Christopher John Saunders v David Anthony Crowe - [2010] ACTSC 78

CHRISTOPHER JOHN SAUNDERS v DAVID ANTHONY CROWE
[2010] ACTSC 78 (6 August 2010)

APPEAL – appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction and sentence – unlawful possession of stolen property charge dismissed – penalty for possess/use a firearm while not authorised dismissed – penalty for possess/use a prohibited weapon while not authorised dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW – unlawful possession of stolen property – not apparent that appellant took possession of stolen property – unchallenged explanation of appellant as to how property came to be in his possession – charge dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW – possess/use a firearm while not authorised – posses/use a prohibited weapon while not authorised – appellant’s explanation for possession of weapons not rejected by trial judge – convictions upheld – penalties dismissed

Firearms Act 1966 (ACT), ss 4B, 24
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), ss 3, 17

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 98 of 2008

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 6 August 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 98 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:CHRISTOPHER JOHN SAUNDERS

Appellant

AND:DAVID ANTHONY CROWE
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  6 August 2010
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be upheld.
The orders made by Magistrate Fryer on 3 November 2008 be set aside and the following orders be substituted:

(a)      A conviction be recorded for charge 2007/9143 and no further penalty be imposed.
(b)      A conviction be recorded for charge 2007/9144 and no further penalty be imposed.
(c)      A conviction be recorded for charge 2007/9145 and no further penalty be imposed.
(d)      Charge 2007/9146 be dismissed.

No order as to costs or levies be made.

This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant on 3 November 2008 in the ACT Magistrates Court in respect of four charges namely:

·2007/9143 That he, in the Australian Capital Territory, on 13 September 2007, did possess a firearm, to wit a Sureshot .22 calibre rifle whilst not authorised by a licence or a permit or the Firearms Act 1996.
·2007/9144 That he, in the Australian Capital Territory, on 13 September 2007, who possessed a firearm, to wit a Sureshot .22 calibre rifle, did fail to take all reasonable precautions to ensure its safekeeping that it not be stolen or lost, and that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm.

·2007/9145 ... possessed a prohibited weapon while not authorised to do so by the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996.

·2007/9146 ... did have in a premises (sic), property namely personal paperwork in the name of Christopher McFarlane, ACT Registration plates YCL00X and envelopes and mail items identified in Annexure A, being property that is reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained.

There was also an order for costs made against the appellant on 21 August 2008. It…

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 Christopher John Saunders v David Anthony Crowe

Details

AGLC: Christopher John Saunders v David Anthony Crowe [2010] ACTSC 78
Case: [2010] ACTSC 78
Decision Date: 6 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the matter of Christopher John Saunders v David Anthony Crowe was heard by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Saunders, appealed against his conviction and sentence for various charges including unlawful possession of stolen property, and possession and use of a firearm and a prohibited weapon without authorisation. The trial judge, Magistrate Fryer, had found Saunders guilty on all charges and imposed penalties on three of the charges, while dismissing the charge related to stolen property.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Saunders was correctly convicted of the charges, and if the penalties imposed were appropriate. Regarding the charge of unlawful possession of stolen property, the court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence to prove that Saunders had taken possession of the stolen property. For the charges related to the possession and use of weapons, the court had to assess whether Saunders’ explanation for possessing the weapons was credible and if it negated the requirement for authorisation.

The court found that the evidence did not establish Saunders’ possession of the stolen property, and therefore dismissed the charge. The court accepted Saunders' explanation for the presence of the weapons in his possession, which led to the dismissal of the penalties for the charges related to the firearms and prohibited weapon. The court upheld the convictions for these charges but dismissed the penalties imposed by the trial judge.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the appeal, set aside the orders made by Magistrate Fryer on 3 November 2008, and substitute new orders. Specifically, the court recorded convictions for the charges related to the weapons without imposing any further penalties, and dismissed the charge related to stolen property. No order was made as to costs or levies.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The orders made by Magistrate Fryer on 3 November 2008 be set aside and the following orders be substituted: (a) A conviction be recorded for charge 2007/9143 and no further penalty be imposed.

(b) A conviction be recorded for charge 2007/9144 and no further penalty be imposed.

(d) Charge 2007/9146 be dismissed.

3. No order as to costs or levies be made.

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.