Campbell v Logan - [2003] WASCA 89

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: CAMPBELL -v- LOGAN [2003] WASCA 89

CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD: 14 FEBRUARY 2003

DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2003

FILE NO/S: SJA 1109 of 2002

BETWEEN: ALFRED ROBERT ARTHUR CAMPBELL
Appellant
AND
WILLIAM EDWARD LOGAN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Justices - Appeal - Possession of firearms without being holder of licence - Firearms licence - Renewal - Appellant's refusal to sign renewal notice in particular place on notice - Whether lawful requirement - Whether licence deemed in law to have been renewed

Appeal - Justices - Failure to give reasons explaining process of reasoning - Whether substantial miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 4, s 9, s 22A, s 34

Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA), reg 4(5), reg 7B

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 199(1)(b)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R K Williamson
Respondent: Ms L E Christian

Solicitors:

Appellant: Williamson & Co
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Betts v Hardcastle (2001) 23 WAR 559
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Roddan v Walker (1996) 17 WAR 277

Case(s) also cited:

Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143
Lester v Booth [2000] WASCA 155
Nevermann v The Queen (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
Selby v Pennings (1998) 19 WAR 520

ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is an appeal against the appellant's conviction on 19 August 2002 before his Worship Mr McIntyre SM, in the Court of Petty Sessions at Armadale, of an offence that between 2 January and 5 February 2002 he knowingly possessed two firearms without being the holder of the requisite licence or permit.
The case has an unusual history.
The appellant is the owner of two firearms, a .32 calibre Winchester lever action repeating rifle and a Savage combination .22 calibre rifle and 20‑gauge shotgun. He was the holder of a Firearm Licence for those firearms under s 16 of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) ("the Firearms Act").
On 22 September 2001 the appellant received from the Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner") a form ("the renewal notice") advising him that payment for the renewal of his licence was due by 8 October 2001. The nature of the renewal notice assumes some importance. It actually comprised two forms on one page. The top form was headed "Firearm Licence". It bore the appellant's full name and post office address and the licence number. In a box at the top of the form were the words "licence expires 08 October 2002" (this would have been the expiry date once the licence was renewed). The text in the body of the renewal notice recited that the appellant was licensed in accordance with s 16(1)(a) of the Firearms Act to possess, carry and lawfully use, the firearms described thereunder and the ammunition for them. At the bottom of this part of the document, coloured purple, was the heading "Important" and the following notice:
"This licence includes payment for your extract of licence card.…

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 Campbell v Logan

Details

AGLC: Campbell v Logan [2003] WASCA 89
Case: [2003] WASCA 89
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Campbell v Logan, the appellant, Mr. Campbell, was convicted of possessing firearms without a valid licence. He appealed against the conviction, arguing that he had been unlawfully required to sign a firearms licence renewal notice in a specific location, and that the licence was deemed in law to have been renewed without his signature. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues were whether the requirement to sign the renewal notice in a particular place was lawful, and if the licence could be considered valid despite the appellant's refusal to sign it.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing firearms licences and renewals. It determined that the requirement for the appellant to sign the notice in a specific location was not an essential or lawful condition for the renewal of the licence. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's refusal to sign the notice in the prescribed manner did not invalidate the licence. The justices concluded that the appellant's firearms licence had been lawfully renewed, and his conviction for possession without a valid licence was upheld. The court also noted that the justices had failed to provide reasons for their decision, which could have led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court emphasised that the requirement to sign the notice in a specific place was not a lawful condition for the renewal of the licence, and the appellant's refusal to sign it did not invalidate the licence. The justices were reminded of the importance of providing reasons for their decisions to ensure transparency and fairness in the legal process.

Orders