R v Greenfield - [2023] NSWDC 497

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Greenfield [2023] NSWDC 497
Hearing dates: 07/09/2023
Decision date: 17 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Imprisonment for 5 years with a non parole period of 3 years 9 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - Knowingly collect or make a document connected with terrorism.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code (C'th) s.101.5(1).

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Rex (Crown)
Daniel Greenfield (Offender)
Representation:
Mr Roucek (ODPP, C'th)
Mr Anderson SC (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/365971
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Daniel Greenfield, you appear for sentence in relation to one offence, and that is knowingly collect (or make) a document connected with terrorism.
The offence involves a contravention of s101.5(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 15 years.
The facts surrounding your offending are contained in an agreed statement of facts which, for my purposes today, can be summarised as follows.
As a preliminary matter, I note that, in the sentencing exercise (apart from what is contained in the agreed statement of facts), I cannot make a finding of fact adverse to your interests unless I am satisfied of such a fact beyond reasonable doubt. But I also cannot make a finding of fact in your favour in mitigation unless I am satisfied of that fact on the balance of probabilities.
In the first half of December 2021, you “shared” three documents online.
The first of those three documents was issue 8 of “Inspire Magazine”. “Inspire” is a propaganda magazine created by the terrorist organisation known as Al Qaeda. Issue 8 contained instructions on how to make a remote detonator.
The second of those three documents was issue 12 of “Inspire”. This issue contained instructions on how to make a car bomb using propane gas tanks.
You were aware that these issues of that magazine contained those various instructions.
Between 7 and 8 December 2021, you communicated with a person whom you thought was sympathetic to your (criminal) way of thinking, but who actually was an Online Covert Operative (“OCO”).
Initially, these communications were on Instagram; however, they later were continued on the Telegram channel.
In these communications, you posted issues 8 and 12 of the “Inspire” magazine.
And in these communications, you were clearly aware of the criminal nature of the material, as was evidenced by your exhortation to the OCO to delete your communication to that person as soon as he (the OCO) had saved the sent material.
One concerning statement (amongst many) you made in those communications was: “I want to do it to cop shops all over Sydney just hit them”.
Apart from posting issues 8 and 12 of “Inspire” to the OCO between 7 and 8 December 2021, you also, on 6 December 2021, posted issue 8 to a Telegram channel entitled “The stranger’s’”; and, on 10 December 2021, you posted both issues (8 and 12) to a Telegram channel entitled “The truth has come to smash the falsehood”. This post directed…

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 Greenfield

Details

AGLC: R v Greenfield [2023] NSWDC 497
Case: [2023] NSWDC 497
Decision Date: 17 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Greenfield, was convicted of knowingly making a document connected with terrorism. This conviction arose from his involvement in the creation and distribution of a guide on how to manufacture improvised explosive devices. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the respondent, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the degree of the respondent's involvement, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court considered various factors in determining the sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court held that the offence was of a high degree of seriousness due to the potential for causing significant harm and the respondent's intent in creating the document. The court also noted the respondent's prior criminal history, which included offences of a violent nature, and found that this indicated a pattern of behaviour that warranted a severe sentence. However, the court also considered the respondent's age, his remorse, and the potential for rehabilitation, and found that these factors warranted some mitigation.

The court ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment for a total of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months was appropriate. The court found that this sentence balanced the need for deterrence and denunciation with the potential for the respondent's rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence was consistent with those imposed in similar cases. The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Imprisonment for 5 years with a non parole period of 3 years 9 months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Greenfield [2023] NSWDC 497
Hearing dates:	07/09/2023
Decision date:	17 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment for 5 years with a non parole period of 3 years 9 months.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - Knowingly collect or make a document connected with terrorism.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code (C'th) s.101.5(1).
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Daniel Greenfield (Offender)
Representation:	Mr Roucek (ODPP, C'th) Mr Anderson SC (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/365971
Publication restriction:	Nil