Lambert v The Queen

Case •

[2020] SASCFC 85

•

8 September 2020

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

LAMBERT v THE QUEEN

[2020] SASCFC 85

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Kelly, The Honourable Justice Livesey and The Honourable Justice Bleby)

8 September 2020

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - OFFENSIVE WEAPONS - FIREARMS

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - THEFT - SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE

Appeal against sentence.

The appellant was sentenced for 23 offences contrary to the Firearms Act 2015 (SA), eight counts of theft contrary to s 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’) and two other offences, one for possession of a prohibited weapon contrary to s 21F(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and one offence of possessing a prescription drug not being a drug of dependence contrary to s 18(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA).

For the latter two summary offences and two offences of possessing firearms without identifying marks, the appellant was convicted without further penalty. For the remaining 29 offences, the appellant was sentenced to one term of imprisonment for six years with a non-parole period of four years. 

On appeal, the respondent conceded that the Judge made a material error, in sentencing on the basis of incorrect maximum penalties, vitiating the exercise of sentencing discretion. Upon re-sentencing, a further issue arose as to the correct maximum penalty for the offence of theft.

Held per Kelly J (Livesey and Bleby JJ agreeing), allowing the appeal:

1. There is nothing in the text of s 134(1) of the CLCA to say that the maximum penalty changes depending on whether the offence is classified as summary or minor indictable (at [22]).

2. The Judge correctly had regard to the maximum penalty for the offence of theft prescribed by s 134(1) of the CLCA as 10 years (at [28]).

3. The sentence is set aside only in respect of the 29 offences for which one sentence was imposed by the Judge, being counts 1, 3 to 28, 30 and 31 (at [34]).

4. The conviction without further penalty for both the offences of possessing firearms without identifying marks is left undisturbed (at [35]).

5. As to the remaining 29 offences, the appellant is re-sentenced to one head sentence of seven years imprisonment, discounted by 40 per cent. After applying the discount, that leaves a head sentence of four years, two months, one week and six days. A non-parole period of three years is fixed. The head sentence and non-parole period are backdated to 7 October 2019 (at [36]-[37]).

Firearms Act 2015 (SA) s 9, s 29, s 31, s 35; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 134; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 21F; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 18; Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 5, s 102, s 108, s 115, s 116, s 117; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 6, s 7; District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 9; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 17, s 63; Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 4; Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 9, referred to.
Offe v The Police (2002) 84 SASR 1; R v Daniele [2014] SASCFC 22, considered.

LAMBERT v THE QUEEN
[2020] SASCFC 85

Court of Criminal Appeal:   Kelly, Livesey and Bleby JJ

KELLY J.

Introduction

  1. The appellant, Peter John Lambert, was sentenced for 23 offences contrary to the Firearms Act 2015 (SA) (‘the Firearms Act’), eight counts of theft contrary to s 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’) and two other offences, one for possession of a prohibited weapon contrary to s 21F(1)(b) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and one offence of possessing a prescription drug not being a drug of dependence contrary to s 18(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). All of the charges arose from a search of the appellant’s property at Elizabeth Grove on 7 October 2019.

  2. For the two summary offences of possessing a prohibited weapon and possessing a prescription drug, the appellant was convicted without further penalty.

  3. For two of the remaining 31 offences, being two offences of possessing firearms without identifying marks, the appellant was also convicted without further penalty. 

  4. For the remaining 29 offences, the appellant was sentenced to one term of imprisonment for six years with a non-parole period of four years.  The Judge applied a discount of 40 per cent for the appellant’s early plea of guilty. 

  5. On appeal, it was common ground that in respect of seven of the offences to which the appellant had pleaded guilty, the Judge proceeded to sentence on the basis of incorrect maximum penalties.

  6. The respondent conceded that, in sentencing for seven offences on the basis of a maximum penalty which was substantially higher than the penalty actually prescribed for those offences, the Judge had made a material error vitiating the exercise of sentencing discretion.  It was, therefore, conceded that this Court should exercise the sentencing discretion afresh. 

    Background

  7. On 7 October 2019, police went to the appellant’s premises at Elizabeth Grove and asked the appellant if he had anything to declare.  He indicated that he did and showed the police two large sports bags which were stored in his bedroom. 

