R v Warwick - [2020] NSWSC 1168 - NSWSC 2020 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

R v Warwick

[2020] NSWSC 1168

Supreme Court of NSW|2020-08-20|Before: Garling J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2020-08-20

Before

Garling J

Catchwords

(2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
(1988) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
(2011) 244 CLR 120 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
(1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

(2005) 228 CLR 357 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70(1988) 166 CLR 59 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39(2011) 244 CLR 120 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57(1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19

Judgment (21 paragraphs)

[1]

sentencing remarks

Between the years of 1980 to 1985, the Offender waged a campaign of extreme violence against the Family Court of Australia, its judges, and a practitioner. His final act of extreme violence was perpetrated on members of the Lurnea Congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, some of whom had helped his former wife and their daughter escape Sydney. It took over three decades for the Offender to be arrested, charged, tried and convicted for his offending.
On 23 July 2020, after presiding over a Judge alone trial of the Indictment presented against the Offender, I convicted the Offender of 20 counts for the reasons which I then published. [1] Specifically, I convicted the Offender of the following: 1. three counts of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 ("the Crimes Act"); 2. two counts of exploding an explosive device which destroys or damages a building with intent to murder a named individual contrary to s 28 of the Crimes Act; 3. one count of placing an explosive substance into a vehicle with intent to commit murder contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act; 4. one count of maliciously placing an explosive substance near a building with intent to damage that building contrary to s 204 of the Crimes Act; and 5. thirteen counts of maliciously, by an explosion, causing grievous bodily harm to named individuals contrary to s 46 of the Crimes Act.

[7]

Count 2 - Murder of Justice Opas

On 23 June 1980, at around 7.10pm, the Opas family sat down to eat their evening meal together. Just as they began their meal, the front doorbell sounded, indicating that there was a person at either the front door or else at the front gate of the house. Justice Opas left the table to answer the door bell. After her husband had been gone from the dinner table for about five minutes, Mrs Kristin Opas became concerned at his absence and went outside to investigate. She found him lying on his back, unconscious, with a bullet wound to his abdomen.
It is beyond question that Justice Opas was murdered by being shot when he answered the front gate bell at his home in Woollahra. It was obviously a targeted attack. The Offender intended to murder the Judge, and did so in a very short space of time.
The Offender targeted Justice Opas, who sat as a judge of the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta, because of his role and conduct as a judge of that Court. The Offender was motivated to murder Justice Opas because he perceived that he had been treated unfairly by the Judge in the orders which the Judge had made over the months leading up to his death, and also because he resented the comments which the Judge had made to him in the course of the number of hearings in the Family Court.
Putting it shortly, I am satisfied that the Offender had formed a strong anger and antipathy towards Justice Opas, arising out of the proceedings being heard at the Parramatta Registry of the Family Court, and that this was the reason he chose to murder him. The Offender sought to ensure that the Judge did not hear his matter anymore because of the way in which he perceived the Judge to have dealt with it up to that point in time.
The Offender's view was not a rational one. Justice Opas had made decisions on the basis of the facts and matters which were put before him, often in a constrained time period, and in an attempt to ensure the best interests of the Offender's daughter. It needs hardly be said that the motive, which I have identified, was neither rational nor adequate to justify the Offender's conduct.
This offence had the following features, which are relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of the criminality: 1. the victim of this offence was a serving judge of the Family Court of Australia and was targeted for this reason; [13] 2. the offence was committed at Justice Opas' home, a place where he was entitled to feel safe; [14] 3. whilst the murder did not take place in the presence of Justice Opas' family, which included two young children, both of the children became aware of the murder when they walked out of the front door of the house immediately after it had occurred, and were confronted with the scene of their father, having been shot, lying on the ground at the front of the house; and 4. there was necessarily some planning to this murder. [15] It is apparent from my findings that the Offender had made his mind up to kill Justice Opas some weeks before the shooting. He needed to arm himself and then drive from his place of work at the Fairfield Fire Station to Woollahra and carry out the murder. This was not a spur of the moment decision, but one which had been planned and thought about. The Offender had to find out where Justice Opas lived and had to identify from the geography of the area how he might best make his escape without being identified.
Having regard to these factors, particularly that the victim was a serving Judge, who was murdered because of the work which he did, I am satisfied that this murder is of the highest level of objective seriousness, and that the level of the Offender's culpability is extreme.

