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

1. Wade John Homewood, you appear for sentence today in relation to two offences.

2. 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.

3. This involves a contravention of s80.2C(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for that offence is 5 years imprisonment.

4. The date of this offence was between 27 March 2019 and 23 November 2021.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. The date of this offence was 23 November 2021.

9. 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.

10. The facts surrounding your offending are set out in detail in a document entitled “Agreed Statement of Facts”.

11. 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.

12. 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 Offender was the subject of an investigation conducted by the Joint Counter Terrorism Task Force… into his advocacy of terrorist acts, and the commission of terrorism offences, justified by extremist right-wing ideology.

5. The Offender was arrested and charged with the above offences on 23 November 2021, and has been on remand, bail refused, since that date.

6. Following his arrest, an analysis of the Offender’s electronic devices identified thousands of online posts, photos, videos and other material which advocated the doing of terrorist acts contrary to s101.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the Code”), preparing for a terrorist act contrary to s101.6(1) of the Code and providing support to a terrorist organisation contrary to s102.7 of the Code. In particular, the Offender advocated that acts of serious violence, including murder, be committed on non-white persons of African, African-American and Indian descent, people of Jewish faith and people of Islamic faith. The Offender advocated that these acts and offences be committed in furtherance of his right-wing ideology.”

13. In relation to sequence 2, the Agreed Statement of Facts set out some representative examples of your conduct throughout the relevant period, i.e. 27 March 2019 to 23 November 2021. It is not appropriate to further publicly describe the contents of those examples (beyond what I have already said) without assisting in the dissemination of that material.

14. However, there is one example that I shall quote, as I can do so without inappropriately repeating the extreme and vile language of most of your social media material. On or about 17 July 2021, you uploaded a video file on to one of your video accounts. The title of the video exhorted its viewers to “Kill Every [member of one of the groups of human beings against whom your material was directed]”. Amongst the very confronting material on that video was a clip of “… a white male executing a black male by shooting him in the back of the head, while he lays on the grass” (see [50(a)(iii)] of the Agreed Statement of Facts – there is nothing in that document to suggest that the video was a simulation).

15. When you were interviewed by police following your arrest on 27 November 2021, you stated that your “… following reached close to 1,500 subscribers…” on one of your two online social media platforms. There is no information before me as to how many subscribers you had on the other platform; but it was that platform that contained the example I have just specifically described. It was also on that platform that you incited the brutal killing of a prominent contemporary Australian politician.

16. Subject to what immediately follows in [17] to [20] below, these are the agreed facts concerning sequence 2.

17. On 23 November 2021, a search warrant was executed at the New South Wales rural premises where you lived with your parents. (I hasten to add that your parents were totally unaware of your criminal activities).

18. During the execution of the warrant, the police found, in your bedroom, “… various publications associated with right-wing extremism, including a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and a four part manual containing recipes and instructions on how to make improvised explosive devices and repellents” (cf [62] of the Agreed Statement of Facts).

19. There is dispute between the Crown and you as to whether you owned those items or were “merely” (my word) in possession of them.

20. This dispute has no meaningful relevance to any issue in the proceedings and, particularly, is not relevant to the assessment of the objective seriousness of sequence 2.

21. Also during the execution of that warrant, the police found 8 firearms (being 5 bolt action shotguns, 2 break action shotguns, and a .22 calibre pump action rifle) in a firearms storage cupboard located in an internal stairwell of the house leading to a downstairs cellar.

22. At the time the warrant was executed, you were the holder of a valid NSW firearms licence. Your possession of those firearms was, therefore, not illegal.

23. However, in the bedroom which you occupied, the officers also found 8,312 rounds of assorted calibre ammunition which were not stored in accordance with the ammunition storage provisions of the Firearms Act. It is these facts which constitute sequence 3.

24. (I pause to observe that, in the report of Dr Seidler dated 10 October 2022 to which I shall make further reference, you told her that you had a “long history of hunting with” your father, and that you “purchased ammunition, believing that the price would increase over time”. As I later again comment, you did not give sworn evidence in the proceedings. In the absence of acceptable sworn evidence, I do not accept, on the balance of probabilities, your statements to Dr Seidler concerning the ammunition. However, I have not further speculated about that matter adversely to your interests).

