R v Gregory Dean Hill - [2012] ACTSC 121

R v GREGORY DEAN HILL

[2012] ACTSC 121 (16 July 2012)

FIREARMS – firearm found in motor vehicle – whether a key ring firearm is a prohibited firearm – whether the accused owned the vehicle – whether the accused was in possession of the firearm – whether the accused discharged the evidential burden to prove that he did not know the firearm was in the vehicle

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – DNA found on firearm case – primary and secondary transfer of DNA

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 58(5)-(7)
Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 10(1)(b), 11(1),(2), 42(1)(iii), Schedule 1
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B

R v Noonan (2002) 127 A Crim R 599 and 2002 NSWCCA 46

No. SC 97 of 2010

Judge: Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 July 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 97 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R

v

GREGORY DEAN HILL

FINDINGS

Judge:  Nield AJ
Date:  16 July 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is guilty of possessing a prohibited firearm on 26 October 2009 when not authorised by licence, permit or otherwise to do so.
The accused is guilty of possessing ammunition on 26 October 2009 when not authorised by licence, permit or otherwise to do so.

As to the trial of Gregory Dean Hill:

On a day in May 2009 Mr Ricky Keegan sold a motor vehicle, silver coloured Holden Statesman sedan, bearing ACT registration plate YxxxxE, for $3,500 to a man whose name was Greg Hill, who lived in a house in the suburb of Chisholm in the ACT and whose mobile telephone number was 04xxxxxx27. Unfortunately, neither Mr Keegan nor Mr Hill registered the transfer of ownership of the vehicle from Mr Keegan to Mr Hill with the ACT Road Transport Authority.
At about 11.30 am on 21 June 2009 Mr Benjamin Roberts saw the silver coloured Holden Statesman sedan, ACT registration plate YxxxxE, parked in a car park, between St Benedict’s Roman Catholic Primary School and the adjacent Presbyterian Church in Tallara Parkway in Narrabundah in the ACT, with the vehicle’s doors unlocked. Suspecting something untoward with the vehicle, he contacted police and reported the vehicle’s location, see exhibit H.
During the morning of 21 June 2009 Mr Greg Hill, who said that his address was xx Barangaroo Street in Chisholm in the ACT, and that his mobile telephone number was 04xxxxxx27, contacted police to enquire about the finding of his Holden Statesman sedan, ACT registration plate YxxxxE, which had been stolen from his home during the night of 20-21 June 2009. He was given the location of the vehicle, see exhibit J.
Shortly after 12 noon on 21 June 2009 Mr Hill attended at the car park between the primary school and the church to recover the silver coloured Holden Statesman sedan, ACT registration plate YxxxxE. He spoke to Constable Jeremy English, who was in the company of Constable Brett Fitzroy, about taking possession…

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 Gregory Dean Hill

Details

AGLC: R v Gregory Dean Hill [2012] ACTSC 121
Case: [2012] ACTSC 121
Decision Date: 16 July 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gregory Dean Hill, the appellant was charged with multiple offences relating to firearms. The dispute arose from the discovery of a firearm in a motor vehicle registered in the name of the appellant. The court had to determine whether the firearm was a prohibited firearm, if the appellant owned the vehicle, and if he was in possession of the firearm. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the appellant discharged the evidential burden to prove that he did not know the firearm was in the vehicle.

The legal issues included the interpretation of what constitutes a "key ring firearm" under the Firearms Act 1996 (Cth), the criteria for determining ownership of a vehicle, and the burden of proof required to establish lack of knowledge regarding the presence of a firearm. The court also had to consider the significance of DNA evidence found on the firearm and its case, particularly in relation to primary and secondary DNA transfer.

The court found that the firearm was indeed a prohibited firearm as it was a key ring firearm. It also concluded that the appellant owned the vehicle. Regarding possession of the firearm, the court held that the appellant had not discharged the evidential burden to prove that he did not know the firearm was in the vehicle. The DNA evidence was deemed significant, although the court clarified that secondary transfer of DNA did not necessarily mean the appellant was the last person to handle the firearm. Ultimately, the court found the appellant guilty on all charges.

The court ordered the appellant be detained in custody pending sentencing, which would take into account the severity of the charges and the appellant's criminal history. The appellant was also required to surrender any other firearms in his possession to the authorities.

Orders