Lloyd-Groocock v Police

Case [2008] SASC 313


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

LLOYD-GROOCOCK v POLICE

[2008] SASC 313

Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle

20 November 2008

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS - FIREARMS - LICENCES AND RELATED MATTERS - LICENCES - ISSUE OF AND GENERALLY

Appellant proprietor of a general store – appellant held a firearms dealer’s licence – part of the business of the store to sell firearms – firearms stored in an upright drinks display fridge – glass windows of doors of fridge removed and replaced with two layers of shockproof glass and a layer of steel mesh – large steel bar installed across the front of the doors – key required to unlock the padlock attached to bar to open the fridge – Firearms Regulations 1993 (SA) reg 29 and reg 31(1) required firearms to be stored in ‘safe made of steel’ – appellant convicted of offences relating to the contravention of storage requirements imposed by Regulations – appeal against conviction – whether fridge a ‘safe made of steel’ for the purposes of firearms storage requirements.

Held: fridge made of steel and glass – glass doors a substantial part of the surface area of fridge – a container could only be described as a ‘safe made of steel’ if wholly or almost entirely made of steel – fridge not a ‘safe made of steel’.

EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS, AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - GENERALLY - STATUTORY PROVISOS AND EXEMPTIONS - PARTICULAR MATTERS - OFFENCES

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - DEFENCES

Appellant proprietor of a general store – appellant held a firearms dealer’s licence – part of the business of the store to sell firearms – firearms stored in an upright drinks display fridge – appellant convicted at trial of failure to comply with relevant storage requirements imposed by regs 29 and 31(1) of Firearms Regulations 1993 (SA) – store inspected while open for business – appellant not present during inspection – store employee present at the time of inspection not the holder of a dealer’s licence – under reg 31(3) dealer not required to comply with relevant storage requirements if premises on which firearms dealership conducted open to the public, provided firearms are not accessible to the public and stored in a manner approved by Registrar – neither party adduced evidence as to whether appellant complied with manner of storage of firearms approved by Registrar – whether store ‘open to the public’ at the time of inspection so that reg 31(3) storage requirements available to appellant – whether reg 31(3) storage requirements an exception to storage requirements so that under s 56 Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) appellant bore burden of proving storage of firearms was in accordance with manner of storage approved by Registrar.

Held: premises open to the public at the time of inspection and reg 31(3) storage requirements available to appellant.

Held: reg 31(3) provides an exception and matters of fact identified in reg…

Continue reading Lloyd-Groocock v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lloyd-Groocock v Police [2008] SASC 313
Case
[2008] SASC 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Lloyd-Groocock appealed against her conviction in the Magistrates Court of South Australia for two counts of failure to comply with the Firearms Regulations 1993 (SA). The first count related to her contravention of the storage requirements for firearms under the Regulations, while the second count was based on her breach of a condition of her firearms dealer's licence. The core issue in the appeal was whether the glass-fronted cabinet in which the firearms were stored qualified as a "locked safe made of steel" under the Regulations. Additionally, the appeal explored whether the store was "open to the public" at the time of inspection, thereby invoking a regulatory exemption for dealers.

The court examined the statutory language and the physical characteristics of the storage container in question. It determined that the container, despite being largely made of steel, did not meet the regulatory definition of a "safe made of steel" because the glass doors constituted a substantial part of the surface area. The court held that a container could only be described as a "safe made of steel" if it was wholly or almost entirely made of steel, which was not the case here. Consequently, the court upheld the Magistrate's decision that the storage method was in violation of the Regulations.

