Where a sentencing judge is misled by incomplete evidence through no fault of their own, this constitutes a misstatement of facts under House v The King, entitling the appellate court to review the conclusions drawn from that evidence. A finding that an offender 'anticipated' the use to which a firearm would be put does not necessarily amount to a finding of knowledge sufficient to infringe the De Simoni principle; it may instead reflect a finding of a very high degree of recklessness. The criminality of a terrorism preparatory offence under s 101.4(2) of the Criminal Code (Cth) is not subsumed by a firearms supply offence even where the firearms offence is aggravated by the terrorist context, and a degree of accumulation is necessary to reflect the separate legislative purpose of terrorism preparatory offences.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.