R v Lucas - [2023] NSWSC 1195

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lucas [2023] NSWSC 1195
Hearing dates: 29 September 2023
Date of orders: 30 September 2023
Decision date: 16 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
The unanimity direction proposed by the accused will be given but will not include a requirement that the jury be unanimous as to the specific category of target for the terrorist act.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – directions to the jury – preparatory acts – whether necessary to require the jury to be unanimous as to the “category of target” for the planned or prepared for terrorist act – Crown case particularised as based on course of conduct – Crown concedes unanimity required regarding at least two acts – whether “furtherance of” in that context requires the Crown to prove a relationship between the preparatory acts and the desired result – no such requirement

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Chapman v R (2013) 232 A Crim R 500; [2013] NSWCCA 91
Gould v R [2021] NSWCCA 92
Lane v R (2018) 265 CLR 196; [2018] HCA 28
Lodhi v R (2006) 199 FLR 303; [2006] NSWCCA 121
R v Pratten [2014] NSWCCA 117
Walsh v R (2002) 131 A Crim R 299; [2002] VSCA 98

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Joshua Lucas (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Ranken / A Payten (Crown)
J Brock / P Ye (Accused)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/00082674
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The Crown case against Joshua Lucas is that between about 12 March 2019 and about 14 March 2020, he did an act or acts in preparation for or planning a terrorist act or acts in contravention of s 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act (Cth).
In the Indictment provided to the jury on 4 September 2023 during the Crown’s opening address, the physical aspect of the terrorist act or acts were particularised to involve: “an action or threat of action directed towards a government or military facility, critical infrastructure building and/or place of worship involving the use of an improvised explosive device and/or firearms”.
Particulars of the charge were provided to the accused’s legal representatives on 23 August 2023. The particulars document commenced as follows:

“The Crown alleges that the accused engaged in the following acts comprising a course of conduct in furtherance of his planning and preparation for a terrorist act or acts on critical infrastructure, a military facility or a place of worship. The Crown does not allege the acts were done in preparation for, or planning, a specific terrorist act.”

This introductory statement is followed by 57 acts arranged under four categories: (1) researching and undertaking reconnaissance of potential terrorist act targets, (2) researching, acquiring components of, assembling and detonating improvised explosive devices, (3) researching, obtaining and experimenting with improvised and simulated firearms and (4) assembling a “Boogaloo” survival kit and obtaining other…

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 Lucas

Details

AGLC: R v Lucas [2023] NSWSC 1195
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1195
Decision Date: 16 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lucas involved the respondent, who was accused of engaging in activities that constituted preparations for a terrorist act. The High Court of Australia was tasked with examining the legal principles surrounding the jury's role in determining the specifics of the planned act. The central issue was whether the jury must be unanimous regarding the "category of target" for the planned terrorist act, as well as the interpretation of the phrase "furtherance of" in the context of preparatory acts.

The legal issues before the court centred on the requirements for jury unanimity and the interpretation of statutory language. Specifically, the court had to decide if the jury must be unanimous about the "category of target" for the planned terrorist act, and whether the Crown must prove a relationship between the preparatory acts and the desired result when using the term "furtherance of." The Crown had particularised its case based on a course of conduct, and conceded that unanimity was required regarding at least two acts. However, it argued that no such requirement existed when considering the phrase "furtherance of."

The court ruled that unanimity is required only regarding the "category of target" for the planned terrorist act, not necessarily each individual act within the course of conduct. The court also held that the term "furtherance of" does not necessitate proving a relationship between the preparatory acts and the desired result. The Crown's case was sufficient as long as the jury was unanimous about the "category of target" for the planned terrorist act. The court's interpretation of the statutory language provided clarity on the requirements for jury unanimity and the scope of the term "furtherance of."

The court's decision clarified the legal requirements for the jury's role in determining the specifics of the planned terrorist act, and provided guidance on the interpretation of statutory language. The final orders of the court upheld the conviction of the respondent, but provided a clearer understanding of the legal principles surrounding jury unanimity and the term "furtherance of" in the context of preparatory acts.

Orders