  8. In the first bag, police found an Anschutz 54 single shot bolt action rifle, a Husqvarna 96 bolt action repeating rifle, a Howa 1500 bolt action repeating rifle, and a pump action rifle.  In the same bag was a metal tube with a screw top containing four boxes with a total of 162 rounds of .22 ammunition suitable for use with the Anschutz and the pump action rifle.  The ammunition found in that bag was also capable of being used in relation to two other firearms located on the premises that day. 

  9. In the second sports bag, police found a Weatherby Vanguard bolt action repeating rifle, a Mauser MS420 bolt action repeating rifle, a Husqvarna M38 bolt action repeating rifle, a Weatherby Mark V bolt action repeating rifle, and a Fabrique Nationale European bolt action repeating rifle.  In a satchel hanging in the wardrobe of one of the bedrooms, police found a Leige Bulldog double action revolver. 

  10. Checks carried out by the police indicated that all of the firearms, with the exception of the pump action rifle and the Bulldog double action revolver, had been stolen.  Both the pump action rifle and the Bulldog double action revolver did not have sufficient identifying characters on them. 

  11. The appellant admitted to possessing all of the firearms and ammunition and told the police he had been in possession of them from a time, years earlier, when he was heavily involved with drugs. 

    The Judge’s sentence

  12. The appellant was sentenced for a total of 33 offences.  Those offences, save for the summary offences of possessing a prohibited weapon and possessing a prescription drug, and the penalties imposed by the Judge are set out in Annexure A to these reasons. 

  13. It was not in dispute that at submissions the Judge had been provided with the incorrect maximum penalties for the offences of possessing a category H firearm without a licence (count 1) and possessing a category H firearm without identifying characters (count 2).  It is not in dispute either that the Judge had regard to the incorrect maximum penalty for the offence of possessing a category B firearm without a licence (counts 10, 13, 16, 22 and 25).

    Discussion

  14. Upon re-sentencing, a further issue arose as to the correct maximum penalty for the offence of theft. 

  15. The appellant submits that the Judge was constrained by virtue of the provisions of s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) (‘the Criminal Procedure Act’), as amended, to impose a penalty for the theft offences, to which the appellant had pleaded guilty, of not greater than two years.

  16. As can be seen in Annexure A to these reasons, the appellant pleaded guilty to eight counts of theft in relation to the firearms stolen contrary to s 134 of the CLCA (counts 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 and 27).

  17. The maximum penalty prescribed for a basic offence of theft pursuant to s 134 of the CLCA is 10 years.

  18. The appellant submits that this results by necessary implication from the provisions of s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

  19. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act relied upon by the appellant are set out as follows:

    5—Classification of offences

    …

    (2)A summary offence is—

    (a)     an offence that is not punishable by imprisonment;

    (b)     an offence for which a maximum penalty of, or including, imprisonment for two years or less is prescribed;

    (ba) an offence against Part 4 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 involving $2 500 or less not being—

    (i)an offence of arson or causing a bushfire; or

    Note—

    See sections 85 and 85B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

    (ii)an offence of violence; or

    (iii)an offence that is 1 of a series of offences of the same or a similar character involving more than $2 500 in aggregate;

    (c) an offence against Part 5 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 involving $2 500 or less not being—

    (ai)an offence against Division 3 of that Part (robbery); or

    (i)an offence of violence; or

    (ii)an offence that is one of a series of offences of the same or a similar character involving more than $2 500 in aggregate,

    but an offence for which a maximum fine exceeding twice a Division 1 fine is prescribed is not a summary offence.

