Police v Anderson

Case [2025] SASC 35

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)

POLICE v ANDERSON

[2025] SASC 35

Judgment of the Honourable Justice McIntyre 

19 March 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL

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

MAGISTRATES - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - ACQUITTAL

This is an appeal from a Magistrate Court decision acquitting the respondent of the offence of aggravated possession of a category H firearm for a purpose not authorised by his firearms license contrary to s 9(2) of the Firearms Act 2015 (SA).

The respondent collapsed in a carpark whilst carrying a loaded Category H firearm which was discovered when he received medical treatment.  The contentious issue related to the respondent’s possession of the firearm outside his premises and whether that was authorised by his licence. 

The appellant appeals on two grounds. First that the trial Magistrate failed to consider the operation of s 9(3) of the Firearms Act, thereby applying the wrong burden and standard of proof when assessing whether the charge was made out. Second and that the trial Magistrate committed an error in both fact and law in finding that the respondent was in possession of the firearm for a purpose authorised by his licence

Held in dismissing the appeal

1.Section 9(3) of the Act is concerned with an evidential onus and not with the legal burden of proof. The issue for the trial Magistrate was, having regard to the whole of the evidence, including the evidence given by the respondent, whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that his possession of the firearm was for an unauthorised purpose.

2.Section 9(2) of the Act does not prevent a person who is in possession of a firearm whilst transporting it for the purpose of testing or repair, stopping en route to the testing range or the repair shop.

3.Whether a stop constitutes a change in the lawful purpose or a secondary purpose is a question of fact and degree.

Firearms Act 2015 (SA) ss 3, 9; Firearm Regulations 2017 (SA) reg 24, sch 1 reg 28; Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42; Official Secrets Act 1911 (UK) s 1; Police Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 15, referred to.

Police v Anderson (Magistrates Court of South Australia, Magistrate Browne, 15 October 2024); Robinson Helicopter co Inc v McDermott (2016) 90 ALJR 679; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Police v Baker [2015] SASC 110; Crawford Earthmovers Pty Ltd v Fitzsimmons (1972) 4 SASR 116; Evans v Benson (1986) 46 SASR 317; Hollick v Police [2012] SASC 11; Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 1; Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) v Hadgkiss [2007] FCAFC 197; R v Pringle [2017] SASCFC 9; R v Singh [2019] SASCFC 51; Cameron v Holt (1980) 142 CLR 342; Chandler &…

Continue reading Police v Anderson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Police v Anderson [2025] SASC 35
Case
[2025] SASC 35
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Police v Anderson was brought by the prosecution against the acquittal of the respondent, who held a dealer’s firearm licence, on charges of possessing a firearm outside the permitted purposes under the Firearms Act 2015 (SA). The respondent was found with a loaded firearm in his possession after collapsing in a shopping centre car park. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent's possession of the firearm was unauthorised by his licence. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution had not established the requisite mens rea for the offence.

The key legal issues for the court were whether the prosecution had discharged the burden of proving the respondent's possession of the firearm was unauthorised, and whether the trial court was correct in finding the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to determine if the respondent's possession of the firearm was genuinely for an unauthorised purpose or if there was another plausible explanation, particularly given the respondent's explanation provided during his interview with police.

The court found that the trial magistrate had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the appropriate legal standards. The respondent had a plausible explanation for his possession of the firearm, which the court accepted as reasonable. The court held that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the respondent’s possession of the firearm was for an unauthorised purpose beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the prosecution's appeal against the acquittal, affirming the decision of the trial court. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and thus the acquittal was correctly made. The respondent's explanation for his possession of the firearm was accepted as reasonable, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons that follow I dismiss the appeal.Background The respondent was, and had been for many years, the holder of a dealers’ firearm licence. The conditions of that licence are regulated by Regulation 24 of the Firearms Regulations2017 (‘the Regulations’) which relevantly provides as follows:[1][1] Firearms Regulations 2017 (SA) (‘the Regulations’) reg 24.(1) Subject to this regulation, a category 11 (dealer) licence authorises the licensee to possess and use firearms, firearms partes and ammunition of a category or kind specified on the licence for the purpose only of the business of a dealer.(2) …(6) A category 11 (dealer) licence is subject to –(a) except as provided for in subregulation (7), a condition that the licensee may only have possession of a firearm, firearm part or ammunition under the licence at the premises specified in the licence;…(7)Aa dealer may possess a firearm, firearm part or ammunition under the licence other than at the premises specified in the licence – (a) for the purpose of testing or repairing a firearm;… The respondent was charged under s 9(2) of the Act which states as follows:[2] A person who has possession of or uses a firearm for a purpose that is not authorised by a firearms licence held by the person is guilty of an offence.[2] Firearms Act 2015 (SA) (‘the Act’) s 9 (2). It was necessary for the prosecution to prove three elements beyond reasonable doubt. The first two elements, that the respondent was in possession of the firearm and that the firearm was a category H firearm, were not in dispute. The contentious issue was the third element. Specifically, whether the respondent’s possession of the firearm was for a purpose outside that permitted by his firearms licence. The evidence at trial was largely uncontentious. The undisputed evidence is summarised in the judgment as follows:[3][3] Police v Anderson (Magistrates Court of South Australia, Magistrate Browne, 15 October 2024) (‘Magistrate Browne’s reasons’) at [7]. a) At about 11:00 am on Thursday 23 June 2022, police responded to an SA Ambulance request to attend Mount Barker Road at Stirling. b) The defendant had collapsed in the car park area of the Stirling Shopping Centre.c) Ambulance officers were treating the defendant for a cardiac arrest when they found a firearm in his right-hand trouser pocket. d) Police attended and located the firearm in a leather holster and immediately placed it in the police vehicle. e) The defendant was conveyed to the hospital. f) The defendant was later interviewed by police on 16 November 2022 at 1.00 pm. The defendant admitted to being in possession of the firearm and gave his explanation. The explanation will be addressed later in this judgment. g) On the 23 June 2022, the defendant was the holder of a current Dealer’s firearm licence 309795P for firearm categories: A, B, C, D, H and Z (P2). He was also the holder of a current Collector’s firearms licence 302614T (P3) and current firearms licence 156812J (P1). h) The firearm in question was a firearm registered under the Dealer’s firearm licence.i) The firearm was loaded at the time of defendant’s possession.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.