to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders