Homewood v R

[2023] NSWCCA 159

NSW Court of Criminal Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifestly excessive sentence
5. › Where notional starting point equivalent to maximum penalty
6. › Whether irreconcilable with finding that offence not in worst category
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Federal offences
4. › Minimum non-parole offences
5. › Intensive correction orders
6. › Whether ICO involves imprisonment for purposes of s 20AB(6) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
7. › Whether s 20AB(1A) permits ICO without first imposing sentence of imprisonment
8. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 19AG, 20AB
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Advocating terrorism
4. › Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 80.2C
5. › Non-parole period
6. › Minimum ratio of three-quarters
7. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AG(1)(c), (2)

Quick Take

An intensive correction order is not an available sentencing option for a minimum non-parole offence under s 19AG of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), because an ICO is a sentence or order that 'involves' imprisonment within the meaning of s 20AB(6). Section 20AB(1A), which relieves a court from the State law requirement to first impose a sentence of imprisonment before making an ICO, does not change this result. The interaction between the Stanley v DPP (NSW) three-step ICO framework and the federal sentencing provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), particularly s 16A, remains unresolved.