25. It is necessary for the Court to make a finding of the objective seriousness of each of the offences for an offence of its kind. In this context, I note that both the Crown prosecutor and Mr Odgers submitted that sequence 2 was a mid-range offence; and that sequence 3 was respectively a mid-range and “somewhat below” mid-range offence. But, as Mr Odgers correctly submitted, those submissions do not bind the Court (cf T16:35, 24 November 2022). In my opinion, by having regard to the quantity and nature of the postings; the substantial number of recipients; and the period of time involved, sequence 2 is slightly above the mid-range; and sequence 3, by having regard to the quantity involved, is well above the mid-range, for offences of their kind.

26. As I have already noted, you did not give sworn evidence in the sentence hearing. Rather, your subjective circumstances were placed before the Court through:

1. the report by Dr Seidler dated 10 October 2022 (Exhibit 1);

2. a report by Mr Bradley Foxlewin, psychologist, dated 15 August 2022;

3. an affidavit by your father, John Arthur Homewood, made 9 November 2022;

4. an affidavit by your mother, Ann Maria Homewood, made 9 November 2022; and

5. an affidavit by your solicitor, Mr O’Halloran, made 10 November 2022.

The Court was also provided with a copy of the transcript of an electronically recorded interview which you participated in with police on 23 November 2021.

27. Some preliminary observations need to be made about Dr Seidler’s report. In [104] and [105] of her report (in the section entitled “Recommendations”), Dr Seidler wrote:

1. “… if he progresses to Stage 2 of the HRMCC programme, he will be able to engage in some group based programmes, such as RUSH, that will be of use in terms of foundational skills” (cf [104] at page 32);

2. “In gaol, the PRISM service would assist to this end…” (cf [105] also on page 32); and

3. “… and in the community, he would be able to access similar support and intervention with PRAXIS” (cf [105] also on page 32)

28. Mr Odgers could not inform the Court what any of those acronyms meant nor what, in substance, they involved (cf T5-6, 24 November 2022). Accordingly, and as I indicated on 24 November 2022, I shall give no weight to those references; and that therefore substantially undermines the relevance of those paragraphs.

29. The balance of the report is, as is usual for Dr Seidler, very thorough and transparently impartial and includes analysis of the following:

1. your family and developmental history;

2. your cultural identity;

3. your educational and vocational history;

4. your medical history;

5. your psychosocial history;

6. your history with drugs and alcohol;

7. your exposure to extremist ideology;

8. violent extremism / terrorism;

9. your offending;

10. your experience in prison; and

11. a psychological assessment of you.

30. It can usefully be summarised in the following way.

31. Dr Seidler took a history concerning your family and developmental history. Your upbringing, with one qualification, was unremarkable and it was certainly not dysfunctional. The qualification is that, before your parents married, your mother had two children from a previous relationship. They are about 10 years older than you. When you were about 12 years of age, you first became aware that these (by now) young adults were not your “full siblings” but “half-siblings”. This caused some issues in the family dynamic.

32. Under the heading “Cultural Identity”, Dr Seidler noted that you were born in Australia and identified yourself as “Australian”. She noted that you were of the view that many people in this country had abandoned their culture; that you were of the view that there was, in many respects, a breakdown in society; and that you had a strong sense of betrayal both by fellow citizens and government.

33. Under the heading “Educational / Vocational History”, Dr Seidler noted that you completed your Higher School Certificate, but that your marks were “under achieving relative to [your] potential”. She noted that there was bullying at school. Dr Seidler noted that four years after leaving high school, you started a bachelor’s degree in construction management, but that you are, even now, yet to complete that degree. She has noted that you obtained a Diploma in real estate through TAFE in about 2003. Dr Seidler noted that your work history has been quite limited; you started work when you were 17 doing furniture removal and have subsequently worked in real estate, pizza delivery, construction labouring and hospital records administration; however, you have not been consistently employed and, in fact, you have been unemployed now for some years.