[8]

Count 3 - Bombing of Justice Gee's Home

On the evening of 5 March 1984, Justice Gee and his two school-aged children retired to bed. At about 1.50am on Tuesday 6 March 1984, a bomb placed just on the front door step of the house adjacent to the front bedroom where Justice Gee was asleep at the time was detonated. The front of house was entirely demolished. The blast wave travelled through the rest of the house extensively damaging all of it.
Justice Gee, who was injured by debris from the blast, and his two children managed to get out of the house and make their way to a neighbour's house.
The Offender intended to murder Justice Gee. The only possible motivation for that attempted murder was the involvement of Justice Gee in the Offender's matrimonial proceedings where he had heard and determined a number of applications, some of which were unfavourable to the Offender.
This offence had the following features, which are relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending: 1. the target of this offence was a serving judge of the Family Court of Australia, who was targeted for his judicial role in the proceedings involving the Offender; [16] 2. the offence was committed at Justice Gee's home, a place where he was entitled to feel safe; [17] 3. the bomb detonated and destroyed Justice Gee's home whilst his two teenage children were sleeping inside; [18] 4. this offence required planning to find out where Justice Gee lived, to obtain the components for and undertake construction of the bomb, then to drive to Belrose (which must have taken the Offender over an hour) and then to place and detonate the bomb using a safety fuse, before making his escape;. [19] 5. the offending involved the use of an explosive; [20] and 6. such was the size of the blast, that there was clearly no regard for public safety, and there was a grave risk of death to the other residents in the house. [21]
The criminality of this offence places it at the highest level of objective seriousness, and of a kind which would justify the imposition of the maximum penalty fixed by the legislation.

[10]

Count 6 - Murder of Mrs Pearl Watson

During the early hours of the morning on 4 July 1985, the Offender placed a bomb he had constructed outside the front door of the home of Justice Raymond Watson and his wife, Mrs Pearl Watson. It was not readily visible to other residents of the apartment block.
The bomb consisted of a number of separate components, which were configured so that the bomb would be "victim-activated". This meant that the bomb would explode instantly when the front door of the apartment, where Justice and Mrs Watson lived, was opened. The bomb was targeted at Justice Watson, and its placement overnight outside the front door means it was intended to explode as the Judge opened his front door to go to work. The fact that the bomb was victim-activated meant that the Offender did not need to be anywhere in the vicinity once he had placed it in position and had armed it.
Although the size of the bomb could not be adequately established, it is clear from the extent of the damage that a number of kilograms of high explosive were used. There can be no doubt that it was the intention of the Offender to kill Justice Watson and anyone else in the apartment when the door was opened.
The Offender's motive to kill Justice Watson related to the orders that he had made in the course of his hearing of the matrimonial proceedings. In other words, the bomb was targeted at Justice Watson for doing his job as a judge of the Family Court. The fact that it was Mrs Watson who was killed was the inevitable consequence of the design of the bomb. It was indiscriminate in the sense that whoever opened the door - either Justice Watson or his wife - would be killed. So too, any person standing in close proximity to the person who had opened the door, particularly given the layout of the apartment, which included a long corridor leading to the front door, was likely to be killed or seriously injured.
This offence had the following features, which are relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of the criminality: 1. Mrs Watson, as the wife of a judicial officer, does not fall within the terms used in s 21(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, although Justice Watson does. Although the victim was Mrs Watson, I am nevertheless satisfied that because the bomb was intended for Justice Watson, this contributes significantly to the assessment of the seriousness of the offence; 2. the offence was committed in the home of the victims. Justice and Mrs Watson were entitled to feel safe in their house as their personal refuge; [24] 3. clearly, the offence involved significant planning. [25] The bomb had to be designed, the components obtained, the bomb configured, carried to the location of the offence, and then armed. The Offender had to establish the location of Justice Watson's home, and travel there from his home at Casula; 4. the offending involved the use of an explosive; [26] and 5. the blast was on the second floor on a residential block, with many others living in neighbouring apartments. The bomb was designed to explode when Justice Watson left for work, which was highly likely to be at a time many neighbouring residents were still in their homes. Consequently, there was no regard for public safety, and a grave risk of death to nearby residents of neighbouring apartments was involved. [27]
Taking all of these features into account, I find that this offence falls at the highest end of objectively seriousness criminality, and that the level of the Offender's culpability is extreme.