Furthermore, the court delved into the interpretation of the term "open to the public" as used in reg 31(3) of the Regulations. The court concluded that the store was not "open to the public" at the time of the inspection because Ms Lloyd-Groocock was not present, and the employee who was present did not hold a dealer's licence. The court found that the exemption provided by reg 31(3) did not apply, thereby affirming the conviction on the first count. The appeal was thus dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appeal raises the interpretation of provisions of the Firearms Act 1977 (SA) (“the Act”) and of the Firearms Regulations 1993 (SA) (“the Regulations”). The appeal also raises an issue (not raised before the Magistrate) as to the application of s 56 of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) (“the SPA”).Facts Ms Lloyd‑Groocock holds a dealer’s licence granted under s 17 of the Act. A person who “carries on the business of dealing in firearms or ammunition or both…” in South Australia without holding a dealer’s licence authorising that business is guilty of an offence: s 16 of the Act. This case is concerned only with dealing in firearms. Dealing in firearms is closely regulated by the Act. The Act also regulates the possession, use and sale of firearms. It applies to persons other than dealers. The Registrar of Firearms has authority to grant a dealer’s licence under the Act. The Registrar has power under a number of provisions of the Act and of the Regulations to impose conditions on a licence, to approve or not to approve various matters relating to dealing in firearms, and generally to regulate the licensing of dealers. The Registrar’s role is central to the administration of the Act and of the Regulations. Ms Lloyd‑Groocock operates a mixed retail business called the Mintabie Trading Post, at Mintabie in the north of South Australia. This is a remote location. She holds a dealer’s licence issued under the Act, and carries on her business as a dealer in firearms at the Mintabie Trading Post. There is no suggestion that she is in breach of any provision of the Act or of the Regulations in conducting her dealer’s business from the same premises as those in which she conducts her mixed retail business. Part 6 of the Regulations deals with securing firearms. The first count on which Ms Lloyd‑Groocock was convicted is based on the provisions of Part 6. The relevant provisions are regs 29, 31, 33 and 34. They provide as follows:29 Security of firearms(1) A person (not being a dealer) who has possession of a class A or B firearm must keep the firearm secured by—(a)securely attaching and locking it to part of the building in which it is kept; or(b)keeping it in a locked cabinet made of hardwood or steel that is securely attached to the building in which it is kept; or(c)keeping it in a locked safe made of steel that is securely attached to the building in which it is kept; or(d)keeping it in a locked steel and concrete strong room; or(e)such other method as is approved by the Registrar.(2) A person (not being a dealer) who has possession of a class C, D or H firearm must keep the firearm secured by—(a)keeping it in a locked safe made of steel that is securely attached to the building in which it is kept; or(b)keeping it in a locked steel and concrete strong room; or(c)such other method as is approved by the Registrar.(3) A cabinet or safe referred to in subregulation (1) or (2) must—(a)be fitted with fittings and locks that prevent it from being easily forced open; and(b)be made of material of sufficient thickness to prevent it being easily broken, opened or destroyed.(4) Despite subregulations (1)(c) and (2)(a), a safe need not be attached to the building if its mass when empty is 150 kilograms or more.…31 Possession of firearms by dealers(1) Subject to this regulation, a person who has possession of a class A, B, C, D or H firearm in his or her capacity as a dealer must keep the firearm secured by one of the methods set out in regulation 29 in respect of the relevant class of firearm.(2) A dealer is not required to comply with subregulation (1) during periods that his or her premises are open to the public in respect of class A or B firearms that are on display to members of the public entering the premises if the public does not have access to the firearms.(3) A dealer is not required to comply with subregulation (1) during periods that his or her premises are open to the public in respect of class H firearms that are on display to members of the public entering the premises if—(a) the public does not have access to the firearms; and(b) the firearms are secured in a manner approved by the Registrar.33 Security of dealer's buildingA dealer must ensure that the premises at which he or she carries on the business of dealing in firearms is properly secured against unlawful entry whenever the premises are unoccupied.34 ExemptionThe Registrar may exempt a person from compliance with this Part subject to such conditions as he or she thinks fit and may vary or revoke an exemption at any time.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The second count was that she failed to comply with a condition of her licence contrary to s 21 of the Act. The failure to keep the firearms secured as required by the Regulations was relied upon as the failure to comply with a condition of her licence.The Magistrate’s decision The Magistrate found that the container in which the firearms were kept, including two class H firearms, was not “a locked safe made of steel” for the purposes of reg 29(2)(a). It is not suggested that any other provision of reg 29 governed the manner in which the firearms were secured. This finding is challenged on appeal. The Magistrate found that reg 31(3) did not provide Ms Lloyd‑Groocock with a defence. The Magistrate said that as Ms Lloyd‑Groocock was not present when the police inspected the Trading Post, “…the defendant’s firearm dealing business was not open for business”. The Magistrate appears to have proceeded on the basis that the premises could be open to the public for the purposes of reg 31(3) only if Ms Lloyd‑Groocock was present. Accordingly, the Magistrate convicted Ms Lloyd‑Groocock on count one. The Magistrate said nothing about count two. But the endorsement on the Magistrates Court file indicates that she recorded a conviction on each count. Although the Magistrate made no findings relating to count two, her findings on count one lead to the conclusion that Ms Lloyd‑Groocock was guilty on count two. In an apparent exercise of the powers conferred by s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) the Magistrate imposed a single fine in respect of the two counts in the sum of $1,000. Appeal against conviction on count one I agree with the Magistrate that the container in which the class H firearms were displayed did not meet the requirements of reg 29(2)(a). I mention that there is no suggestion that any other method of securing the firearms had been approved by the Registrar for the purposes of reg 29(2)(c). Unsurprisingly, neither the Act nor the Regulations contain a definition of “safe”. I do not consider that reg 29(3) states exhaustively the characteristics of a safe for the purposes of reg 29. It is understandable that the Regulations would emphasise and specify the matters set out in reg 29(3), because merely to describe something as a safe does not, in itself, require that it not be able easily to be forced open or broken open. The container in question was a glass fronted cabinet on wheels. It had formerly been used to display bottled cold drinks. It is of a kind commonly seen in shops selling cold drinks. It is about two metres high and about 60 centimetres wide. The top, bottom, back and sides are made of steel. It had been modified by Ms Lloyd-Groocock’s partner. The front comprises two full length glass doors, hinged on either side of the container. Each door opens outward from the centre. The hinges are on the inside of the cabinet, to make it more difficult to obtain entry to it. Each door is covered with what appears to be substantial steel mesh. Each door, which I gather has a steel frame, comprises two sheets of shockproof glass. The container is locked by sliding a metal pole into position across the two front doors and through some brackets attached to those doors, and then by padlocking it into position. The whole unit weighs over 150 kilograms. A photograph of the container was tendered before the Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.