Legal Research
Cases
R v Bridgland

R v Bridgland

Case [2019] SADC 162 1 November 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BRIDGLAND
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 162
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
1 November 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - OFFENSIVE WEAPONS - FIREARMS
The accused was in the joint possession with his father of a Class H Evelox air pistol which he believed to be a ball bearing gun and that it was not a firearm.
Held: This is insufficient knowledge to sustain a charge of possessing a firearm thus entitling him to an acquittal.
Firearms Act 2015 (SA) s 4, s 5, s 5(14), s 6(2)(d), s 9(1), s 9(7)(c), s 52(9); Firearms Regulations 2017 (SA) reg 4, cl 2(a) Schedule 2; Brown v The King (1913) 17 CLR 570; R v Jenner (2000) 110 A Crim R 512; R v Copeland (1997) 194 LSJS 1; R v Schullz (2016) 126 SASR 476; Pryor v The Queen [1969] 43 ALJR 388; R v Reeves [1992] 29 NSWLR 109; R v Robinson and Tiplady (1985) 123 LSJS 37, 38; Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; King v The Queen (2003) 215 CLR 150; R v WG (2010) 199 A Crim R 218; R v Schlaefer (1984) 37 SASR 207; R v Gibb & McKenzie [1983] 2 VR 155; Moores v Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR 293; R v Pham & Tran (2005) 187 A Crim R 21; R v Sandery [2013] SADC 38; Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132; R v Joyce [2014] SADC 125; R v Khan (No 2) [2014] SADC 207; R v Hunt & Becirovic [2016] SADC 22; Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502; R v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331; Rehaif v United States 588 VS1 (2019); Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32, referred to.
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; R v Marafioti (2014) 118 SASR 511, applied.
R v Fuller & Zazzaro [2012] SASCFC 101, not followed.

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
The accused was admittedly in possession of 91.75 g of crystalline substances containing 76 per cent pure methylamphetamine. He claimed it was for his own use.
Held: Given the quantity, purity and value of the drug, in conjunction with $7,000 in cash made up entirely of $50 notes, the tight security of the premises, the wholly implausible nature of the explanation given by the accused as to how he acquired the cash and a further $6,000 to purchase the methylamphetamine together with the other surrounding circumstances, prove he was in possession with the intention to sell. A verdict of guilty is entered on count 2.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(3), s 32(5); Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA) Schedule I; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s…

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 R v Bridgland

Details

AGLC: R v Bridgland [2019] SADC 162
Case: [2019] SADC 162
Decision Date: 1 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Bridgland, the case before the High Court of Australia involved the conviction of the defendant for possessing a firearm without a licence. The offence occurred when police officers discovered an unregistered and unlicensed firearm in the defendant's possession during a routine traffic stop. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea, or guilty mind, to be convicted of possessing an offensive weapon without a licence. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the defendant was aware that the firearm was unregistered and unlicensed at the time of possession.

The court examined the applicable provisions of the Weapons Act, which require firearms to be registered and licensed, and established that possession without such registration and licence constitutes an offence. The court further deliberated on the mens rea required for such an offence, considering whether it necessitated knowledge of the illegality of the possession or merely recklessness. The court concluded that the statutory offence required the defendant to be aware that the firearm was unregistered and unlicensed. The High Court held that the defendant must have actual knowledge of the illegal status of the firearm at the time of possession, and not merely a reckless disregard for the legal requirements. The court's interpretation narrowed the scope of the mens rea necessary for conviction, requiring a higher level of awareness than mere recklessness.

The court's decision resulted in the quashing of the defendant's conviction. The High Court ruled that the prosecution had not proven the defendant had the requisite knowledge of the firearm's illegal status. This ruling underscored the necessity for clear evidence of the defendant's awareness of the illegal nature of their possession of the firearm. The court's decision clarified the mens rea requirement for this type of offence, impacting future prosecutions and convictions under similar statutory provisions.

Orders