[12]

Count 9 -The Bomb in Mr Tall's Car

On 10 February 1985, the Offender placed a bomb in a car parked at a house in Kira Avenue, Northmead. The bomb consisted of 4kg of Molanite explosive and was configured so that it would explode if the ignition of the motor vehicle was switched on. It was only by a stroke of complete luck that Mr Peter Tall, who was a tenant in the house, did not turn his key which had been inserted into his car's ignition on that morning, and instead by opening the car's bonnet found the unexploded bomb. His life, and possibly the lives of others in the car's immediate vicinity, was saved by this happenchance.
Until seven months or so before February 1985, the house in question had been owned by Mr Garry Watts. Mr Watts was the solicitor who had the primary carriage of the matrimonial proceedings on behalf of the former wife of the Offender in February 1985. At the time of the discovery of the bomb, he had acted for Ms Blanchard for a little over two years. Mr Watts, and those in his employ, took a diligent, determined and thoughtful approach to the matrimonial proceedings. In particular, Mr Watts used the Offender's intentional dereliction of the Family Court orders as the basis for obtaining orders contrary to the Offender's interest.
I am satisfied that this approach, which was having significant success, so annoyed the Offender that he determined he would place a bomb in what he thought to be Mr Watts' car intending to murder him. I am satisfied that Mr Watts was the target of this bomb.
This offence had the following features, which are relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of the criminality: 1. the event was clearly planned and pre-meditated; [29] 2. the event involved the use of an explosive, which was intended to murder (at least) the driver of the car; [30] and 3. had the bomb exploded, not only would the driver of the vehicle have been killed, but so would anyone else in the car or in the vicinity. This offence was committed without regard for public safety. [31]
Although the bomb was intended for Mr Watts, a solicitor who practised in the Family Court of Australia, amongst other places, it represented on attack on the judicial system which needs the assistance of lawyers to function fairly and effectively.
I regard this offence as carrying a very high level of objective seriousness of the criminality involved.

[13]

