R v Hide

Case [2025] NSWDC 440 3 October 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hide [2025] NSWDC 440
Hearing dates: 28 August 2025
Date of orders: 3 October 2025
Decision date: 03 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Ryan DCJ
Decision:
See [156]–[160]

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – 3D-printed firearms – possession of unregistered firearms – possession of digital blueprints for the manufacture of firearms

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Arnold v R [2011] NSWCCA 150
Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
KG v R [2012] NSWCCA 10
La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236
R v Cromarty [2004] NSWCCA 54
R v Engert (1995) 84A Crim R 67
R v Mack [2009] NSWCCA 216
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v Mezzadri [2011] NSWCCA 125
R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284
R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Peter Hide (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L O’Sullivan (solicitor-advocate) (Crown)
Mr Barnes (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Maguire & McInerney (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00118866
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

The offender is to be sentenced for:

One offence under s 51D(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), of possessing more than three unregistered firearms. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. A Standard Non-Parole period of 10 years’ imprisonment has been prescribed for it. I will refer to this offence as the ‘sequence 14 offence’.

One offence under s 51F of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), of possessing digital blueprints for the manufacture of firearms. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. I will refer to this offence as the ‘sequence 5 offence’.

In addition, the Offender has asked that the Court take into account another offence when setting a sentence for the sequence 14 offence. This is an offence under s 65(3) of the Firearms Act1996 (NSW), of possessing ammunition without a permit, or without being authorised to have a firearm which takes ammunition. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 50 penalty units. I will refer to this offence as ‘the Form 1 offence’.
The Offender has never held a licence or permit authorising him to possess or use any kind of firearms or ammunition.
By way of background, on 12 April 2024 a search warrant was executed at the Offender’s home. Police found 3D printers and digital blueprints for the making of firearms and ammunition. When they returned the following day, they found numerous items throughout the house. These included metalwork machines, firearm parts…

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 Hide

Details

AGLC: R v Hide [2025] NSWDC 440
Case: [2025] NSWDC 440
Decision Date: 03 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hide came before the court, where the defendant was charged with possession of unregistered firearms and possession of digital blueprints for the manufacture of firearms. Hide was found in possession of a 3D-printed firearm and related materials, which raised questions about the legal framework governing such devices. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Hide, considering the seriousness of the offences and the potential impact of 3D-printed firearms on public safety.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the interpretation and application of existing firearms legislation to 3D-printed firearms. The court had to ascertain whether the laws in place were sufficient to address the unique challenges posed by 3D printing technology. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the possession of 3D-printed firearms and related digital blueprints constituted an offence under the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles of sentencing in light of the unprecedented nature of the case.

The court, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the gravity of the offences committed by Hide. The possession of unregistered firearms and digital blueprints for manufacturing firearms presented a significant risk to public safety and posed challenges to the existing legal framework. In crafting the sentence, the court took into account the potential for 3D-printed firearms to evade traditional regulatory measures. The court concluded that a robust sentence was necessary to deter similar conduct in the future and to uphold the integrity of firearms legislation. Ultimately, the court determined that Hide’s actions warranted a custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect public safety.

The final orders of the court, as outlined in paragraphs [156] to [160], reflect the court’s decision to impose a custodial sentence on Hide, taking into account the unique circumstances of the case and the imperative to address the challenges posed by 3D-printed firearms.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [156]–[160]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

R v Hide [2025] NSWDC 440

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

R v Quinlan [2021] NSWCCA 284
Citation 1 (Para 153)

…e onus of establishing whether bail conditions amount to quasi-custody on the balance of probabilities: La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 at [59]; R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284 at [88]. As noted in those cases, all grants of conditional bail involve, or are highly likely to involve, some restriction. The question is whether…
Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186
Citation 2 (Para 48)

…ffences. Appellate courts have repeatedly emphasised the obligation on sentencing judges to give effect to this principle. In the case of Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186 at [81] Wilson J made this statement:…
La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136
Citation 3 (Para 153)

…In such cases the offender bears the onus of establishing whether bail conditions amount to quasi-custody on the balance of probabilities: La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 at [59]; R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284 at [88]. As noted in those cases, all grants of conditional bail involve, or are highly likely to involve, some re…
Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334
Citation 4 (Para 111)

…as a mitigating circumstance in sentencing, on the basis that it indicates rehabilitation and the unlikelihood of further offending: Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334 at [41] (Simpson J, Hoeben CJ at CL and Johnson J agreeing).…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 5 (Para 108)

