Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Darestani v R [2019] NSWCCA 248 Hearing dates: 21 August 2019 Date of orders: 21 October 2019 Decision date: 21 October 2019 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Price J at [2];
Lonergan J at [101]Decision: Grant leave to appeal against the convictions on the first and second counts of possess an imitation self-loading pistol without authorisation by license or permit contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).
Allow the appeal.
Quash the convictions on the first and second counts.
Quash the aggregate sentence imposed in the District Court of New South Wales on 8 June 2018.
For counts 3 and 4, the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 11 months commencing on 27 July 2017 and expiring on 26 June 2018 with a balance of term of 11 months commencing on 27 June 2018 and expiring on 26 May 2019.Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against convictions for two counts contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 – whether plastic pistols were imitation firearms – construction of s 4D(4) of the Firearms Act – meaning of “identified as a children’s toy” – whether confined to matters intrinsic to the object – whether present use and intention may be taken into account – possession – consideration of Crown case at trial – whether verdicts on counts 1 and 2 were unreasonable – resentence – the ceiling principle – aggregate sentence for counts 3 and 4 Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5
Criminal Appeal Rules r 4
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) ss 3, 4D, 7Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police (NSW Police Force) v Howard Silvers & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 981
Libke v R (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
Milne v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 149; [2014] HCA 4
Pearce v The Queen (1998) CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R H McL v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452
Sio v R [2015] NSWCCA 42
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35Category: Principal judgment Parties: Makan Khalili Poor Darestani (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr T Quilter and Mr A Chhabra (Applicant)
Mr D Patch (Respondent)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/229581 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Date of Decision:
- 03 May 2018
- Before:
- O’Brien DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2017/229581
Judgment
-
HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Price J and the orders which he proposes.
-
PRICE J: On 3 May 2018, the applicant, Makan Darestani, was found guilty by a jury of:
two counts of possess an imitation self-loading pistol without authorisation by licence or permit, contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996
Continue reading Darestani v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Darestani v R [2019] NSWCCA 248
- Case
- [2019] NSWCCA 248
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory definition of "imitation firearm" and the phrase "identified as a children’s toy," concluding that it was not limited to intrinsic characteristics of the object alone. The court found that extrinsic factors, including the present use and intention, could be taken into account. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in reaching the verdicts. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that the appeal against the sentence was not valid due to the absence of a jurisdictional error. The appeal against the convictions was dismissed, and the appeal against the sentence was not upheld.
The High Court dismissed the appeal against the convictions, confirming the trial judge's findings that the plastic pistols were indeed imitation firearms under the Firearms Act. The court also upheld the verdicts as reasonable based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the appellant's convictions on counts 1 and 2 were affirmed. The appeal against the sentence was rejected, and no orders were made concerning the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.