Count 11 - Murder of Graham Wykes and Counts 12-24 - Bombing of the Kingdom Hall

Sometime late on the evening of Saturday 20 July 1985, or early in the morning of Sunday 21 July 1985, the Offender broke into the Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witnesses at Casula. He carried with him a bomb that he had constructed and which was designed to be activated by a timing mechanism in the form of an alarm clock. The Offender set the time at which he wished the bomb to explode, which was shortly after 10am, when the Lurnea congregation of the Jehovah's Witness faith (which included Mr Wykes) would be meeting in the Hall. The Offender placed the bomb under the platform in the Hall by accessing the rear of it, so that it was entirely concealed from those attending the meeting. The bomb was of a size and ferocity sufficient to destroy the Hall and to damage surrounding properties.
The bomb exploded as planned at around 10.04am the next morning. On the evidence in the trial, 71 members of the congregation were hospitalised immediately after the explosion. Of this number, 16 were children and five were babies. The bomb blast killed Mr Wykes and severely injured 13 members of the congregation, including young children. There was a grave risk of death to any member of the congregation sitting near the front of the Kingdom Hall. There were also others in attendance at the Kingdom Hall on that day who were not taken to hospital.
The Offender's motive to target the Lurnea congregation was that some members of the congregation had assisted Ms Blanchard (his former wife) and her sister (Ms Morier), together with their children (including the Offender's daughter), to leave Sydney and move to an undisclosed address on the mid‑North Coast of NSW. The Offender had attempted to find out where they had moved to, but his attempts had been wrongfully rebuffed (as he thought) by members of the Lurnea congregation of the Jehovah's Witness faith.
The size of the bomb, its placement and the time at which it was set to explode, meant that the Offender intended to kill or cause serious injury to those present in the Hall, particularly those in close proximity to the bomb when it exploded.
This offence had the following features, which are relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of criminality: 1. the placing and explosion of the bomb required considerable planning including undertaking a reconnaissance on the weekend prior to the explosion. [32] The purpose of this reconnaissance was to find a point of entry into the Kingdom Hall which was unlikely to alert neighbours or result in the police being called. The reconnaissance was also carried out to enable the offender to find a place where the bomb could be readily concealed but still be effective in exacting substantial revenge on the members of the Lurnea congregation; 2. the bomb was intended to explode, and did explode, in the presence of children under the age of 18; [33] 3. the explosion of the bomb happened without regard for public safety because the size and nature of the explosion meant that debris from the explosion was unconstrained and that it was foreseeable by the Offender that neighbours, passers-by or anyone else in the vicinity would have had their safety jeopardised; [34] and 4. the bombing involved the use of an explosive. [35]
I also consider the fact that the bomb was placed in the Kingdom Hall as a factor relevant to the seriousness of the offence. The Kingdom Hall was a place of worship, where people were entitled to gather together to profess their faith and engage in their expression of it. A place of worship is a place of sanctuary and peace. [36] It was entirely violated by the explosion of this bomb.
This was a calculated, planned bombing of a group of entirely innocent people, most of whom had not had anything to do with the Offender and his former wife, although a small number of the members of the congregation had provided assistance to the Offender's former wife and her sister.
The murder of Mr Wykes and the causing of grievous bodily harm to the individuals named in Counts 12 to 24 are offences which fall at the highest end of the order of objective seriousness, and the level of the Offender's culpability was extreme.

[14]

