R v Homewood - [2023] NSWDC 3

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Homewood [2023] NSWDC 3
Hearing dates: 24 November 2022
Decision date: 03 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months for the offence of advocate terrorist act or commission of terrorism offence; imprisonment for 8 months for the offence of holder of Category A or B licence not have approved storage - both to be served totally concurrently

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - terrorism offences - advocate terrorist act or commission of terrorism offence - holder of category A or B licence not have approved storage

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code 1996 (Cth) s 80.2C(1); Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 40(1)

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Rex (Crown)
Mr Wade John Homewood (offender)
Representation:
Mr Flood (C'th DPP)
Mr Odgers SC (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2021/00333675
Publication restriction: Nil

Wade John Homewood, you appear for sentence today in relation to two offences.
The first offence (sequence 2) is intentionally advocating the doing of a terrorist act or the commission of a terrorism offence, and being reckless as to whether another person will engage in a terrorist act or commit a terrorism offence.
This involves a contravention of s80.2C(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years imprisonment.
The date of this offence was between 27 March 2019 and 23 November 2021.
I note that you personally adhered to the plea of guilty which you initially entered in the Local Court when you appeared for sentence in this Court on 24 November 2022.
The second offence (sequence 3) is, being the holder of a category A or B licence, you did not have approved storage (relevantly, for ammunition for a firearm).
This involves a contravention of s40(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum penalty for that offence is 12 months imprisonment and / or 20 penalty units.
The date of this offence was 23 November 2021.
I note that, as this second offence is on a s166 certificate, you, through Mr Odgers SC, consented to this Court dealing with this matter when you appeared for sentence on 24 November 2022.
The facts surrounding your offending are set out in detail in a document entitled “Agreed Statement of Facts”.
Insofar as sequence 2 is concerned, I shall only summarise those facts – and in a deliberately anodyne fashion – because I do not intend, directly or indirectly, to assist you in the dissemination of the deeply disturbing and disturbed material set out in that document.
In this regard, it is sufficient for me to quote from the “Executive Summary” of the Agreed Statement of Facts:

“…
2. The Offender is an Australian citizen, born [in] May 1984. He is currently 38 years old.
3. The Offender operated and administered a number of social media accounts across multiple platforms, during a relevant period.
4. 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 Homewood

Details

AGLC: R v Homewood [2023] NSWDC 3
Case: [2023] NSWDC 3
Decision Date: 03 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Homewood involved the defendant, Homewood, who was charged with two offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The first charge was for advocating a terrorist act or commission of a terrorism offence, while the second charge was for being in possession of a Category A or B licence without having approved storage. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Homewood, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the circumstances of the defendant. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Additionally, the court had to consider the concurrent nature of the offences and whether they should be served separately or together.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The court noted that Homewood had a history of criminal activity and had shown a lack of remorse for his actions. However, the court also took into account that Homewood had pleaded guilty and had shown some willingness to cooperate with authorities. The court ultimately decided that the appropriate sentence for Homewood was imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months for the first offence, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months. For the second offence, the court imposed a sentence of 8 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the first sentence.

The court ordered that both sentences be served concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 2 years and 7 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months. The court considered this to be an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months for the offence of advocate terrorist act or commission of terrorism offence; imprisonment for 8 months for the offence of holder of Category A or B licence not have approved storage - both to be served totally concurrently

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 Homewood [2023] NSWDC 3
Hearing dates:	24 November 2022
Decision date:	03 February 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months for the offence of advocate terrorist act or commission of terrorism offence; imprisonment for 8 months for the offence of holder of Category A or B licence not have approved storage - both to be served totally concurrently
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - terrorism offences - advocate terrorist act or commission of terrorism offence - holder of category A or B licence not have approved storage
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1996 (Cth) s 80.2C(1); Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 40(1)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Mr Wade John Homewood (offender)
Representation:	Mr Flood (C'th DPP) Mr Odgers SC (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2021/00333675
Publication restriction:	Nil