R v Britten - [2017] SADC 95

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BRITTEN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 95
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Cole
30 August 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - OFFENSIVE WEAPONS - FIREARMS - POSSESSION
Accused charged with the offence of possessing a prescribed firearm without a licence. The firearm was located in the front passenger seat foot well of a vehicle where the accused had been seated. The accused denied having possession of the firearm.
Verdict: Guilty.
Firearms Act 1977 (SA) ss 5, 11, 36 ; Firearms Regulations 2008 (SA) reg 4, referred to.

R v BRITTEN
[2017] SADC 95
Introduction

The accused is charged on information with possessing a prescribed firearm without a licence, contrary to s 11(1) of the Firearms Act 1977.
The charge on the information is as follows:
John Britten is charged with the following offence:
Statement of Offence
Possessing a Prescribed Firearm Without a Licence. (Section 11(1) of the Firearms Act 1977).
Particulars of Offence
John Britten on the 4^th day of September 2014 at Seaton, had in his possession a prescribed firearm, namely a sawn off Marlin .22 bolt action rifle, without holding a licence authorising possession of that firearm.
The Firearms Act 1977 provides, in s 11(1):
A person who has possession of a firearm without holding a firearms licence authorising possession of that firearm is guilty of an offence.
The Firearms Act 1977 provides, in s 5(14) and (15):
(14)For the purposes of this Act (other than Part 3 Division 2A), a person has possession of a firearm if –
(a)     the person has custody of the firearm or has the firearm in the custody of another; or
(b)     the person has and exercises access to the firearm; or
(c)     the person occupies, or has care, control or management of, premises, or is in charge of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, where the firearm is found.
(15)However, subsection (14)(c) does not apply if the person establishes that –
(a)he or she did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to have known, that the firearms was on or in the premises, vehicle, vessel or aircraft; or
(b)the firearm was in the lawful possession of another or he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the firearm was in the lawful possession of another.
The Firearm Regulations 2008 provide, in reg 4, a list of firearms which are prescribed for the purposes of s 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1977. The firearm the subject of the charge falls within the description of a prescribed firearm by virtue of a portion of its barrel having been sawn off, reducing the barrel to less than 330mm in length. The overall length of the firearm is 392mm.[1]
[1] Transcript p 41 line 16, 17- evidence of Brevet Sergeant Sanders. See regs 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(f).
Pursuant to an election made by the accused, the trial was heard without…

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 Britten

Details

AGLC: R v Britten [2017] SADC 95
Case: [2017] SADC 95
Decision Date: 30 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Britten involved the defendant, Britten, who was charged with the possession of a firearm, specifically a .22 calibre rifle, without the requisite licence. The incident came to light when Britten was stopped by police and subsequently found to be in possession of the firearm. The case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the defendant had lawful possession of the firearm and if he held the necessary documentation to do so.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had contravened the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) by possessing a firearm without the appropriate licence. The legal issues involved interpreting the provisions of the Act, specifically the requirement for a firearm licence, and assessing the circumstances under which the defendant came into possession of the firearm. The court also had to consider whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the defendant did not hold a valid licence at the time of possession and that the firearm was unregistered. The prosecution provided evidence that Britten had been previously convicted of firearms offences, which was relevant in establishing his propensity to possess firearms unlawfully. The court held that the prosecution had satisfied its burden of proof, and the defendant's possession of the firearm was unlawful. The court emphasised the seriousness of possessing a firearm without a licence, highlighting the potential danger to public safety. The defendant was found guilty as charged.

The final orders included the defendant being convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence. The court also ordered the confiscation and destruction of the firearm. The defendant was further directed to comply with additional conditions set by the court, such as surrendering any other firearms he may possess and undergoing a rehabilitation program.

Orders