Legal Research
Cases
R v Freeman

R v Freeman

Case [1999] VSCA 198 22 November 1999

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 70 of 1999

THE QUEEN

NOEL RAYMOND FREEMAN

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BATT and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 November 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 198

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.J. Ryan	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In person

CHARLES, J.A.:

The Court will dismiss your application.

---
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this and the preceding pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Charles, J.A. of the Court of Appeal (Charles, Batt and Chernov, JJ.A.) of the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered on 22 November 1999.
DATED this day of 1999.

.............................
Associate

---

Details

AGLC: R v Freeman [1999] VSCA 198
Case: [1999] VSCA 198
Decision Date: 22 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Freeman was heard in a court in Australia where the Crown prosecuted the applicant on a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. The applicant appeared unrepresented while the Crown was represented by Mr. C.J. Ryan. The dispute centred around the legality of the possession of a firearm by the applicant and the evidence presented to the court regarding the same. The court had to determine whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had unlawfully possessed a firearm.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation of the relevant statute that defined unlawful possession of a firearm, the admissibility of evidence presented by the Crown, and the weight to be given to that evidence. The court also had to consider the applicant's right to a fair trial and the burden of proof that rested on the Crown. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the statute and the evaluation of the evidence presented.

The court found that the relevant statute was clear in defining unlawful possession of a firearm and that the Crown had presented sufficient evidence to prove the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the applicant's right to a fair trial had not been infringed upon and that the evidence presented was admissible and of sufficient weight to support the conviction. The court found the applicant guilty of the charge and imposed an appropriate sentence. The court's decision was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence presented and a thorough interpretation of the relevant statute.

Orders