DPP v Scheele

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against a decision of a Magistrate concerning the interpretation of the *Firearms Act 1996* (ACT). The dispute centred on whether an item listed in Schedule 1 of the Act could be classified as a "prohibited firearm" even if it did not meet the definition of a "firearm" as defined in section 6 of the Act.

The central legal issue before the Court was the proper construction of section 7(1)(a)(i) of the *Firearms Act 1996* (ACT). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the definition of a "prohibited firearm" encompassed items listed in Schedule 1, irrespective of whether those items were also firearms within the meaning of section 6 of the Act.

The Court reasoned that the structure of section 7(1)(a)(i) indicated that an item could be a prohibited firearm if it fell within either limb of the provision. The first limb referred to items that were firearms as defined in section 6 and were also listed in Schedule 1. The second limb, however, referred to items that were listed in Schedule 1, and the Court held that this limb operated independently. Therefore, an item listed in Schedule 1 could be a prohibited firearm even if it did not satisfy the definition of a firearm in section 6. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.