…Also relevant to this sentence are the principles discussed in a line of cases, including Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571. These establish that an offender’s background of deprivation or abuse is a relevant factor when determining sentence. Such a background may reduce an offender’s moral culpability, because it…
Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288
Citation 6

…firearms Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Cases Cited: Arnold v R [2011] NSWCCA 150 Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 KG v R…
RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236
Citation 7 (Para 147)

…an Offender has good prospects of rehabilitation which would be assisted by a longer period on parole: Arnold v R [2011] NSWCCA 150 at [37]; RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236 at [120]. This would be relevant to the first and third grounds relied on by the Offender.…
KG v R [2012] NSWCCA 10
Citation 8 (Para 142)

…for the Offender submitted that the court should not give significant weight to the role of the standard non-parole period, citing the case of KG v R [2012] NSWCCA 10 per Basten J at [19]. Counsel submitted that the objective gravity of the sequence 14 offence was below the mid-range of seriousness and there were “…
Arnold v R [2011] NSWCCA 150
Citation 9 (Para 147)

…ces may be justified in cases where an Offender has good prospects of rehabilitation which would be assisted by a longer period on parole: Arnold v R [2011] NSWCCA 150 at [37]; RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236 at [120]. This would be relevant to the first and third grounds relied on by the Offender.…
R v Mezzadri [2011] NSWCCA 125
Citation 10 (Para 59)

…In R v Mezzadri [2011] NSWCCA 125 at [19] Adams J (with Hodgson JA and Hall J agreeing) held that possessing unserviceable weapons is less objectively serious than the possession of serviceable weapons, but that the extent to which the weapon is inoperable will be relevant. Adams J observed:…
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
Citation 11 (Para 49)

…In R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219 at [71] RS Hulme J said the following (Giles JA and Latham J agreeing):…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 12 (Para 102)

…In accordance with the principles of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 (‘ De La Rosa ’), I find that the Offender’s moral culpability is somewhat reduced by reason of the impact of his mental health conditions. Further, I accept Ms Manoski’s opinion that the Offender’s poor mental…
Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216
Citation 13 (Para 53)

…The sentencing submissions of the Crown and of Counsel for the Offender cited the case of R v Mack [2009] NSWCCA 216, in which Davies J (McClellan CJ and RA Hulme J agreeing) identified matters to be considered in assessing the objective seriousness of an offence under s 51D(2) of the Act. These are:…
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381
Citation 14 (Para 139)

…e principle of totality requires that the aggregation is “a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved’’ : R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [15], citing Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295.…
R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
Citation 15 (Para 46)

…sing their seriousness, the Court is to keep firmly in mind the principles and objects of the legislation which criminalises this conduct: R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 at [53].…
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Citation 16 (Para 44)

…t in determining the appropriate sentence, as it expresses the seriousness of the offence as viewed by the legislature and public perception: R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131. The sequence 14 offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. This makes clear the intention of Parliament that courts are generally…
R v Cromarty [2004] NSWCCA 54
Citation 17 (Para 69)

…In R v Cromarty [2004] NSWCCA 54, the Offender had been found in possession of a very large cache of firearms. These were found throughout his home and workshop. The Offender had put in place some limited security measures, such as deadlocks and sensors and an alarm for the workshop and home.…
Postiglione v the Queen [1997] HCA 26
Citation 18 (Para 139)

…a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved’’ : R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [15], citing Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295.…
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Citation 19 (Para 130)

…In R v Engert (1995) 84A Crim R 67 Gleeson CJ cited Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 and stated at [68] that:…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 42)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hide [2025] NSWDC 440
Hearing dates:	28 August 2025
Date of orders:	3 October 2025
Decision date:	03 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Ryan DCJ
Decision:	See [156]–[160]
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – 3D-printed firearms – possession of unregistered firearms – possession of digital blueprints for the manufacture of firearms
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Arnold v R [2011] NSWCCA 150 Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 KG v R [2012] NSWCCA 10 La v R [2021] NSWCCA 136 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236 R v Cromarty [2004] NSWCCA 54 R v Engert (1995) 84A Crim R 67 R v Mack [2009] NSWCCA 216 R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219 R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381 R v Mezzadri [2011] NSWCCA 125 R v Quinlin [2021] NSWCCA 284 R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 Stojanovski v R [2013] NSWCCA 334
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Peter Hide (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms L O’Sullivan (solicitor-advocate) (Crown) Mr Barnes (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Maguire & McInerney (Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/00118866
Publication restriction:	Nil