34. There is one matter of particular focus or concern in this aspect of Dr Seidler’s report. When referring to your primary school education, Dr Seidler noted that you had told her that you had “topped” your primary school academically, but that you had not been awarded “Dux for political reasons” (my emphasis). Dr Seidler noted, however, that your school reports suggested that, whilst you were an intelligent student with positive potential, your achievements were erratic, often with limited investment and effort in your studies (cf [22] of Exhibit 1).

35. Under the heading “Medical History”, Dr Seidler noted a head injury from an unprovoked attack in 2002; a major motor vehicle accident not long thereafter; and a number of other assaults resulting in minor head traumas and concussion. It is noteworthy that you told Dr Seidler that many of these assaults had been perpetrated by “foreigners”. Dr Seidler also took a history from you (not corroborated by any independent medical evidence) of long-term insomnia, chronic fatigue syndrome and hypertension.

36. Under the heading “Psychosocial History”, Dr Seidler noted that you are a socially isolated person. You have no friends and have never been in a serious intimate or long-term relationship. In recent years, your primary connection with people (apart from your parents) has been “online”.

37. Under the heading “Drug and Alcohol / Gambling History”, Dr Seidler noted that you first started consuming alcohol at 13 years of age and that, from 16 years of age, that consumption had significantly increased, including binge drinking on weekends. Your excessive alcohol consumption continued until the date of your arrest. Insofar as illegal drugs are concerned, you started using cannabis at 16 years of age. Initially, that seems to have been quiet heavy use but, from the age of 21, your cannabis use has apparently only been occasional. In addition to cannabis, you have also experimented with opium, ecstasy and hallucinogens.

38. Under the heading “Exposure to Extremist Ideology”, Dr Seidler noted your extensive access to computers and spending more and more online “viewing, researching and commenting” about issues of concern to you. These online activities resulted in a feeling of a sense of belonging and acceptance online.

39. Under the heading “Violent Extremism / Terrorism” (cf [53] of Exhibit 1), Dr Seidler noted that you “… stated that [you do] not believe in violence directed towards others… [You] (claimed) that [you do] not support or condone terrorism in any form” (my emphasis). This history to Dr Seidler is completely inconsistent with what is contained in the posts, examples of which are set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts.

40. Because of your online activity, Dr Seidler specifically asked you about your views of a mass murderer who, in recent times, had killed a significant number of people at prayer in New Zealand. In this context, I shall follow the example of the former Prime Minister of New Zealand and not mention his name in order to deprive him of the notoriety he sought. You described that person to Dr Seidler as “stupid”. This response is to be contrasted to your reference to that deranged killer in your posts, wherein you referred to him as a “saint”.

41. Under the heading “The Offending”, Dr Seidler obtained the following from you in relation to sequence 2:

1. “… He claims that his offending was not maliciously motivated and was rather “like a game” for him online”;

2. “His online activity gave him “a bit of a sense of community” which he claimed was lacking in his offline life”;

3. you described your offending behaviour as “just venting”;

4. you struggled to believe that you had made insanely violent or ridiculous comments;

5. you could understand how your comments may have had the impact of inciting others to violence but that was not your intention and that you never intended to hurt anyone by your actions.

42. In the context of this part of Dr Seidler’s report, the following exchange between the Court and Mr Odgers at T9 (24 November 2022) should be noted:

“HIS HONOUR: One thing I would ask you to consider, Mr Odgers, when I do come to you is I will need some assistance and in this sense I was a bit surprised that the Crown didn’t require Dr Seidler for cross-examination, but one thing your client did say to her and to the other psychologist was that your client was merely venting when he engaged in this conduct. The difficulty I have at the moment with that history is the sheer quantity of the material that was engaged in and the period of time involved. So, you’ll need, if you haven’t done that in your submissions, can I just put you on notice that I’ll need some assistance from you on that.

ODGERS: Yes, I’m not going to be relying on that aspect of it, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

ODGERS: To the extent that there’s a suggestion he’s undercutting the seriousness of what he did…

HIS HONOUR: That’s the impression I’ve got.

ODGERS: We’re not relying on that.

HIS HONOUR: You mightn’t be relying on it, but that’s what he said.

ODGERS: I understand that, your Honour, and it might go to an assessment of things like remorse, et cetera, and prospects of rehabilitation but I do address those.”

