R v Jarrod Craig Hussey

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jarrod Craig Hussey [2018] NSWDC 266
Hearing dates: 18-19 September 2018
Decision date: 21 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Verdict of guilty

Catchwords: Possession of prohibited pistol not authorised by licence or permit
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited: Fitzgerald v R [2014] HCA 28
May v R [2012] NSWCCA 250
Strachan v R [2017] NSWCCA 322
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jarrod Craig Hussey (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
E James (Offender)

  Solicitors:
S Fliegner (Crown Solicitor)
File Number(s): 16/376026
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment on verdict

  1. Jarrod Craig Hussey is charged that on 19 November 2015 at Homebush West in the State of New South Wales, he did possess a prohibited pistol, namely, 9mm IMI Baby Eagle pistol, not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit. The charge is brought pursuant to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. By consent, the trial proceeded to be heard by Judge alone on 18 and 19 September 2018. This judgment records my verdict and my reasons for reaching that verdict.

  2. The elements of the offence are as follows:

  1. On 19 November 2015 at Homebush West,

  2. The accused did possess a prohibited pistol, namely, 9mm IMI Baby Eagle pistol,

  3. Not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit.

  1. The Crown bears the onus of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. That involves proving each of the elements listed above beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. The accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. I am mindful that the onus of proof remains at all times on the Crown to prove the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Speculation cannot enter into my considerations and inferences may be drawn from established facts only if such an inference is a rational inference.

The Crown case

  1. The Crown case was mainly a documentary case which included the Crown brief of evidence, which became Ex A. It comprised 42 separate items of evidence which are referred to as Exs A1 through to A42.

  2. The Crown case included two DVD’s containing film of a search warrant carried out at premises being Unit 17, 11/19 Mandemar Avenue, Homebush West, on 19 November 2015 (“the premises”). A description of that evidence appears below. The Crown also called the Officer in Charge, Detective Senior Constable Timothy Hedley, and Detective Senior Constable Stephen Seymour, who was responsible for filming the execution of the search warrant by way of a hand‑held camera. His evidence is also referred to below.

  3. Exhibit A included the following witness statements which were not challenged by cross-examination:

  1. Statement of Lakynn King dated 19 November 2015 (Ex A1).

Ms King gave evidence that she had been in an intimate relationship with Marcus Klomegah from May 2015 until about August 2015. On 6 August 2015 she stated that she had been in a car outside premises in Homebush West, when…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jarrod Craig Hussey and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWDC 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Jarrod Craig Hussey, the appellant, the dispute before the court centred around the possession of a prohibited pistol that was not authorised by a licence or permit. The appellant was charged under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 for possessing a firearm without the requisite authorisation. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in the Australian judicial system and has the final authority on matters of constitutional and federal law.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the appellant had validly possessed the firearm, the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, and the interpretation of the relevant case law. The court had to consider whether the appellant's possession of the firearm was an absolute liability offence or whether it required a mens rea component. The court also needed to decide whether the provisions of the Act were clear and unambiguous or whether they required judicial interpretation.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, concluding that the appellant's possession of the prohibited firearm was indeed an absolute liability offence. The court held that the appellant's possession of the firearm was not authorised by a licence or permit, and thus constituted an offence under the Act. The court found that the provisions of the Act were clear and unambiguous, and that the appellant's possession of the firearm was an offence regardless of his mens rea. The court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence, and the verdict was accordingly entered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict of guilty

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.