DPP (Cth) v Munro - [2019] VSCA 89

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0110

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (CTH)	Appellant
v
PAUL ROBERT MUNRO	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, BEACH and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 April 2019
DATE OF ORDERS:	17 April 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 May 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 89
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VCC 918 (Judge Trapnell)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Crown appeal – Importation of firearms (six charges) – Four completed importations – Two attempted importations – Fully automatic machine guns – Semi-automatic handguns – Highest end of range of seriousness – Sentence 10 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, non-parole period of 6 years – Whether manifestly inadequate – Danger to community posed by firearms – Duration of offending – Awareness of use of weapons in connection with criminal activity – Persistent, planned and sophisticated offending – Discrete periods of offending – Offender’s age, health and prospects of rehabilitation – Offender pleaded guilty – Totality – Cumulation – General deterrence – Residual discretion – Sentence manifestly inadequate – Resentenced (15 years’ imprisonment, non-parole period of 11 years) – Customs Act 1901 (Cth) s 233BAB(5), Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 11.1(1), 361.2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms S McNaughton SC with Mr S Devlin	Ms A Pavleka, Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
For the Respondent	Ms C A Boston	Furstenberg Law

MAXWELL P
BEACH JA
McLEISH JA:

Summary

A fully automatic Thureon machine gun can fire 1,000 rounds of ammunition per minute. These guns are manufactured by Thureon Defence, a small firearms manufacturing company based in Wisconsin, USA (‘Thureon’). Save for immaterial exceptions, there is no lawful use for a fully automatic machine gun of this kind. Their importation into Australia is absolutely prohibited. The maximum penalty for importing such a weapon is 10 years’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]The Court was informed that there was a Bill before the Commonwealth Parliament which, if passed, would increase the maximum penalty to 20 years’ imprisonment: Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016 (Cth) sch 1 item 3.

On three occasions between April 2014 and January 2016, Victoria Police seized a fully automatic Thureon machine gun in the Melbourne area. On each of the second and third occasions, the firearm was seized from a person who was subsequently charged, with others, with trafficking a commercial quantity of methamphetamine.

Subsequent investigations by Victoria Police, in Australia and in the United States, revealed that the Thureon machine guns had been ordered, paid for and imported by the respondent (‘Munro’). After Munro had become aware of one of the police seizures, he proceeded to order further supplies of the machine guns but requested that the Thureon brand logo be removed to prevent identification. He arranged for the construction of false-bottomed crates to conceal their importation.

Munro subsequently pleaded guilty to six importation offences, comprising four completed importations and two attempted importations. There were two completed importations of Thureon machine guns — six weapons…

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 DPP (Cth) v Munro

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Paul Robert Munro [2019] VSCA 89
Case: [2019] VSCA 89
Decision Date: 14 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) versus Munro involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Munro, who had been found guilty of six charges relating to the importation of firearms. Munro had successfully imported four firearms and attempted to import two more, all of which were high-powered and dangerous weapons, including fully automatic machine guns and semi-automatic handguns. The original sentence of 10 years and 3 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years, was contested by the Crown as manifestly inadequate, given the severity of the offences and the risk posed to the community by the importation of such dangerous weapons.

The legal issues before the court included whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the seriousness of the offences, the persistent and sophisticated nature of the offending, and the offender's age, health, and prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors against the need for general deterrence and the appropriate cumulation of sentences. The respondent's age, health, and prospects for rehabilitation were considered, as was the total duration of the offending and the offender's awareness of the potential use of the weapons in criminal activities. The court also had to exercise its residual discretion in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the persistent, planned, and sophisticated nature of the offending. The court emphasised the danger posed by the importation of such high-powered firearms and the need for general deterrence. After considering all relevant factors, including the totality of the offending, the court exercised its residual discretion to impose a new sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years. This decision underscores the importance of appropriately assessing the seriousness of firearms importation offences and ensuring that sentences reflect the significant risk posed to the community.

Orders