R v Homewood [2023] NSWDC 3
The terrorism advocacy offence was slightly above mid-range because of the quantity and nature of the postings, the substantial number of recipients and the period of time involved; the ammunition storage offence was well above mid-range because of the quantity of ammunition. The offender had not proved remorse or genuine contrition, had poor prospects of rehabilitation, and considerations of general deterrence, specific deterrence and protection of the community were fully engaged. No sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate, but applying totality the sentences were ordered to be served totally concurrently and reduced by 25 per cent for the early guilty pleas.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 03 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty
- Outcome
- Imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months for the terrorism advocacy offence; imprisonment for 8 months for the approved storage offence; both sentences to be served totally concurrently.
- Legal Topics
- ['advocating Terrorist Acts or Terrorism Offences' 'approved Storage for Ammunition' 'objective Seriousness' 'remorse and Prospects of Rehabilitation' 'general and Specific Deterrence' 'community Protection' 'concurrent Sentences' 'guilty Plea Discount']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Pleas of Guilty
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for intentionally advocating the doing of a terrorist act or commission of a terrorism offence while reckless as to whether another person would engage in such conduct.' 'What sentence should be imposed for the holder of a category A or B firearms licence not having approved storage for ammunition.' 'The objective seriousness of each offence.' 'Whether the offender was remorseful or genuinely contrite and his prospects of rehabilitation.' 'Whether considerations of general deterrence, specific deterrence and protection of the community required full-time imprisonment.' 'Whether the Commonwealth and State sentences should be served concurrently or with partial accumulation.' 'Whether an Intensive Corrections Order needed to be considered for the Commonwealth offence.']
Ratio Decidendi
The terrorism advocacy offence was slightly above mid-range because of the quantity and nature of the postings, the substantial number of recipients and the period of time involved; the ammunition storage offence was well above mid-range because of the quantity of ammunition. The offender had not proved remorse or genuine contrition, had poor prospects of rehabilitation, and considerations of general deterrence, specific deterrence and protection of the community were fully engaged. No sentence other than full-time imprisonment was appropriate, but applying totality the sentences were ordered to be served totally concurrently and reduced by 25 per cent for the early guilty pleas.
Court Disposition
Imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 11 months for the terrorism advocacy offence; imprisonment for 8 months for the approved storage offence; both sentences to be served totally concurrently.
Orders
- ['For sequence 2, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months, backdated to 23 November 2021.' 'For sequence 2, the non-parole period is fixed at 1 year and 11 months from 23 November 2021, expiring on 22 October 2023.' 'For sequence 2, the balance of the term is 8 months from 23 October 2023,...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment