Homewood v R [2023] NSWCCA 159

Homewood v R [2023] NSWCCA 159

An ICO is not available for a federal minimum non-parole offence as it involves 'imprisonment' within the meaning of s 20AB(6) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and the applicant's sentences for both the terrorism and ammunition offences were manifestly excessive and not in compliance with the statutory non-parole requirements; accordingly, the sentences were quashed and new sentences imposed in accordance with law and statutory ratios.

Parties
Applicant: Wade Homewood; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Re Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. Re-sentence imposed.
Legal Topics
Appeals Against Sentence, Advocating Terrorism, Sentencing Options for Federal Offences, Intensive Correction Orders (icos), Minimum Non Parole Periods, Manifest Excess
Criminal Law Appeals Against Sentence Advocating Terrorism Sentencing Options for Federal Offences Intensive Correction Orders (icos) Minimum Non Parole Periods Manifest Excess

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wade Homewood

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence and Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for the ammunition offence was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether an ICO is available for a federal minimum non-parole offence under s 20AB(6) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
  3. 3 Construction and application of s 20AB(6) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and its relationship with State sentencing law

Ratio Decidendi

An ICO is not available for a federal minimum non-parole offence as it involves 'imprisonment' within the meaning of s 20AB(6) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and the applicant's sentences for both the terrorism and ammunition offences were manifestly excessive and not in compliance with the statutory non-parole requirements; accordingly, the sentences were quashed and new sentences imposed in accordance with law and statutory ratios.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. Re-sentence imposed.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal.
  • Allow the appeal.