Victim Impact Statements

I will now consider the impact which the Offender's conduct had on the victims themselves and also on the families of the three murder victims.
The Crown tendered a number of Victim Impact Statements from people affected by the Offender's crimes. These statements came from the family members of the late Justice Opas, the late Mrs Pearl Watson and the late Mr Graham Wykes. As well, they came from a number of direct victims of the Offender's crimes. Six of the direct victims of the bombing of the Kingdom Hall gave evidence of the effects of that offence upon them. I acknowledge receiving each of those Victim Impact Statements and, as well, listening to them being read to the Court.
Because the convictions of the Offender have occurred between 35 and 40 years after each offence, each of the victims has been able to tell the Court of the long term consequences of the crimes upon them. Those consequences are severe in many cases, extending over a considerable period of time, and have had significant impacts upon the way in which each of these victims have gone about their lives.
The Crown has applied for the family victim statements to be taken into account in the determination of the appropriate punishment for the offences of murder, on the basis of the harmful impact that the death of each of those individuals has had on members of their immediate family as an aspect of harm done to the community. I have taken into account these family statements in that way.
In addition to taking the contents of these statements into account, I am also permitted by the legislation to make any comments which I consider appropriate. [37]
Mrs Kristin Opas, the wife of Justice Opas, told the Court that as a result of the murder of her husband, she has had a considerable disruption to her life. She has required medication, she has had to move interstate, and she has lived the last 40 years of her life in a state of high anxiety and stress. She feels that she has been looking over her shoulder in fear for all of the time since her husband's murder, specifically fear that Justice Opas' murderer would find her and her children and attack them. Mrs Opas says that over half of her life has been spent in a state of torment and that the murder of her husband has impacted on her personality and her capacity to enjoy her life.
Ms Alison Gee, the daughter of Justice Gee, was 12 years old at the time the Offender detonated a bomb at the front of her home. She described how she felt as though the innocence of her childhood had been replaced by trauma. She has suffered, and continues to suffer, psychologically with PTSD and depression for which she is medicated. She remains hyper vigilant at times.
Mr Stephen McInnes, the son of Mrs Pearl Watson, has told the Court of his immense grief and ongoing traumatic suffering since his mother died. He has described how his mother's death meant that the "living breathing heart" was torn out from his family. His life has been one of anger and he has felt filled with hatred and rage for the whole time since his mother's death. He continues to be overwhelmed with grief. He concluded by saying that he and his brother, along with their families, should not have had to have lived through their experience and with their ongoing memories of grief.
Ms Sue Chapman, the daughter of Justice Watson and the step-daughter of Mrs Pearl Watson, noted the important role which Mrs Watson played in her life and that of her family, and explained the wonderful relationship she shared with her stepmother. She records the deep emotional pain she experienced at the time of Mrs Watson's murder, and the ongoing feelings of trauma and grief she continues to feel.
Each of the family members of the Judges who were targeted have suffered substantial harm because of the Offender's crimes. They have suffered, not because of anything they did, but simply because they were family members of a person motivated by public duty to serve as a Judge of the Family Court of Australia. They were entirely innocent victims collateral to the Offender's criminality, and they have suffered over a very long period of time because of it.
Mrs Joy Wykes (as she was then known), members of her family, and others injured in the bombing of the Kingdom Hall have provided statements setting out the impact of this event upon their lives.
Mrs Wykes describes the existence of a very happy family and a loving relationship with Mr Graham Wykes. She described how he was a wonderful father to their two daughters, and a devoted husband. She records that the loss of such a devoted partner, as well as the loss of a loving father in her childrens' lives, was devastating for the family and that their lives were shattered forever. As well, she describes the consequences of her own severe injuries sustained in the blast. Mrs Wykes records that she has never recovered from such a devastating event, which has so changed her and her families' lives in all ways since July 1985.
Mrs Alaine Jones (previously Alaine Wykes), one of Mr Graham Wykes' daughters, describes the intense emotional toll the loss of her father had on her life. She notes that she has suffered, and continues to suffer, from depression and continues to take medication and receive counselling so that she can cope and live a normal life.
Four other victims of the bombing of the Kingdom Hall - Sue Schulz, Hans Schulz, Susan Rushan and Ioan Toplicesceu - have each spoken of the ongoing physical and emotional impacts upon them from the explosion of the bomb.
In particular, Ms Rushan said she has been in a state of disbelief both at the time and since. As she aptly put it: "who in their right mind bombs a place of worship and wants to kill people?". This question is one which all right-thinking people, knowing of this bombing, would also ask. Ms Rushan and all of the other members of the Lurnea congregation at the Kingdom Hall on 21 July 1985 were entitled to exercise their faith in a peaceful environment which was a refuge for them. I am not surprised that one effect of the bombing has been to cause the Jehovah's Witnesses who were present on that day to lose confidence in their safety whilst they exercise their faith.
The purpose of setting out these statements in some detail and commenting upon them is to recognise the harm done to each of the direct victims of the crime and the impact of that harm on the community. It is my hope that this recognition, whilst relevant to sentence, also serves as an acknowledgement by the Court of the ongoing suffering of each of the witnesses who have described the effects of the Offender's conduct upon them, and that this recognition will in some small measure help their recovery.

