Madeleine Kubler v Christopher Michael Gunner

The appellant, Madeleine Kubler, was convicted by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory of possessing an unlicensed firearm, namely an airgun, contrary to s 64 of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The respondent, Christopher Michael Gunner, being the Attorney-General for the Territory, appealed the conviction. The central issue in this appeal was whether the definition of "airgun" in the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) was invalid for the same reasons as the definition of "air weapon" in DPP v Scheele [2016] ACTCA 23. Another issue was whether the appellant's mistake of fact about the airgun being non-prohibited was valid under common law and Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 35.

The court held that the definition of "airgun" in the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) was not invalid for the same reasons as the definition of "air weapon" in Scheele. The court found that the definition of "airgun" was not ambiguous or uncertain, and that the appellant's mistake of fact about the airgun being non-prohibited was not valid under common law or Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 35. The court held that the appellant's mistake was a mistake of law, which was not a valid defence under either common law or the statute. The court held that the appellant's belief that the airgun was non-prohibited was based on a misinterpretation of the statutory definition of "airgun", and that this misinterpretation was a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court ordered that the conviction and sentence of the appellant be affirmed. The court also ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.