DJC v Taylor - [2019] WASC 235

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   DJC -v- TAYLOR [2019] WASC 235
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   18 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED          :   5 JULY 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1123 of 2018
BETWEEN:   DJC
Appellant
AND
STEVEN RONALD TAYLOR
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE E DE VRIES
File Number            :   KH 2452 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Firearms Act 1973 (WA) - Whether to post a firearm constitutes delivery - Whether averment provision applied to the charge - Meaning of approved commercial carrier

Legislation:

Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth), s 23, s 24, s 25, s 54
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 9
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), sch 1 cl 6(2)(a)
Firearm and Guns Act 1931 (WA)
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 4, s 8, s 19, s 29, s 30, s 30A
Liquor Act 1978 (NT), s 75(1)(b)

Result:

Leave to appeal is refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr R Williamson
Respondent	:	Mr J D Berson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Ross Williamson
Respondent	:	Solicitor for the State of Western Australia

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

Brady v Thornton [1947] HCA 29; (1947) 75 CLR 140
Charlton v Rogers; Ex parte Charlton (1985) 82 FLR 40
Jambajimba v Svikart (1984) 71 FLR 287
Kerney v Lewis (2005) 191 FLR 54
Kuyer v Small [2012] WASC 442
Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98
The State of Western Australia v 'R' [2007] WASCA 42; (2007) 33 WAR 483

SMITH J:

1.0 The appeal and the result

The appellant was convicted of having delivered firearms to an agent of Australia Post (in a specified place in Western Australia) on 21 July 2017, namely a Ruger rifle bolt repeater .22 calibre and a Crosman .177 calibre air rifle, whilst such a person was not the holder of a licence or permit pursuant to the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) (the Act) entitling them to possess the firearms, and was not a person to whom s 8 or s 30(2) of the Act applied; contrary to s 19(2)(a) of the Act.
The charge was heard on 14 June 2018. On 20 September 2018, the appellant was fined $600, ordered to pay costs of $190.85 and granted a spent conviction.[1]
[1] In light of a spent conviction order being made for this offence, the appellant's name and the place of the offence have been anonymised in these reasons.
The appellant applies for leave to appeal the conviction on proposed amended grounds of appeal as follows:[2]
[2] Amended grounds of appeal, filed 28 May 2019.
(1)The learned magistrate erred in law when he held the act of giving to a postal worker at the post office a parcel for posting, containing firearms, was an offence under s 19(2) of the Act.
Particulars of error
(i)His Honour held an element of the offence was 'delivery of the firearms'.
(ii)The relevant element is 'permitting another to take possession'.

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 DJC v Taylor

Details

AGLC: DJC v Taylor [2019] WASC 235
Case: [2019] WASC 235
Decision Date: 5 JULY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In DJC v Taylor, the appellant sought to appeal against a conviction for contravening the Firearms Act 1973 (WA). The dispute centred around whether posting a firearm constituted delivery under the Act and whether a particular provision applied to the charge in question. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the act of posting a firearm qualified as 'delivery' under the Firearms Act and whether a specific provision within the Act applied to the charge brought against the appellant. The court had to interpret the meaning of 'approved commercial carrier' as it appeared in the Act.

In addressing these issues, the court found that posting a firearm did not constitute delivery as defined by the Act. The court also determined that the averment provision applied to the charge. The interpretation of 'approved commercial carrier' was considered, but ultimately, the court concluded that the provision was not relevant to the circumstances of this case. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The court will hear from the parties regarding the appropriate orders to be made.

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

Conclusion The answer to the question posed in heading 3.0 is no, and the answer to the question posed in heading 4.0 is yes. Leave to appeal will be refused and the appeal will be dismissed. I will hear the parties as to the orders that should be made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.