I agree with Mr Odgers’ submission concerning the relevance of remorse and rehabilitation, but I would also add that it also goes to an assessment of your moral, if not criminal, culpability.

43. Dr Seidler’s report also deals with topics such as your experience in prison; your psychological assessment; and the review, by her, of accompanying documentation.

44. Ultimately, Dr Seidler expressed the following opinion under the heading “Formulation”:

“…

79. Mr Homewood is a 38 year old single male, who is before the Court awaiting sentence after pleading guilty to a number of terrorism and ammunition charges. Ostensibly, these charges relate to Mr Homewood failing to secure ammunition appropriately, in addition to engaging in online activity that is argued to incite violence against those who are not of Anglo-European heritage. [I interpolate to observe that that online activity is not only “argued to incite violence against those who are not of Anglo-European heritage”, but that, by your plea, it is actually admitted.]

…

80. According to Mr Homewood, he was raised in a somewhat lonely and isolated environment as an only child who spent much of his time with his mother. The relationship with his father was difficult and distant and recalls having been raised desperate for a connection with this man, who was largely unemotional and unexpressive. He also disclosed some history of abuse during this period but was unwilling to go into any further detail about this at interview. Further to this, Mr Homewood’s stability and understanding of his own identity and that of his family, was undermined when he found out that his siblings were from his mother’s first relationship. It appears that the family relationships had never particularly recovered from this and although both of Mr Homewood’s parents remain supportive, Mr Homewood does not feel particularly connected to these people in terms of their understanding and world view.

81. Mr Homewood’s developmental experience was further challenged by difficulties in the school environment. He was apparently teased and bullied by others, most of whom were allegedly “foreigners” and he claims to have had many similar experiences of assault, abuse and rejection by “foreigners” into adulthood. However, it was in these school experiences that the seeds of Mr Homewood’s distrust or perhaps dissatisfaction with or dislike of “foreigners” in this country was sewn. Moreover, it was during this time in his life that Mr Homewood’s beliefs about being hard done by, ignored or disregarded began and these are beliefs that he has carried through into his adulthood and which have shaped his ideology and ultimately his personality functioning.

82. Mr Homewood was seemingly an intelligent child but he underachieved and this is also reflected in his tertiary studies and his experience of the workforce since. As such, whilst Mr Homewood is a smart man with positive potential, he has not achieved much in the way of employment or productive community participation. There is reportedly a parental history, on both sides, of depression and Mr Homewood experienced the onset of low mood in childhood. This has persisted and been a chronic concern for Mr Homewood that has coloured much of his functioning since. That is, he is someone who lacks drive, whose self-esteem is poor, who is isolative and pessimistic and who is prone to long periods of clinically significant depression, consistent with Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent with otherwise enduring Persistent Depressive Disorder. However, over time, Mr Homewood’s attitudes have become more entrenched, further supported by his poor mental health and “unfortunate” life experiences. As such, Mr Homewood now also presents with traits of personality disorder.

83. Mr Homewood began abusing alcohol and cannabis as a young person and primarily in self-medication to alleviate depression and difficulties in social settings. Cannabis use was problematic earlier on but in recent years, and particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr Homewood turned to alcohol abuse, developing a dependence on this substance and this certainly contributed to his offending behaviour.

84. Mr Homewood has been lonely and isolated for many years. He has not been involved in a significant intimate partnership and does not identify having any friends in his life. Again, this was worsened during the forced isolation of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Like many, Mr Homewood has used internet as a means of connecting with others and coping with loneliness. His online activities exposed him to a range of content that supports racist beliefs, as well as exposing him to conspiracy feelings, Extreme Right Wing narratives and highly violent content. Mr Homewood was affected by this and it seems that this material took on salience for him because of some of his pre-existing beliefs about being treated unfairly, about missing out on opportunities and about foreigners being abusive. Within this context, Mr Homewood spent increasing and obsessive amounts of time online, engaging with his material, which sensitised him to not only violent content online but also violent ideology and ultimately the “shitposting” culture of much of these online forums, groups and platforms.

