R v Aird

Case [2019] NSWDC 512


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Aird [2019] NSWDC 512
Hearing dates: 23, 26 August; 13 September 2019
Date of orders: 16 September 2019
Decision date: 16 September 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

See [75]-[78]

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Firearms offences – Assortment of weapons – Whether Offender had remorse or contrition with previous intention to hand weapons in to an amnesty – Relevance of various matters on Forms 1 – whether purposes of sentencing require public safety to be considered
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) ss 39(1)(a), 51D(2)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) s 7(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002)
Dionys v R [2011] NSWCCA 272
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216
R v Brown [2006] NSWCCA 249
R v El Jamal [2017] NSWCCA 243
R v Howard [2004] NSWCCA 348
R v Johnson [2005] NSWCCA 80
R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
R v Woods [2009] NSWCCA 55
Sadler v R (2001) 194 A Crim R 452
Taylor v R [2018] NSWCCA 50
R v Why [2017] NSWCCA 101
Texts Cited: N/A
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Peter James Aird (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Karim (for the Offender)

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
File Number(s): 17/258335
Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

  1. The Offender Peter James Aird appeared before Campbelltown District Court on 23 August 2019 for sentence in relation to two counts as follows:

  1. That on 24 August 2017 at Pheasants Nest he possessed a prohibited weapon to wit a knife concealed as a credit card, without being authorised to do so by a permit, contrary to section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW). This offence is Sequence 1. It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and a standard non parole period of 5 years imprisonment.

  2. That on 24 August 2017 at Pheasants Next he possessed more than three firearms, to wit nine firearms that were not registered, of which four were prohibited firearms in circumstances where the Offender was not authorised by a licence or permit to possess those firearms, contrary to section 51D(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). This offence is Sequence 17. It carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and a standard non parole period of 10 years imprisonment.

  1. In sentencing the Offender for Sequence 1, I have been requested to take into account three offences on a Form 1A, which comprise of:

  • Possess a prohibited weapon, namely an extendible baton, contrary to section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW);

  • Possess a prohibited weapon, namely knuckle dusters, contrary to section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW); and

  • Possess an explosive for an unlawful purpose, namely railway detonators, contrary to section 93FA(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Substantively this latter offence carries a maximum penalty of 3 years…

Continue reading R v Aird

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Aird [2019] NSWDC 512
Case
[2019] NSWDC 512
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aird involved the defendant, Aird, who was charged with firearms offences following the discovery of a collection of weapons. The legal dispute centred on the sentencing of Aird, particularly in relation to the extent of his remorse, his intention to surrender the weapons during an amnesty, and the relevance of various factors outlined in Forms 1. The High Court of Australia was tasked with deciding these issues.

The court had to determine whether Aird demonstrated sufficient remorse and contrition, which could potentially mitigate his sentence. It was also necessary to assess the relevance of Aird's intention to hand over the weapons during the amnesty period, as well as the factors listed on Forms 1. Additionally, the court needed to consider the purposes of sentencing, including public safety, to ensure a just outcome.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that Aird's actions did not demonstrate genuine remorse or contrition. Despite his intention to participate in the amnesty, the court concluded that his previous conduct and the nature of the weapons found warranted a stricter penalty. The court also considered the factors on Forms 1, which highlighted the risk to public safety and the potential for Aird to reoffend. The court ultimately decided that the sentencing should reflect these considerations, ensuring that the punishment aligned with the objectives of deterrence and protection of the community.

The court ordered that Aird be sentenced in accordance with the detailed findings and reasoning outlined in paragraphs [75] to [78] of the judgment. These orders took into account the evidence presented, the legal principles applied, and the overarching purpose of the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [75]-[78]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.