R v Lloyd - [2022] SADC 89

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LLOYD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 89
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Heffernan
8 August 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - OFFENSIVE WEAPONS - FIREARMS - POSSESSION
The accused was arrested at a premises in Elizabeth Vale. Inside a vehicle in the rear yard of the premises was his Nike bum bag which contained a loaded sawn off shotgun and ammunition. A DNA profile matching the accused's was found on the shotgun. The accused's underpants, wallet and other items were also in the bum bag. His diary was found on the back seat of the vehicle. A Coke can on which a DNA profile matching the accused's was found in the centre console of the vehicle. Inside the premises, the keys to the vehicle were located in a bedroom near where the accused was first seen by police. Next to the keys was a phone attached to a battery charger. The accused's Department for Correctional Services number and his nickname were written on the battery charger.
Verdict: Guilty.
Firearms Act 2015 (SA) ss 6(2)(a) and 9(1), referred to.
R v Fuller; R v Zazzaro [2012] SASCFC 101; R v Marafioti (2014) 118 SASR 511; Fitzgerald v The Queen (2014) 311 ALR 158, considered.

R v LLOYD
[2022] SADC 89
Criminal Jurisdiction

The accused is charged with one count of aggravated possession of a firearm without a licence contrary to s 9(1) of the Firearms Act 2015.
The charge is particularised as follows:
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Possessing a Firearm Without a Licence (Section 9(1) of the Firearms Act, 2015).
Particulars of Offence
Aaron Elias Lloyd on or about the 1^st day of March 2020 at Elizabeth Vale, possessed a prescribed firearm, namely a Winchester brand, 12 gauge sawn off shotgun, without holding a firearms licence authorising possession of that firearm.
It is further alleged that the firearm was loaded or in the immediate vicinity of ammunition suitable for use in the firearm.
I find the accused guilty of that offence as charged.
These are my reasons for doing so.
Background
In March 2020, police attended at a house in Elizabeth Vale. The accused was present, along with three other people. A Holden sedan was parked in the rear yard of the house. Inside the car was a bag which contained a loaded, sawn off, Winchester single barrel shot gun. This bag was described in the evidence as both a black bag and a bum bag. I have used the term bum bag to distinguish it from a second black bag referred to as the Lenovo backpack. In the bum bag, police found eight loose unfired shot gun cartridges. The prosecution alleges that there are sufficient evidentiary links between the accused and the shot gun and other items in the car to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was in possession of the shot gun.

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 Lloyd

Details

AGLC: R v Lloyd [2022] SADC 89
Case: [2022] SADC 89
Decision Date: 8 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Lloyd, the dispute involved the conviction of the defendant, Lloyd, for the possession of an offensive weapon, specifically a firearm, under Australian law. The case was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which held jurisdiction over the matter. The central issue was whether the prosecution had successfully demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Lloyd possessed a firearm in a public place without lawful excuse or authority.

The court was tasked with determining the validity of Lloyd's defence, which contested the possession of the weapon, and assessing the credibility of the evidence provided by the prosecution. The central legal issue was the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions concerning the possession of offensive weapons, and whether Lloyd's actions constituted an offence under the applicable legislation. The court had to consider whether the prosecution had discharged the onus of proving the elements of the offence, particularly the element of possession.

The court concluded that the prosecution had met its burden of proof. It found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Lloyd had possession of the firearm, and that he did not have a lawful excuse or authority for possessing the weapon in a public place. The court carefully considered the credibility of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the weapon. The reasoning was grounded in the statutory interpretation of the relevant provisions and the applicable legal principles. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, finding Lloyd guilty of the offence of possessing an offensive weapon. The final orders of the court included a determination on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, reflecting the seriousness of the offence.

Orders