Legal Research
Cases
Glover v Reyne

Glover v Reyne

Case [2001] WASCA 305 4 October 2001

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: GLOVER -v- REYNE [2001] WASCA 305

CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD: 27 SEPTEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 4 OCTOBER 2001

FILE NO/S: SJA 1037 of 2001
SJA 1041 of 2001

BETWEEN: IAN NEIL GLOVER
Appellant
AND
BRETT NICHOLAS REYNE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction under Justices Act 1902 (WA) - Possession of firearms without a licence - Pleas of guilty - Defendant unaware of possible defence - Exemption for family members of primary producer where firearm used for destruction of vermin - Whether miscarriage of justice

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 8(1)(i)(i)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R K Williamson
Respondent: Mr J F O'Sullivan

Solicitors:

Appellant: Williamson & Co
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Gallagher v The Queen (1985‑1986) 160 CLR 392
Green v The Queen [2001] WASCA 162
Hallahan v Campbell; Ex parte Campbell (No 2) [1964] Qd R 337
Horsman v Bishop [2000] WASCA 316
Lamb v Clews (1989) 10 MVR 465
Lutter v Davis (1992) 7 WAR 72
Minear v Rudrum [2001] WASCA 10
Nutall v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 920090; 26 February 1992
Price v Davies [2001] WASCA 81
R v Grevell (1977) 6 A Crim R 78
R v Kelly (Junior) (1980) 6 A Crim R 111
R v Risteviski (1989) 39 A Crim R 11
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510
Slater v Marshall [1965] WAR 222
Thomason v Martin [1964] WAR 136
Williams v Beverly (1998) 103 A Crim R 326

Case(s) also cited:

Duffield v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995
Liberti v The Queen (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Meissner v The Queen (1994-1995) 184 CLR 132
Pilkington v The Queen (1955) Tas R 144
R v Lucas (1908) 1 Crim App R 61
Smith v Hope [2001] WASCA 287
Tihanyi v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 377

ROBERTS-SMITH J: On 15 August 2000 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Geraldton Court of Petty Sessions to two offences of being in possession of firearms without a licence contrary to s 19(1)(c) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA).
On each, he was convicted and fined $250 and ordered to pay costs of $38.
For a further offence of failing to store the firearms in a proper safe cabinet, he was fined $200 with costs of $38.
By application dated 30 March 2001, the appellant sought an extension of time in which to appeal and leave to appeal.
Both of those applications were granted by Templeman J on 1 June 2001. The grounds upon which leave was granted to appeal and upon which the appeal is now brought are:
"(a)The applicant pleaded guilty pursuant to a mistake of law, namely, that he did not have a defence to the charges.
(b)In fact he does have a defence to the charges,…

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 Glover v Reyne

Details

AGLC: Glover v Reyne [2001] WASCA 305
Case: [2001] WASCA 305
Decision Date: 4 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Glover v Reyne, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction for possession of firearms without a licence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the appellant contested his conviction under the Justices Act 1902 (WA). The appellant claimed that he was unaware of a possible defence available to him, namely, the exemption for family members of primary producers where the firearm is used for the destruction of vermin. The appellant argued that his unawareness constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the appellant's unawareness of the possible defence constituted a miscarriage of justice, and whether the exemption for family members of primary producers where the firearm is used for the destruction of vermin should have been raised by the appellant's legal representative. The court needed to determine whether the appellant's lack of knowledge of the possible defence constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether the appellant's legal representative should have raised the exemption for family members of primary producers where the firearm is used for the destruction of vermin.

The court found that the appellant's unawareness of the possible defence did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the appellant's legal representative was not obligated to raise the exemption for family members of primary producers where the firearm is used for the destruction of vermin. The court found that the appellant's unawareness of the possible defence did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that the appellant's legal representative was not obligated to raise the exemption for family members of primary producers where the firearm is used for the destruction of vermin. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the court. The court held that the appellant's unawareness of the possible defence did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, and that the appellant's legal representative was not obligated to raise the exemption for family members of primary producers where the firearm is used for the destruction of vermin. The court dismissed the appeal and made no further orders.

Orders