R v J Lucas [2022] NSWSC 1206

R v J Lucas [2022] NSWSC 1206

The offence was a serious example of advocating a terrorist act because the offender, as a right-wing extremist, sincerely encouraged other right-wing extremists to commit political violence over a course of conduct. Full-time imprisonment was required notwithstanding the modest maximum penalty, but the sentence was moderated by the offender's youth, absence of prior criminal history, deprived upbringing, psychological difficulties, extremely onerous custody conditions and guarded prospects of rehabilitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 2, Advocating a Terrorist Act
Outcome
Convicted and sentenced to a backdated term of imprisonment that had expired by the decision date, with a non-parole period that had also expired.
Legal Topics
['advocating a Terrorist Act' 'commonwealth Sentencing Principles' 'right Wing Extremism' 'objective Seriousness' 'youth' 'deprived Upbringing' 'onerous Custody' 'rehabilitation' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['advocating a Terrorist Act' 'commonwealth Sentencing Principles' 'right Wing Extremism' 'objective Seriousness' 'youth' 'deprived Upbringing' 'onerous Custody' 'rehabilitation' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Sentence After Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 2, Advocating a Terrorist Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for the offence of advocating a terrorist act.' "Whether the offender's conduct was motivated by right-wing extremism." "How the offender's youth, deprived upbringing, absence of prior criminal history, lack of remorse, onerous custody conditions and prospects of rehabilitation should affect sentence." 'How statutory constraints concerning a non-parole period should be applied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was a serious example of advocating a terrorist act because the offender, as a right-wing extremist, sincerely encouraged other right-wing extremists to commit political violence over a course of conduct. Full-time imprisonment was required notwithstanding the modest maximum penalty, but the sentence was moderated by the offender's youth, absence of prior criminal history, deprived upbringing, psychological difficulties, extremely onerous custody conditions and guarded prospects of rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Convicted and sentenced to a backdated term of imprisonment that had expired by the decision date, with a non-parole period that had also expired.

Orders

  • ['Joshua Bruce Lucas, you are convicted of the offence of advocating a terrorist act.' 'You are sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years that commenced on 14 March 2020 and expired on 13 March 2022, with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months that expired on 13 September 2021.']