R v Lucas [2023] NSWSC 1195

R v Lucas [2023] NSWSC 1195

Because s 101.6 expressly contemplates planning or preparation that is not for a specific terrorist act and may be for more than one terrorist act, it would be contrary to the offence provision to direct the jury that it must be unanimous as to a specific category of target. The Crown's course of conduct case justified an extended unanimity direction requiring unanimity as to at least two acts found beyond reasonable doubt to be acts in planning or preparation for a terrorist act or acts, but did not require unanimity about whether the target was critical infrastructure, a military facility or a place of worship.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Acts in Preparation For, or Planning, a Terrorist Act or Acts Under S 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Procedural Ruling on the Form of Jury Directions After the Evidence Was Complete and Before Closing Addresses
Outcome
The accused's proposed unanimity direction will be given except that it will not include a requirement that the jury be unanimous as to the specific category of target for the terrorist act.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'unanimity Directions' 'preparatory Acts' 'terrorist Acts' 'course of Conduct' 'particularisation of Crown Case']
['criminal Procedure' 'criminal Law' 'terrorism'] ['jury Directions' 'unanimity Directions' 'preparatory Acts' 'terrorist Acts' 'course of Conduct' 'particularisation of Crown Case']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Acts in Preparation For, or Planning, a Terrorist Act or Acts Under S 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Procedural Ruling on the Form of Jury Directions After the Evidence Was Complete and Before Closing Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be directed that it must be unanimous as to at least two acts alleged to constitute the course of conduct in preparation for or planning a terrorist act or acts.' 'Whether the jury should also be required to be unanimous as to the specific category of target for the planned or prepared for terrorist act, namely critical infrastructure, a military facility or a place of worship.' 'Whether the phrase "in furtherance of" in the Crown\'s particulars required proof of a relationship between the preparatory acts and a particular desired target category.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because s 101.6 expressly contemplates planning or preparation that is not for a specific terrorist act and may be for more than one terrorist act, it would be contrary to the offence provision to direct the jury that it must be unanimous as to a specific category of target. The Crown's course of conduct case justified an extended unanimity direction requiring unanimity as to at least two acts found beyond reasonable doubt to be acts in planning or preparation for a terrorist act or acts, but did not require unanimity about whether the target was critical infrastructure, a military facility or a place of worship.

Court Disposition

The accused's proposed unanimity direction will be given except that it will not include a requirement that the jury be unanimous as to the specific category of target for the terrorist act.

Orders

  • ['The extended unanimity direction will exclude the final paragraph proposed by the accused.']