    (3)All offences apart from summary offences are indictable and of these—

    (a)     the following are minor indictable offences:

    (i)those not punishable by imprisonment but for which a maximum fine exceeding twice a Division 1 fine is prescribed;

    (ii)those for which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 5 years;

    (iii)those for which the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds 5 years and which fall into one of the following categories:

    (A)an offence involving interference with, damage to or destruction of property where the loss resulting from commission of the offence does not exceed $30 000;

    (AB)an offence involving a threat to interfere with, damage or destroy another person's property where, if the threat had been carried out, the loss would not have exceeded $30 000;

    (B)an offence against section 24(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (recklessly causing harm to another);

    (C)an offence against section 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (indecent assault) (not being an offence committed against a child under the age of 14 years);

    (D)an offence involving $30 000 or less against Part 5 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, other than an offence against Division 3 (robbery) or an offence of violence;

    (E)an offence against section 169(1) or 170(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (serious criminal trespass etc) where the offence is a basic offence within the meaning of that Act and the intended offence is an offence of dishonesty (not being an offence of violence) involving $30 000 or less or an offence of interference with, damage to or destruction of property involving $30 000 or less; and

    (b)     all other indictable offences are major indictable offences.

    …

  20. The appellant submits that because the offences of theft charged on the information were classified as summary offences, by necessary implication from the provisions of s 5(2)(b) and s 5(2)(ba), the Judge was constrained to impose a maximum penalty no greater than two years.

  21. As I understood the appellant’s argument, this result follows from the classification of theft offences as summary, minor indictable or major indictable offences by reference to the magnitude of the offence. Thefts up to $2,500 in value are classified as summary offences by virtue of s 5(2)(c), thefts up to the value of $30,000 are classified as minor indicatable offences by virtue of s 5(3)(a)(iii)(D), and thefts greater than $30,000 are classified as major indictable offences by virtue of s 5(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

  22. The appellant’s argument is misconceived. There is nothing in the text of s 134(1) of the CLCA to say that the maximum penalty changes depending on whether the offence is classified as summary or minor indictable.

  23. Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act sets out the criteria for determining whether a particular offence is to be classified as summary, minor indictable or major indictable.

  24. In the case of a summary offence, s 5(2) sets out the various ways in which an offence will be classified as summary. It can be seen that Parliament has chosen to classify summary offences by reference to a maximum penalty and, in the alternative, by reference to the value of the property stolen or the value of the property damage.

  25. The offences of theft charged here were classified by reference to s 5(2)(c) as a summary offence because it answered the description of an offence against Part 5 of the CLCA involving $2,500 or less.

  26. Section 5(2)(b), which classifies certain other offences as summary by reference to a prescribed maximum penalty for that particular offence, being no greater than two years, does not operate to reduce the maximum penalty prescribed for an offence contrary to s 134(1) of the CLCA. In this respect, ss 5(2)(b) and (c) operate quite independently of one another. The appellant submits that s 5(9) provides some support for the argument that the maximum penalty available to the Judge for the offences of theft should be two years, in accordance with s 5(2)(b). Section 5(9) states:

    Where a summary offence is erroneously dealt with as an indictable offence or a minor indictable offence is erroneously dealt with as a major indictable offence, the proceedings are not invalid but any penalties imposed should conform with what would be appropriate if the offence had been correctly classified at the inception of the proceedings.

  27. I am unable to accept that submission. In my view, s 5(9) has no application to the present proceedings. The offences of theft were not erroneously classified and s 5(9) does not, therefore, apply.

  28. For these reasons, I consider that the Judge correctly had regard to the maximum penalty for the offence of theft prescribed by s 134(1) of the CLCA as 10 years.

    Re‑sentencing

  29. As a preliminary observation, I note that the error, which has led to the necessity to re‑sentence the appellant, resulted in the Judge sentencing for seven offences on the basis of maximum penalties substantially higher than were actually prescribed.  As the Judge’s starting point for sentence was 10 years, which is undoubtedly at the higher end of the range of sentences available, it seems likely that the error made by the Judge influenced that starting point. 

  30. The respondent’s submission to this Court that, in the exercise of the sentencing discretion afresh, this Court should nevertheless dismiss the appeal, must be rejected.

  31. It may be accepted that the objective circumstances of this offending make it a very serious example for an offence of its kind.  The appellant was in possession of 10 firearms which were readily accessible in a bedroom of the house.  The appellant had been in possession of those firearms for a substantial period of time, having purchased them sometime after 2012 when they were stolen.  Of the 10 firearms seized, nine were functional and it is not insignificant that the appellant possessed ammunition capable of being used in five of those firearms.

