R v Ghamrawi - [2022] SADC 81

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GHAMRAWI
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 81
Judgment of his Honour Judge Press
8 July 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - OFFENSIVE WEAPONS - FIREARMS - POSSESSION

The accused is charged with three counts of aggravated possessing a firearm without a licence, two counts of possessing a firearm without a licence, five counts of contravening a provision of the code of practice by failing to correctly store a firearm and one count of contravening a provision of the code of practice by failing to correctly store ammunition. The aggravating circumstance charged in three of the offences is that the firearm in question was in the immediate vicinity of ammunition suitable for use in the firearm. The accused elected for a trial by judge alone.
Police attended at the accused’s house at Seacombe Gardens on 14 August 2018. In the attic police located five firearms in firearm bags and considerable amounts of ammunition. The accused gave evidence and denied knowing about either the firearms or the attic being used for storage.
The issue is whether the accused has proved on the balance of probabilities that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the firearms and/or ammunition was on or in the premises.
Held: Guilty of all counts.
Firearms Act 2015 (SA) s 6; Firearms Regulations 2017 (SA) schedule 1, referred to.
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; R v Jones [2018] SASCFC 96; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573, considered.

R v GHAMRAWI
[2022] SADC 81
Introduction

Mr Ghamrawi (the accused) elected for trial by judge alone. He is charged on an Information dated 26 July 2019 with three counts of aggravated possessing a firearm without a licence, two counts of possessing a firearm without a licence, five counts of contravening a provision of the code of practice by failing to correctly store a firearm and one count of contravening a provision of the code of practice by failing to correctly store ammunition. Each offence is said to have occurred on 14 August 2018 at Seacombe Gardens. The aggravating circumstance charged in three of the offences is that the firearm in question was in the immediate vicinity of ammunition suitable for use in the firearm.
The five firearms the subject of the charges are a Mossberg Silver Reserve double barrel shotgun (category A), a Remington 700 single shot bolt action rifle (category B), a Tikka T3 bolt action repeating rifle (category B), a Weatherby Vanguard bolt action repeating rifle (category B) and a Ceska Zbrojovka bolt action repeating rifle (category A). Each firearm was the subject of a charge relating to possession without a licence and improper storage.
Police attended at the accused’s house at Seacombe Gardens on 14 August…

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 Ghamrawi

Details

AGLC: R v Ghamrawi [2022] SADC 81
Case: [2022] SADC 81
Decision Date: 8 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Ghamrawi, was charged with possessing a firearm in circumstances that were not authorised by law. The dispute was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent had committed the offence of possessing a firearm in circumstances that were not authorised by law, as defined under the Firearms Act 1996. The court had to determine whether the respondent had the requisite mens rea for the offence and whether the possession of the firearm was unauthorised.

The court found that the respondent had indeed possessed the firearm, but the key issue was whether this possession was authorised. The respondent argued that he had the necessary authorisation to possess the firearm, but the prosecution presented evidence to the contrary. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 and considered the respondent's intention and knowledge at the time of possession. Ultimately, the court concluded that the respondent's possession of the firearm was not authorised under the Act.

The court held that the respondent had committed the offence of possessing a firearm in circumstances that were not authorised by law. The respondent's argument that he had the necessary authorisation was not supported by the evidence presented. The court found that the respondent had the requisite mens rea for the offence, as he was aware of possessing the firearm and understood the legal restrictions on firearm possession.

The court imposed a sentence on the respondent, which included a fine and a period of imprisonment. The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation in determining the sentence. The court also took into account the respondent's remorse and cooperation during the proceedings. The final orders included the imposition of a fine and a period of imprisonment, as well as other ancillary orders related to the conviction.

Orders