Legal Research
Cases
Horsman v Bishop

Horsman v Bishop

Case [2000] WASCA 316 23 October 2000

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: HORSMAN -v- BISHOP [2000] WASCA 316

CORAM: MURRAY J

HEARD: 31 JULY 2000

DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1174 of 1999
SJA 1176 of 1999

BETWEEN: BARRY STANLEY HORSMAN
Appellant
AND
CRAIG LESLIE BISHOP
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction in Court of Petty Sessions after plea of guilty - Criteria for allowing appeal and change of plea

Firearms - "Restriction, limitation or condition", to which licence subject - Ambit of power to order forfeiture of firearms - Nature of power to disqualify from holding a firearms licence.

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA) s 21(2) s 28

Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 106

Result:

Appeal SJA 1176 of 1999 allowed in part
Both appeals otherwise dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R K Williamson
Respondent: Mr D J Matthews

Solicitors:

Appellant: Williamson & Co
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Coumbe v Whittaker [1999] WASCA 151
Gaythwaite v Clarkson, unreported; SCt of WA; (Heenan J); Library No 970109; 21 March 1997
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501
Stackhouse v Curulli, unreported; SCt of WA; (Owen J); Library No 920251; 30 April 1992
Stevens v Viskovich, unreported; SCt of WA; (Parker J); Library No 960596; 26 September 1996
Tihanyi v The Queen (1999) 21 WAR 377

Case(s) also cited:

Duffield v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 950065; 14 February 1995
Eyre v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930149; 18 March 1993
Liberti v R (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Meissner v R (1994-95) 184 CLR 132
Nobes v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960486; 26 August 1996
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187
Slater v Marshall [1965] WAR 222

MURRAY J: These appeals are brought by leave. They were ordered to be consolidated and heard together.
The first appeal relates to a charge under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 21(2) that on 29 May 1999 at Kalgoorlie, the appellant was in possession of a revolver in respect of which he held a firearms licence endorsed with a condition that he should maintain a current gun club membership and that the revolver be used for approved club activity. It was alleged that he breached that condition in that he was not a current gun club member. It is accepted that the complaint charged an offence against s 21(2) committed by a person:
"…who commits a breach of, or fails to observe, a restriction, limitation or condition to which a licence, permit or approval issued or granted under this Act was made subject, and who is a person who ought reasonably to have known of the existence of that restriction, limitation or condition…."
A person who offends in that way is liable to imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of $4,000. On 2 July 1999 the appellant pleaded guilty to this offence, was convicted, fined $150 and orders were made…

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 Horsman v Bishop

Details

AGLC: Horsman v Bishop [2000] WASCA 316
Case: [2000] WASCA 316
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Horsman v Bishop, the appellant was convicted in the Court of Petty Sessions following a plea of guilty to several charges related to firearms. The appeal was directed towards the criteria for allowing an appeal against a conviction after a guilty plea, as well as the scope of the court's powers in relation to firearms licensing, including restrictions, forfeiture, and disqualification. The central legal issues revolved around whether the court had the authority to impose certain conditions or restrictions on a firearms licence and the extent to which it could order the forfeiture of firearms or disqualify an individual from holding a firearms licence.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing firearms licensing and the powers conferred upon it. It held that the court had the authority to impose restrictions, limitations, or conditions on a firearms licence as deemed necessary. The court also clarified that it possessed the power to order the forfeiture of firearms if there was a breach of the licence conditions and to disqualify an individual from holding a firearms licence if it was in the interests of public safety or justice. The court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions provided guidance on the scope of its powers in such matters.

The court found that the lower court had correctly exercised its powers in imposing restrictions on the appellant's firearms licence and ordering the forfeiture of certain firearms. It also determined that the disqualification from holding a firearms licence was appropriate in the circumstances. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court affirming the decisions made by the Court of Petty Sessions.

No further orders were made beyond the affirmation of the lower court's decisions.

Orders