  32. This Court has repeatedly recognised that the possession, trade and use of unregistered and stolen firearms are of significant concern to the community. The provisions of the Firearms Act make it clear that strict conditions for those who possess and use firearms are necessary to ensure public safety.[1] 

    [1]    Offe v The Police (2002) 84 SASR 1; R v Daniele [2014] SASCFC 22.

  33. On the other hand, the appellant’s counsel points to a number of significantly mitigating factors.  Although the appellant does not have a good criminal record, he is now 46 years old, and since his release from custody in 2000, he has, by and large, remained out of trouble until the present charges were laid.  In addition, he has a reasonably good work history and has managed to abstain from drug use for substantial periods of time in the last five years.  Finally, when confronted at his front door by the police, the appellant was entirely co‑operative and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. 

  34. I would set aside the sentence only in respect of the 29 offences for which one sentence was imposed by the Judge, being counts 1, 3 to 28, 30 and 31. 

  35. I would leave undisturbed the conviction without further penalty for both the offences of possessing firearms without identifying marks. 

  36. As to the remaining 29 offences set out in Annexure A, taking into account all of the circumstances, I would impose one head sentence of seven years imprisonment, discounted by 40 per cent.  After applying the discount, that leaves a head sentence of four years, two months, one week and six days.

  37. I would impose a non‑parole period of three years and would backdate the head sentence and the non‑parole period to the date he was taken into custody on, 7 October 2019.

  38. LIVESEY J:        I agree with Kelly J, for the reasons that she gives, that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant re-sentenced as she proposes.

  39. Section 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides:

    134—Theft (and receiving)

    (1)     A person is guilty of theft if the person deals with property—

    (a)dishonestly; and

    (b)without the owner’s consent; and

    (c)intending—

    (i)to deprive the owner permanently of the property; or

    (ii)to make a serious encroachment on the owner’s proprietary rights.

    Maximum penalty:

    (a)for a basic offence—imprisonment for 10 years;

    (b)for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 15 years.

  40. The purpose of s 134(1) is to identify the offence of theft as well as to prescribe the maximum applicable penalties.

  41. That is not the purpose of s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA). It is concerned with the classification of offences. Whereas sub-s 5(1) establishes the classification between summary and indictable offences (including minor indictable and major indictable offences), sub-s 5(2) applies the classification of a summary offence to offences for which the penalties are otherwise and elsewhere prescribed.

  42. The purpose of classifying an offence is to delineate which procedures apply to its determination: summary offences are heard according to Part 4 and indictable offences are heard according to Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA). That delineation dictates where the offence will or may be tried and the sentence determined.

  43. Whereas a summary offence is usually heard and sentenced in the Magistrates Court,[2] a major indictable offence must usually be heard in the District or Supreme Courts,[3] and the trial in these superior courts is to “be by jury”.[4]  Sentencing for a major indictable offence will often, but not always, proceed in a superior court.[5]

    [2] Unless the information also contains a major indictable or minor indictable offence, see s 102 of the Criminal Procedure Act1921 (SA).

    [3] See ss 108, 115 and 117 of the Criminal Procedure Act1921 (SA). See also s 9 of the District Court Act1991 (SA), ss 17 and 63 of the Supreme Court Act1935 (SA) and s 4 of the Acts Interpretation Act1915 (SA) and note 1: “[f]or the classification of offences, the reader should refer to section 5 of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA). However, it should be noted that the principles set out in that section for differentiating major indictable, minor indictable and summary offences may be subject to some special exception made by the Act under which the offence in question is created”.

    [4] See s 6 of the Juries Act1927 (SA). Though the defendant may elect to be tried by judge alone under s 7 of the Juries Act1927 (SA).

    [5]    Although major indictable offences can be the subject of sentencing in the Magistrates Court, depending upon satisfaction of the requirements of s 116 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA).

  1. By contrast, a minor indictable offence will be heard in the Magistrates Court unless the defendant elects to be tried in a superior court, usually the District Court.[6]  Sentencing for a minor indictable offence will usually, though not always, proceed in the Magistrates Court.[7]

    [6] See ss 108 and 117 of the Criminal Procedure Act1921 (SA). See also s 9 of the Magistrates Court Act1991 (SA). Unless there is also a major indictable offence on the information, see s 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act1921 (SA).