85. Mr Homewood found a degree of acceptance, belonging and reward online and through his activities and this was reinforcing for him given his “real life” in which he felt rejected, isolated, abandoned and unwanted by others. This further reinforced Mr Homewood’s activities, such that he became increasingly involved in accessing, producing and disseminating online content that was racist, violent and potentially incendiary. There is little evidence however, that Mr Homewood was seeking to engage in the violence himself although he was motivated to see violence occur at the hands of anyone else. Rather, behind the anonymity of the Internet, Mr Homewood’s actions seem to have been a function of a fantasy in which his world made sense and he was someone people would listen to and respect.”

45. In coming to her conclusions in [85] of her report that there “… is little evidence however, that [you were] seeking to engage in violence [yourself] or that [you were] motivated to see violence occur at the hands of anyone else. Rather, behind the anonymity of the Internet, [your] actions seem to have been a function of a fantasy in which [your] world made sense and that [you were] someone people would listen to and respect”, Dr Seidler is likely to have taken into account, amongst other things, what she recorded at [53] of her report (“Violent Extremism / Terrorism”) – the significance of which depends upon the truthfulness and reliability of what you told her. Further, your statements to Dr Seidler as recorded in [53] of her report that you “… [do] not believe in violence directed against others”; and that you “… [do] not support or condone terrorism in any form” are not, as I have already said at [39] above, reconcilable with the extreme content of the representative examples of your posts and videos set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts. Further, your statement also recorded in [53] of Dr Seidler’s report that the murderer / terrorist you identified by name as “stupid” is not, as I have already said at [40] above, reconcilable with your frequent references to that person in your posts as a “saint”. In coming to her conclusion, Dr Seidler is also likely to have taken into account the matters recorded at [56] to [60] of Exhibit 1, and which I raised with Mr Odgers in the exchange I have set out at [41] and [42] above. Finally, in this specific context, I note that Dr Seidler makes no reference to your conviction in 2014 of the offence of assault with indecent intent for which you received a (suspended) term of imprisonment.

46. I have, therefore (and notwithstanding she was not required for cross-examination), had to approach this part of Dr Seidler’s report with caution; and I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that her conclusions in this regard and on this topic are correct. However, in this regard, I have not lost sight of the fact that the offence involved in sequence 2 is advocating or inciting the doing of terrorist acts by others – not carrying out terrorist acts by yourself.

47. After completing the section entitled “Formulation”, Dr Seidler next proceeded to consider your “Risk Assessment”. In this process, Dr Seidler noted:

1. “… all risk assessments have an appreciable level of error built into them” (cf [87]);

2. “Risk assessment in the area of terrorist activity or extremist violent offending is in its infancy and is hampered by the fact that research into this kind of behaviour is developing and much of this research does not explore the individual or psychological factors that motivate such actions” (cf [89]); and

3. “there are few risk assessment tools in the area of violent extremism” (cf [92]).

48. With these qualifications, Dr Seidler then went on to say that the risk assessment tool that she had chosen to rely upon was the Violent Extremism Risk Assessment tool version 2 (VERA-2R). Dr Seidler acknowledged that VERA-2R had been criticised on a number of grounds and that this area is very much in its infancy (cf [95]). Nevertheless, Dr Seidler regarded that risk assessment tool as providing a meaningful analysis of an individual’s possible risk (cf [95]).

49. Dr Seidler explained at [96] that the indicators of VERA-2R were grouped into “five domains”:

“

• Beliefs, Attitudes and Ideology,

• Social Context and Intention,

• History, Action and Capacity,

• Commitment and Motivation, and

• Risk Mitigating Indicators.”

50. Having identified and discussed those five domains, Dr Seidler then considered them in relation to you. It is not necessary for me to set out those parts of Dr Seidler’s report in relation to those five domains, not least because the substance of them is contained in her “Summary” (cf [102] of her Report) which I shall set out shortly. However, I do note that, in her consideration of “Beliefs, Attitudes and Ideology”, Dr Seidler, amongst other things, wrote (at [97]):

“There is an apparent disconnect between Mr Homewood’s account at interview and his online activities with respect to risks in this domain.”

I have already discussed this “disconnect” at [39], [40], [41], [42] and [44] above.

