Police v Dare - [2010] NSWLC 23

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police V Dare [2010] NSWLC 23

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police
Jodie Penelope DARE

FILE NUMBER: H43184382

PLACE OF HEARING: Bourke Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 08/19/2010

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Clisdell

CATCHWORDS: Fire a firearm in a manner likely to injure persons or property - Possession of unauthorised firearm - - Sentencing considerations - - Objective seriousness of offences - - No previous convictions and prior good character considered in relation to serious offences

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s93G
Firearms Act 1996 s7
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Haidar v R [2007] NSWCCA 95
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Abdullah [2005] NSWCCA 365
R v Camilleri (NSWCCA, unreported, 8 February, 1990)
R v Cahill [2004] NSWCCA 451
R v Cicekdag [2004] NSWCCA 357
R v Dang [2005] NSWCCA 430 at [22]
R v Doan (2000) 115 NSWLR 115
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Mulato [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Nichols (1991) 57 A Crim R 391
R v Thomson & Houlton 49 NSWLR 383
Stanford v R [2007] NSWCCA 73

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Police Prosecutor: Sgt V. Short/Acting Sgt D. Gumley
Accused: Mr G Langford (Solicitor)

ORDERS:

IN THE LOCAL COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Reasons for Decision on Sentence

1 The Accused was charged with the following offences:

Crimes Act

(ii) Possess unauthorised firearm – s7A(1) Firearms Act 1996;

(iii) Possess ammunition without holding a licence or permit – s65(3) Firearms Act 1996;

following events that occurred on the Tarcoon Road between Bourke and Brewarrina on 7 July 2010. Sequence 1 is a Table 2 offence unless the prosecution elect to proceed on indictment. The maximum penalty on indictment for sequence 1 is ten (10) years imprisonment, for sequence 2 five (5) years imprisonment, while sequence 3 is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of a fine of up to $5,500.00. As the matters proceeded in the Local Court, the jurisdictional maximum on sequences 1 & 2 is a fine of up to $5,500.00 and or two (2) years imprisonment on each charge.

THE FACTS

2 Stephen Gordon left his property near Brewarrina at 5:00pm on 7 July for the purpose of a “road running” with his pet dogs, looking for feral pigs. This is a common activity within the Bourke and Brewarrina shires. He was accompanied by his sons Raymond and Robert (aged 13) and a young lady names Hiallie Jeffries (aged 19). At approximately 6:30 pm they stopped near “the Wilbertree mailbox”. Wilbertree is a property owned by Malcolm Dare, the father of the accused.

3 The dogs were then released into the bush to track a pig. Stephen and Raymond…

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 Police v Dare

Details

AGLC: Police v Dare [2010] NSWLC 23
Case: [2010] NSWLC 23
Decision Date: 19/8/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Dare involved a dispute concerning charges of firing a firearm in a manner likely to injure persons or property, as well as possession of an unauthorised firearm. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The defendant, Dare, had been apprehended after an incident where he fired a firearm in a public place, causing significant fear and potential for harm.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of the relevant statutes regarding the unauthorised use of firearms and the appropriate sentencing for such offences. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the objective seriousness of the offences warranted a custodial sentence, despite the defendant's lack of previous convictions and his prior good character. The court also had to weigh the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's conduct during the incident.

In delivering its decision, the court meticulously examined the statutory provisions and case law pertaining to firearm offences. It determined that the objective seriousness of Dare's actions warranted a custodial sentence, taking into account the potential harm caused and the need to deter similar conduct. While the court acknowledged Dare's prior good character and lack of prior convictions, it concluded that the gravity of the offences necessitated a sentence that would also serve as a warning to the community. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court ordered Dare to serve a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions and considerations for his reintegration into the community post-release. The sentence also included a prohibition on possessing firearms in the future, reflecting the seriousness of the offences committed.

Orders