    [7] Unless there is also a major indictable offence on the information, see s 116 of the Criminal Procedure Act1921 (SA).

  2. To borrow from what Kelly J has said about ss 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c), s 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) therefore “operate quite independently of one another”. Whilst there could be an argument that this is a case for the application of the generalia specialibus non derogant principle across different Acts, that principle only applies where the conflict between the specific and general provisions is both manifest and otherwise intractable.[8]

    [8]    Reseck v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 133 CLR 45, 53 (Stephen J); Purcell v Electricity Commission of New South Wales (1985) 59 ALJR 689, 692.

  3. BLEBY J:             I agree, for the reasons given by Kelly J, that the appeal should be allowed. I would re-sentence the appellant in the manner Kelly J proposes.

Annexure A

Count Offence Provision Firearm Maximum penalty applied by the Judge Sentence imposed by the Judge Correct maximum penalty
1 Possessing a Category H Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Leige Bulldog double action revolver Imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of $50,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000: s 9(4)(b) Firearms Act
2 Possessing a Category H Firearm Without Identifying Characters s 29(5)(b) Firearms Act 2015 Leige Bulldog double action revolver Imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of $50,000 Convicted without further penalty Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000: s 29(5)(b) Firearms Act
3 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Leige Bulldog double action revolver Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
4 Aggravated Possessing a Category A Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Mauser MS420 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000: s 9(5)(c) Firearms Act
5 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Mauser MS420 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
6 Receiving s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Mauser MS420 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
7 Aggravated Possessing a Category A Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Anschutz 54 single shot bolt action rifle Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000: s 9(5)(c) Firearms Act
8 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Anschutz 54 single shot bolt action rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
9 Receiving  s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Anschutz 54 single shot bolt action rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
10 Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence  s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Husqvarna 96 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 9(4)(c) Firearms Act
11 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Husqvarna 96 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
12 Receiving s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Husqvarna 96 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
13 Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Weatherby Vanguard bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 9(4)(c) Firearms Act
14 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Weatherby Vanguard bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
15 Receiving s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Weatherby Vanguard bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
16 Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Husqvarna M38 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 9(4)(c) Firearms Act
17 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Husqvarna M38 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
18 Receiving s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Husqvarna M38 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
19 Aggravated Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Browning bolt action rifle Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000: s 9(5)(c) Firearms Act
20 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Browning bolt action rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
21 Receiving  s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Browning bolt action rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
22 Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Howa 1500 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 9(4)(c) Firearms Act
23 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Howa 1500 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
24 Receiving  s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Howa 1500 bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
25 Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Weatherby Mark V bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 9(4)(c) Firearms Act
26 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) of the Code of Practice Weatherby Mark V bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
27 Receiving s 134 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Weatherby Mark V bolt action repeating rifle Imprisonment for 10 years One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017

Imprisonment for 10 years: s 134 CLCA
28 Aggravated Possessing a Category B Firearm Without a Licence s 9(1) Firearms Act 2015 Fabrique Nationale pump action rifle Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 7 years or a fine of $35,000: s 9(5)(c) Firearms Act
29 Possessing a Category B Firearm Without Identifying Characters s 29(5)(b) Firearms Act 2015 Fabrique Nationale pump action rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 Convicted without further penalty Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 29(5)(c) Firearms Act
30 Contravening a Provision of the Code of Practice s 35(3) Firearms Act 2015, and provision 11(3)(b)(ii) Code of Practice Fabrique Nationale pump action rifle Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 4 years or a fine of $20,000: s 35(3)(c) Firearms Act
31 Possessing Ammunition Without a Permit ss 31(1) and 31(12) Firearms Act 2015 10 rounds of .45 ammunition Imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $10,000 One sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 4 years: s 26 Sentencing Act 2017 Imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $10,000: s 31(12) Firearms Act
Most Recent Citation
Cases Citing This Decision

1

R v Pacitti [2022] SASCA 108
Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

1

R v Daniele [2014] SASCFC 22
R v Daniele [2014] SASCFC 22
R v Daniele [2014] SASCFC 22