File No :RO 5721 of 2008, RO 5722 of 2008, RO 5723 of 2008, RO 5724 of 2008
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal against acquittal for offence against Firearms Act 1973 (WA) s 23(9)(d)(i) - Whether there is an element of offence of lack of reasonable excuse or lack of reason to provide and use storage facilities - Condition to offence that person not lawfully in possession otherwise than by way of storage - Whether circumstances of transit of firearms to firearms cabinet in new accommodation interrupted by power failure preventing anchoring of firearms cabinet, where firearms relocated overnight in bedroom, were such that a finder of fact acting reasonably might fail to find beyond a reasonable doubt that condition was met
[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 McGEE v Chitty
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McGEE v Chitty [2010] WASC 67
Case
[2010] WASC 67
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in McGee v Chitty involves the appellant's acquittal on charges under section 23(9)(d)(i) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA), concerning the improper storage of firearms. The appellant had relocated firearms to a new residence, intending to store them in a designated firearms cabinet. However, a power failure interrupted the anchoring of the cabinet, resulting in the firearms being temporarily placed in the appellant's bedroom. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the circumstances of the transit and temporary relocation constituted a reasonable excuse or reason for the failure to store the firearms in a designated cabinet.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the offence under section 23(9)(d)(i) of the Firearms Act requires proof of an absence of a reasonable excuse or reason for not providing and using appropriate storage facilities for firearms. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the condition of the offence, that the person was not lawfully in possession of the firearms except for storage purposes, was satisfied when the firearms were temporarily relocated due to an unforeseen power failure.
The court held that the offence under section 23(9)(d)(i) does require the prosecution to prove the absence of a reasonable excuse or reason for the failure to store firearms in appropriate facilities. The court concluded that the circumstances of the power failure and the temporary relocation of the firearms to the bedroom constituted a reasonable excuse, such that a reasonable finder of fact might fail to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was not lawfully in possession of the firearms except for storage purposes. The appeal was thus dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the appellant.