JUDGES	REDLICH and WEINBERG JJA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	25 March 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	14 November 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 284	1^st revision: 6 January 2015, para [141]
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Davies (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howie, 28 July 2011 (1^st Conviction)) DPP v Davies (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howie, 5 September 2011 (2^nd Conviction)) DPP v Davies [2013] VCC 570 (Judge Howie) (Sentence)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Armed with a controlled weapon with criminal intent – Plan to kidnap and harm prostitute – Whether prosecutor’s conduct caused trial to miscarry – Whether conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory – Sentence of two years and ten months’ imprisonment – Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Handling stolen goods – Whether sufficient evidence for jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that applicant knew or believed that numberplates in his possession were stolen – Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217, discussed – Conviction for handling stolen goods quashed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Possessing an unregistered firearm as a prohibited person – Definition of a ‘firearm’ for the purposes of s 3 of the Firearms Act 1996 – Whether device designed for the purpose of discharging missile – Unnecessary that the device capable of discharging shot or a missile – Whether a miscarriage arose due to conduct of prosecutor, judge’s charge or admission of evidence.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	The Applicant appeared in person
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA
WEINBERG JA
SIFRIS AJA:

Following a trial, the applicant, Brendan Ian Davies, was found guilty in the County Court of the offence of being armed with a controlled weapon with criminal intent. After a second trial, the applicant was found guilty of the offences of handling stolen goods and possessing an unregistered firearm as a prohibited person. At that second trial, the applicant was acquitted of another charge of possessing an unregistered firearm as a prohibited person. The jury was discharged without verdict in relation to a charge of possessing an explosive substance without lawful excuse. The applicant was sentenced following both trials as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

First trial — Indictment Y00284567.2

1 Armed with controlled weapon with criminal intent [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 31B(2)]
5 years
2 years, 10 months Base

Second trial — Indictment Y00284567.1

1 Handle stolen goods [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 88(1)] 15 years 2 months 2 months

2 Possess unregistered firearm – prohibited person [Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) s 5(1A)] 15 years 1 month Nil

Total Effective Sentence: 3 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 18 months’ imprisonment

The applicant appeared in person before this Court. He seeks leave to appeal against…

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 Davies v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Davies v The Queen [2014] VSCA 284
Case: [2014] VSCA 284
Decision Date: 14 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Davies v The Queen, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence following his involvement in a planned kidnapping and assault involving a prostitute, and possession of unregistered firearms and stolen numberplates. The appeal was dismissed in relation to the charges of armed with a controlled weapon with criminal intent and possessing an unregistered firearm as a prohibited person, but the conviction for handling stolen goods was quashed.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the sufficiency of evidence regarding the appellant's knowledge that the numberplates were stolen, the potential miscarriage of justice due to the prosecutor's conduct, and the definition of a 'firearm' under the Firearms Act 1996. The court had to determine if the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's knowledge that the numberplates were stolen beyond reasonable doubt, following the precedent set by Weissensteiner v The Queen. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial was compromised by the prosecutor's conduct, the judge's charge, or the admission of evidence, and whether these factors led to a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that while the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's knowledge that the numberplates were stolen, the conviction for handling stolen goods was quashed due to the prosecutor's conduct which led to a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that the definition of a 'firearm' under the Firearms Act 1996 did not necessitate that the device be capable of discharging a shot or a missile, and thus the appeal against the conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm was dismissed. The appeal against the conviction for armed with a controlled weapon with criminal intent was also dismissed, as the court found no miscarriage of justice.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the conviction and sentence for possessing an unregistered firearm as a prohibited person, to quash the conviction for handling stolen goods, and to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and sentence for armed with a controlled weapon with criminal intent.

Orders