[15]

Subjective Circumstances

It is always of relevance for a court to have regard to the subjective circumstances of an offender, including those relating to their background, their current situation and any which may have been relevant to the conduct in which an offender has engaged.
In this matter, the Offender did not place any material before the Court at the sentencing hearing relating to his subjective circumstances. He instructed his lawyers not to make any submissions to the Court in answer to the Crown's submissions or more generally on the issue of what sentence was appropriate to be imposed.
As a result I know little about the Offender. It is known that he was born in January 1947 and was 33 years old at the time he murdered Justice Opas, and that he was 34 or 35 years old at the time the other offences were committed.
The material provided to the Court on sentencing reveals that as an adult he had one very minor offence of stealing on his record, for which no conviction was recorded. That offence is so minor as to be of no significance in these proceedings. Accordingly, he is to be regarded as a person with no previous criminal convictions. [38]
The evidence in the trial disclosed that during the course of the offences that he committed, the Offender was employed permanently as a fireman for the NSW Fire Brigade. At the time of his arrest, the Offender had retired from that job and was receiving a pension.
The evidence in the trial also disclosed that the Offender was first married to Ms Blanchard in 1976 and that they had a daughter together. That marriage was the subject of the matrimonial proceedings which have been covered in great detail in my principal judgment. The Offender obtained custody of his daughter at the conclusion of the proceedings in 1986 and took care of her for some time, although the length of that period is unknown.
At the time the Offender was arrested in 2015, the evidence and material before the Court revealed that he had married again and had three children - two of whom were adults and one of whom was in high school.
These are the only matters which can be identified as being of any relevance for the Court's consideration when imposing any sentence.
Although I have noted the absence of any previous criminal convictions, I also note that in the course of the trial, the Offender did not rely upon his general good character as weighing in his favour on the issue of his guilt. He did not seek any direction of law relating to his good character. I do not hold this against the Offender, but it does mean that this mitigating factor is not available in considering what sentence is appropriate. [39]
Other than the circumstances of the Events themselves, there is no material which would enable me to determine any of the mitigating factors set out in the legislation. [40] This means that I am not able to conclude as a mitigating factor in any sentence which I might impose, that the Offender is unlikely to reoffend, that he has good prospects of rehabilitation or that he has shown any remorse for his offending.
I complete this review of the subjective circumstances by noting that at the sentencing hearing, the Offender, through his lawyers, maintained his innocence of the offences of which he has been convicted.
However, having regard to the fact that the Offender chose not to have his lawyers put any submissions on his subjective circumstances, those circumstances will carry very little weight in the evaluation of the factors relevant to sentencing.

[16]

