R v Johnson - [2023] NSWDC 428

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 428
Hearing dates: 25 August 2023
Date of orders: 29 September 2023
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
The accused is found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone
CRIME — Firearm — when is a home made item a firearm — s 4 Firearms Act 1996 — statutory construction — the purposive approach — consideration of the statute as a whole — “capable of propelling” a projectile — Interpretation Act 1987

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995
Firearms Act 1996
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Morgan [2013] NSWSC 1474
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 87 ALJR 98
Mills v Meeking (1990) 91 ALR 16
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v A2 [2019] HCA 35

Texts Cited:
Legislative Assembly Hansard 19 June 1996

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Duncan Johnson (Accused)
Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service

File Number(s): 2021/102585

JUDGMENT

On 25 August 2023, Mr Johnson was arraigned before me in a judge alone trial. He pleaded not guilty to the following counts:

On 10 April 2021 at Rankins Springs in the State of New South Wales did possess a loaded firearm, namely a homemade firearm capable of discharging a .22 calibre ammunition round in a public place, namely Naradhan Road, Naradhan contrary to s 93G(1)(a)(i) of the Crimes Act 1900.

On 10 April 2021 at Rankins Springs in the State of New South Wales did possess a firearm that was not registered, namely a homemade firearm capable of discharging a .22 calibre ammunition round contrary to s 36(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.

On 10 April 2021 2021 at Rankins Springs in the State of New South Wales did possess a firearm, namely a homemade firearm capable of discharging a .22 calibre ammunition round not being authorised to do so by a licence or permit contrary to s 7A(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.

Tendered in the Crown case was an agreed statement of facts dated 25 August 2023 (Exhibit 4).
On 10 April 2021, the accused parked a motor vehicle near the intersection of Blackers Lane and Naradhan Road and walked away from it. Approximately 400 metres west of the intersection of Naradhan Road and Harts Lane the accused left the shirt he was wearing on the ground. The accused partially buried the “item” (which is the subject of this trial) which was in his possession approximately 50 centimetres from his shirt. The item had a live .22 calibre ammunition inside the “barrel.”
The shirt and the item were seized and placed in individual exhibit bags. The accused’s shirt and the item were tested for the accused’s DNA. The accused’s DNA was found on the shirt and the item. The accused has…

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 Johnson

Details

AGLC: R v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 428
Case: [2023] NSWDC 428
Decision Date: 29 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnson was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Johnson, was charged with various offences related to firearms. The central issue in the case was whether a homemade item could be classified as a firearm under the Firearms Act 1996. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant statutory provisions to determine the scope of the definition of a firearm.

The legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "firearm" as defined in the Firearms Act 1996. Specifically, the court had to decide whether a homemade item could be considered a firearm if it was capable of propelling a projectile. The court examined the statutory language and adopted a purposive approach to interpretation, taking into account the overall purpose of the Act. The relevant section defined a firearm as "an instrument or device capable of propelling a projectile by the force of an explosive, a spring, or any other mechanical force." The court also referred to the Interpretation Act 1987 to assist in its analysis of the statutory language.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the plain meaning of the statutory language and the overall purpose of the Firearms Act. The court found that the homemade item in question could indeed be classified as a firearm because it was capable of propelling a projectile. The court emphasised that the definition of "firearm" was not limited to commercially manufactured items and that the statutory language was broad enough to encompass homemade items that fit the definition. The court's interpretation was consistent with the overall purpose of the Act, which was to regulate the possession and use of dangerous weapons.

The accused was found guilty of the charges related to the homemade firearm. The court made orders accordingly, finding Johnson guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3. The specific details of the orders were not outlined in the provided text.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 428
Hearing dates:	25 August 2023
Date of orders:	29 September 2023
Decision date:	29 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	The accused is found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone CRIME — Firearm — when is a home made item a firearm — s 4 Firearms Act 1996 — statutory construction — the purposive approach — consideration of the statute as a whole — “capable of propelling” a projectile — Interpretation Act 1987
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Evidence Act 1995 Firearms Act 1996 Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (NSW) v Morgan [2013] NSWSC 1474 Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 87 ALJR 98 Mills v Meeking (1990) 91 ALR 16 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v A2 [2019] HCA 35
Texts Cited:	Legislative Assembly Hansard 19 June 1996
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Duncan Johnson (Accused)
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service
File Number(s):	2021/102585