Lester v Booth - [2000] WASCA 155

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: LESTER -v- BOOTH [2000] WASCA 155

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 29 MAY 2000

DELIVERED : 2 JUNE 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1143 of 1999
SJA 1144 of 1999

BETWEEN: EVAN KIMBERLEY LESTER
Appellant
AND
LUCAS JOHN BOOTH
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Possession of firearm and ammunition without licence - Whether evidence sufficient to convict - Adequacy of Magistrate's reasons - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973, s 4, s 8, s 9A, s 19(1), s 20, s 21, s 23(5)

Sentencing Act1995, s 106(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed in part
Conviction for possession of unlicensed firearm set aside
Conviction for possession of unlicensed ammunition upheld

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr R K Williamson
Respondent: Mr M G Lundberg

Solicitors:

Appellant: Williamson & Co
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

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

Garret v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Keys v Kitto (1996) 90 A Crim R 288

Case(s) also cited:

Matsebula v Vanderklashorst [2000] WASCA 141
Pickett v Fuderer, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980475; 27 August 1998
RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217

MILLER J: The appellant was charged that on 16 February 1999 at Goodlands he had in his possession a Remington 12‑gauge shotgun whilst not being the holder of a licence or permit entitling him to do so and not being exempted under s 8 or s 19(1)(aa) of the Firearms Act 1973 (Firearms Act 1973, s 19(1)(c)) and that on the same day at the same place he possessed a quantity of ammunition whilst not being the holder of a licence or permit entitling him to do so and not being exempted under s 8 or s 19(1)(aa) of the Firearms Act 1973 (Firearms Act 1973, s 19(1)(c)). He pleaded not guilty to these two charges and was tried before Mr F Cullen SM in the Court of Petty Sessions at Northam on 27 July 1999. The learned Magistrate convicted him of both charges and imposed a global penalty by way of a fine of $300 with $95.70 costs. In relation to each conviction there was a spent conviction order.
On 24 February, Scott J granted the appellant leave to appeal the two convictions. In relation to the conviction for possession of the shotgun without being the holder of the relevant licence, the grant of appeal as ultimately formulated was that the learned Magistrate had erred in law by holding that the applicant's licence for that firearm became invalid when a condition of that licence was breached (by the fitting of a magazine extension tube to the firearm) and that therefore from that point on he was not the holder of the firearm licence. In relation to the conviction for possession of ammunition, the grounds of appeal essentially asserted that the learned Magistrate had failed to sufficiently articulate his reasons for finding the appellant guilty;…

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 Lester v Booth

Details

AGLC: Lester v Booth [2000] WASCA 155
Case: [2000] WASCA 155
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lester and Booth were involved in a dispute over the possession of a firearm and ammunition without a valid licence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the central issue was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the respondents of the criminal offence. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the reasons provided by the Magistrate were adequate and whether they sufficiently addressed the unique facts of the case.

The legal questions before the court were multifaceted, focusing on the sufficiency of the evidence provided in the case and the adequacy of the Magistrate's reasons. The court had to assess whether the evidence was enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents possessed the firearm and ammunition without a licence. Additionally, the court examined whether the Magistrate's reasoning was adequate in explaining how the evidence led to the conviction, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.

The court found that the evidence was indeed sufficient to establish the respondents' possession of the firearm and ammunition without a licence. However, the reasoning provided by the Magistrate was not adequate. The court held that the Magistrate failed to sufficiently address the unique facts of the case in their reasons, leading to an inadequate explanation of how the evidence supported the conviction. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a rehearing of the matter.

The final orders of the court were that the conviction of the respondents be quashed and that a rehearing of the matter be conducted, allowing the Magistrate to provide adequate reasons that properly address the unique facts of the case. This ensures that the conviction is based on a sound and legally sufficient foundation.

Orders