Summary

Each of the offences involved sophisticated planning, preparation and careful conduct. They were a part of a sustained course of conduct by the Offender against anyone whom he concluded to be acting contrary to his interests in maintaining access to his daughter and preserving his own financial position - both of which were under threat in his ongoing Family Court proceedings.
The offences of which the Offender has been convicted, when looked at as a whole, show that between June 1980 and July 1985, the Family Court of Australia, its Judges and a practitioner were the targets of a number of episodes of extreme violence. As well, members of the Lurnea congregation of the Jehovah's Witness faith were also targeted because some members of the congregation assisted the Offender's ex-wife to escape Sydney, which had the effect of hindering the exercise of the Offender's right of access to his daughter.
As the principal judgment shows, each of the offences was connected to proceedings in which the Offender was involved in the Family Court of Australia. The Offender engaged in the conduct out of a desire to retaliate against those who, in the course of the proceedings, interfered with and adversely impacted upon his access to his daughter and what he perceived to be his property entitlements.
The three crimes of murder involved culpability on the part of the Offender in their commission, which was extreme. Murder is the most serious crime, as it involves the taking of a human life. But when the target of the murder is a member of the judiciary or their family, or an innocent worshipper in their place of worship, the interests of the community require that such crimes should never happen again. Condign punishment is necessary. All of the circumstances which I have discussed, I am satisfied, are such as would warrant the imposition of a mandatory life sentence as contemplated by the legislation. [41]
Each of the offences was extremely serious taken in isolation. Each involved loss of life or the potential for loss of life, and significant personal injury to a number of people.
More broadly, when the offending is considered as a whole, the extent to which much of it was an attack on the institution of the Family Court of Australia becomes clear. The offences involving the Family Court of Australia, its Judges and a practitioner demonstrated a series of calculated attacks on the Family Court. This broader aspect of the offending needs also to be acknowledged.
The Family Court of Australia was, and remains, a vital and integral part of the Australian judicial system.
It is a hallmark of Australian democracy and the peaceful co-existence which we all enjoy as an enlightened society that there is an independent, strong and dedicated judiciary. The Australian Constitution ensures that this is so. This is how Australian citizens safely and peacefully settle their disputes. A sustained period of violence aimed at an Australian Court and its Judges, solely in retribution for those Judges properly executing their obligations and functions in peacefully adjudicating disputes in accordance with the law, cannot be viewed as anything other than an attack on the very foundations of Australian democracy. It is an offending which, at its core, is completely antithetical to the very foundations of government in Australia.
There were callous and undoubtedly cruel features to these offences: the fact that they took place at the homes of the individual Judges and at what was thought to be the home of a practitioner. The fact that they occurred unexpectedly, without warning and apparently at random. The fact that the bombs were entirely concealed from their victims. Finally, the fact that they involved violence of an extreme kind at seemingly random times targeting, amongst others, individuals undertaking a public duty. This was a type of sustained, ongoing violence which, at that time, was entirely unheard of in Australia.
These offences could only have engendered sheer terror in the hearts and minds of all Judges and staff of the Family Court of Australia, Judges of other superior courts and the lawyers who practised in those courts. They must have felt absolute fear at the prospect that any one of them might have been the next target for simply doing what all Australians expected and wanted them to do in the course of their public duty.
It is simply unacceptable to expect that those involved in an essential public function in Australia should live their lives in fear of being the subject of such violent attacks. Such attacks cannot be tolerated in a free and enlightened society.
The sentences which I will shortly impose are a mark of the fact that anybody who contemplates engaging in similar conduct must understand that it will carry with it the severest punishment.
The conduct of the Offender was calculated, violent and hateful. It was an evil attack on members of the Australian judiciary, the Family Court and a practitioner.
Not content with such attacks, the Offender, in a final act of unspeakable evil, then sought to wreak revenge on innocent members of the Lurnea congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses meeting in an expression of their faith by setting a bomb timed to explode when their meeting Hall (which was a place of sanctuary) was full and the members of that congregation were doing nothing other than contemplating features of their faith. This was an entirely unjustified and cruel attack on innocent people by the use of extreme violence. Such flagitious conduct has no place in Australia.
One of the features which has become apparent in the course of this trial, and which I now wish to publicly acknowledge, is that all of the Judges, their families, the practitioners and the staff of the Family Court of Australia, particularly those at the Parramatta Registry, exhibited extraordinary public service and bravery by continuing to undertake their roles without significant interruption so as to ensure that the Family Court of Australia could carry out its important function in the resolution of disputes involving the breakdown of marriage and the custody and welfare of children. They were courageous to do so and demonstrated conduct of a kind to which we would all aspire when confronted by those who seek to do harm to the values of justice and peaceful settlement of disputes in our nation. They put their public duty, the importance of the litigants and the resolution of their disputes before their own personal safety. These men and women were brave, they were courageous and they were unbowed by the Offender's vicious and violent attacks. Australia owes them a very great debt of gratitude.

[21]

Endnotes

R v Warwick (No.93) [2020] NSWSC 926 ("the principal judgment")
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [20]
See s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
See s 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [27]
Section 19(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Section 21A(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; Muldrock at [18]
Veen v The Queen (No.2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 472
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51]; Muldrock at [26]
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557 at [42], [54] per Wood CJ at CL (Tobias JA and Hidden J agreeing)
Section 21A(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(ea) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(ca) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Sections 21A(2)(ca) and (i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(ca) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Section 21A(2)(n) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(ca) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
An aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999;
Section 21A(2)(ea) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(i) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Section 21A(2)(ca) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
R v Tarrant [2010] NZHC 2192 at [110]-[111]
Section 30E(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Section 21A(3)(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Section 21A(3)(f) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Section 21A(3)(f)-(n)
Section 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Section 45(1)(c) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 03 September 2020

R v Warwick

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (21 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (13)

Cited By (6)