51. Dr Seidler’s summary was in the following terms:

"[102] Overall, on the basis of the VERA-2R, it is my assessment that Mr Homewood poses a low risk of engaging in an act of violent extremism himself, including being directly involved in the planning, preparation or orchestration of such an act. [I interpolate to observe and repeat that I am not persuaded to that conclusion on the balance of probabilities for the reasons I have referred to at [39], [40], [41] and [44] above]. However, his risk in engaging in less direct behaviours associated with violent extremism is higher and may be in the moderate range under certain conditions. Specifically, it is suggested that any future risk is likely to be manifest in similar ways to his offending behaviour, relating to online activities that access, promote, disseminate, or produce extremist content that may have the incendiary effect of inciting others to violence. Mr Homewood claims to have recognised the inappropriateness of his actions, in relation to which he expressed regret and distress, in addition to which he claimed to reject violence as being appropriate means of achieving socio-political ends, as well as denying that he dehumanises others from his perceived “out group”. [I interpolate again to observe that I do not accept the unsworn expression of regret, and I reject the balance of the claims attributed to you for reasons already expressed in these remarks]. However, there are aspects to Mr Homewood’s personal ideology that may be problematic and reflect White Separatist themes, in addition to which Mr Homewood has problematic personality traits that leave him with a strong sense of personal grievance, which, to a degree is also conflated with how he perceives members of his “in group” have been treated, including by “foreigners” and the Australian Government. The history would suggest that under conditions of social isolation, depressed mood, the disinhibiting effects of alcohol abuse and a lack of positive social input, Mr Homewood is vulnerable to using the Internet as a means of connecting to others and using his time, resulting in his being susceptible to the influence of others and of the ideologies expressed by others online. It is these conditions that could be expected to result in an increase in risk for Mr Homewood and should form the focus for intervention and management.”

52. Subject to the qualifications I have already expressed, I otherwise accept Dr Seidler’s evidence summarising your subjective circumstances.

53. You have not given sworn evidence of any remorse or contrition. Nor have you resiled from, or actively renounced, the views underpinning sequence 2. In the absence of such sworn evidence, and notwithstanding the self-serving and (at times) evasive answers given in the interview with police on 23 November 2021, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that you are remorseful or genuinely contrite in relation to either of the offences.

54. In all of the circumstances, I regard your prospects for rehabilitation as being poor.

55. In relation to both offences, considerations of both general and specific deterrence and the need to protect the community are fully engaged.

56. For each offence, no sentence other than a term of full-time imprisonment would be appropriate.

57. Because one offence is a Commonwealth offence and the other is State offence, it is not possible for the Court to impose an aggregate sentence. I have had to consider, therefore, whether there should be some partial accumulation of the terms of imprisonment. There is much to be said for the proposition that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for each term of imprisonment to be totally concurrent with the other. However, by having regard to totality, I have decided (just) that the sentences should be served totally concurrently.

58. In relation to sequence 2, a significant proportion of the sentencing hearing was taken up with competing submissions as to whether, for that offence, any term of imprisonment could, at law, be served by means of an Intensive Corrections Order.

59. It is not necessary for me to resolve that legal issue because, in my opinion, even if an Intensive Corrections Order were available at law, and even if the sentence were fixed for a length of time which theoretically might make an Intensive Corrections Order an available sentencing option, your offending is of such seriousness that community safety, being the paramount consideration, could not be adequately addressed by any such term being served in the community.

60. In relation to each offence, you entered an early plea of guilty and, accordingly, in each case, you will be given an effective discount of 25 per cent.

61. You have been in custody continuously since your arrest and the sentences will be backdated to that date.

62. In relation to sequence 2, except for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months. However, because of the discount, the term of imprisonment is 2 years 7 months.

63. I fix a non-parole period of 1 year 11 months to date from 23 November 2021 and which will expire on 22 October 2023.

64. I fix a balance of 8 months to date from 23 October 2023 and which will expire on 22 June 2024.

65. In relation to sequence 3, except for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months. However, because of the discount, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 8 months to date from 23 November 2021 and which expired on 22 July 2022.

Decision last updated: 03 February 2023