BINNS -v- GARDINER [2004] WASCA 275
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 275 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | SJA:1078/2002 | 1 OCTOBER 2004 | |
| Coram: | TEMPLEMAN J JENKINS J SIMMONDS J | 25/11/04 | |
| 14 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN CHRISTOPHER MASON BINNS RUSSELL KEITH GARDINER |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Firearms offences Disqualification from holding licence Whether permanent disqualification available under statutory provision for "such period as the Court determines" Whether permanent disqualification manifestly excessive |
Legislation: | Firearms Act 1973, s 27 Justices Act 1902, s 192, s 206A, s 199 Sentencing Act 1995, s 104 |
Case References: | Bayens v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 920631; 27 November 1992 Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569 Binns v Gardiner [2002] WASCA 337 Chew v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 626 Denton v Murdock, unreported, SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 950572; 26 October 1995 Jackamarra v Orr [2003] WASCA 278 R v Tunde-Olarinde (1967) 51 Cr App Rep 249 Schamotta v The Queen [2002] WASCA 262 Stackhouse v Curulli, unreported; SCt of WA (Owen J); Library No 920251; 30 April 1992 Waldock v Taylor [2003] WASCA 43 Coumbe v Whittaker [1999] WASCA 262 Horton v Burton (1999) 28 MVR 415 Horton v Burton (1999) 29 MVR 132 Stevens v Viskovich, unreported; SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 950596; 26 September 1996 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : BINNS -v- GARDINER [2004] WASCA 275 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J
- JENKINS J
SIMMONDS J
- Appellant
AND
RUSSELL KEITH GARDINER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No : SJA 1078 of 2002
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : HASLUCK J
Citation : BINNS -v- GARDINER [2002] WASCA 337
File No : SJA 1078 of 2002
Result : Application dismissed
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against sentence - Firearms offences - Disqualification from holding licence - Whether permanent disqualification available under statutory provision for "such period as the Court determines" - Whether permanent disqualification manifestly excessive
Legislation:
Firearms Act 1973, s 27
Justices Act 1902, s 192, s 206A, s 199
Sentencing Act 1995, s 104
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R K Williamson
Respondent : Mr N C Monahan
Solicitors:
Appellant : Williamson & Co
Respondent : State Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bayens v Taylor, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 920631; 27 November 1992
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569
Binns v Gardiner [2002] WASCA 337
Chew v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 626
Denton v Murdock, unreported, SCt of WA (Parker J); Library No 950572; 26 October 1995
Jackamarra v Orr…
Continue reading Binns v Gardiner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Binns v Gardiner [2004] WASCA 275
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 275
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Binns, against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant, Gardiner, was convicted of multiple firearms offences and had been sentenced to imprisonment and disqualified from holding a firearm licence. The sentence imposed included a permanent disqualification from holding a firearm licence, which Binns sought to appeal as manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether a permanent disqualification from holding a firearm licence was available under the statutory provision that allows for a disqualification for "such period as the Court determines". The court had to consider whether the phrase "such period as the Court determines" allowed for a permanent disqualification or whether there were limits to the period of disqualification that the court could impose. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the permanent disqualification was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether it warranted intervention.
The court found that the statutory provision allowing for a disqualification for "such period as the Court determines" did indeed permit a permanent disqualification. The court held that there were no inherent limits to the period of disqualification that the court could impose, provided it was within the bounds of what the court considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court further found that the permanent disqualification was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offences and the risk posed by the offender to the community. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence, including the permanent disqualification, was upheld.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether a permanent disqualification from holding a firearm licence was available under the statutory provision that allows for a disqualification for "such period as the Court determines". The court had to consider whether the phrase "such period as the Court determines" allowed for a permanent disqualification or whether there were limits to the period of disqualification that the court could impose. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the permanent disqualification was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether it warranted intervention.
The court found that the statutory provision allowing for a disqualification for "such period as the Court determines" did indeed permit a permanent disqualification. The court held that there were no inherent limits to the period of disqualification that the court could impose, provided it was within the bounds of what the court considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court further found that the permanent disqualification was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offences and the risk posed by the offender to the community. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence, including the permanent disqualification, was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.