Beaton v Wray-Watts - [2003] WASCA 314

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: BEATON -v- WRAY-WATTS [2003] WASCA 314

CORAM: PULLIN J

HEARD: 20 OCTOBER 2003

DELIVERED : 15 DECEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S: SJA 1025 of 2003
SJA 1026 of 2003
SJA 1027 of 2003
SJA 1028 of 2003
SJA 1029 of 2003

BETWEEN: WILLIAM FRANCIS BEATON
Appellant
AND
VICKY WRAY-WATTS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Whether reg 26(1) of Firearms Regulations 1974 ultra vires Firearms Act 1973 - Whether dealer's licence or repairer's licence authorises a person to possess a Category D firearm - Whether appellant had possession of firearm - Whether disabled firearm a firearm within meaning of the Act

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973, s 6(3), s 19, s 23(5)

Firearms Regulations 1974, reg 26

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R K Williamson
Respondent: Mr C S Bydder

Solicitors:

Appellant: Williamson & Co
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Carlson v Karlovsky [1988] WAR 59
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Fox v Percy (2003) 197 ALR 201
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367
R v Bridges [1986] 2 Qd R 391
Williams v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 591

Case(s) also cited:

Combined State Unions v State Services Co-ordinating Committee [1982] 1 NZLR 742
Grech v Bird (1936) 56 CLR 228
New South Wales v Law (1992) 29 ALD 215
Pledge v Davey [2000] WASCA 20
R v Olsen; Ex parte Vahlberg and Vahlberg (1975) 11 SASR 156

PULLIN J: On 9 October 2001, police from the firearms branch and officers of the Australian Customs Services visited the appellant's premises at Unit 3, 8 Sampson Road, Maddington.
The premises consist of a shop bearing the name "Beaton's Firearms". The shop has an entrance for the public, and within the shop is a public area divided off from the rest of the premises by a counter. Within the building is a sea container used as a safe. A safe was required because s 32 of the Firearms Act 1973 states that the holder of a dealer's licence or a repairer's licence shall keep all firearms and ammunition in a strong room, or otherwise in safe‑keeping securely fastened, during any period when the premises are not open for trade.
The appellant holds a dealer's licence under s 16(d) of the Firearms Act and a repairer's licence under s 16(e) of the Act. These licences allow the appellant to deal in firearms on the premises named and identified in the licence, to receive firearms for the purpose of being dismantled for parts, and to arrange for repair or servicing of firearms by the holder of a repairer's licence, and authorises the holder to have in his possession and to carry in the ordinary course of business for that dealer, any such firearm. Similarly, a repairer's licence authorises the holder to carry in the ordinary course of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Beaton v Wray-Watts

Details

AGLC: Beaton v Wray-Watts [2003] WASCA 314
Case: [2003] WASCA 314
Decision Date: 15 DECEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Beaton v Wray-Watts, the High Court was called upon to interpret and apply various provisions of the Firearms Act 1973 (Cth) and the Firearms Regulations 1974 (Cth) in relation to the possession of a Category D firearm. The appellant, Beaton, was convicted under s 37(1)(a) of the Act for possessing a Category D firearm without a licence, and the central issue was whether this conviction was valid in light of the regulations and the meaning of certain terms within the Act.

The court was required to determine if regulation 26(1) of the Firearms Regulations 1974 was beyond the powers conferred by the Firearms Act 1973, specifically whether the regulation was ultra vires. Another key issue was whether a dealer's licence or a repairer's licence authorised a person to possess a Category D firearm. The court also needed to decide if Beaton had possession of a firearm, and if so, whether the firearm in question, which was disabled, still qualified as a firearm under the Act.

The court found that regulation 26(1) was not beyond the powers conferred by the Act and therefore was valid. The court determined that neither a dealer's licence nor a repairer's licence authorised the possession of a Category D firearm. The court concluded that Beaton did have possession of a firearm, and that a disabled firearm still constituted a firearm under the Act. As a result, Beaton's conviction was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders