R v Lynch - [2024] NSWDC 168

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 168
Hearing dates: 2 May 2024
Date of orders: 10 May 2024
Decision date: 10 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years imprisonment

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Discharge firearm in manner dangerous – possess prohibited pistol – supply pistol – supply firearm – contravene Firearms Prohibition Order
SENTENCING – Multiple firearm offences – Aggravating factors – Use of weapon – Without regard for public safety – Mitigating factors – Late plea of guilty – General deterrence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 92

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Samuel Lynch (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Franklin (Crown)
Mr P Davies (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Pollack Greening & Hampshire (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/198961

JUDGMENT

Overview

On 10 July 2021 there was a serious gun-related incident in South Grafton wherein a man, Adam Pacey (“Mr Pacey”) was knocked unconscious after the offender’s elbow connected with his head. Very shortly after that, a pistol in the possession of the offender was discharged on two separate occasions, injuring two teenage boys.
As a direct consequence of that event, the offender was arrested and charged with a number of offences.
Ultimately he pleaded guilty to most of those charges but defended the two most serious, and after a 15-day trial before me and a jury at the Grafton District Court commencing on 29 January 2024, the jury acquitted the offender of those two charges, being that he assaulted Mr Pacey (the father of the first boy who was shot, Kayne Pacey) and that he deliberately shot Kayne Pacey with the intention of causing him grievous bodily harm.
Consistent with the jury's verdict, and by reference to the way the case was run before the jury, the jury must have accepted, in relation to the alleged assault of Mr Pacey, his movement in hitting the victim was an involuntary act, being a reflex reaction.
As far as the firearm charge was concerned, it is clear enough that the jury was not satisfied that the Crown had disproved beyond reasonable doubt that the discharge of the firearm was a voluntary act as opposed to being caused by an unknown and unidentified person hitting the offender’s hand at a time when the gun was cocked, loaded, and pointed towards the victim thus causing the gun to discharge.

The offences

There are, before me for sentence, the following charges mostly arising out of the same incident, all of which the offender has pleaded guilty to. They are:

Trial indictment

Count

Offence

Maximum Penalty

Standard non-parole period

3

s 93G(1)(c) Crimes Act 1900

Discharge firearm in manner dangerous

10 years

4

s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996

Possess prohibited pistol

14 years

Count	Offence	Maximum Penalty	Standard non-parole period
3	s 93G(1)(c) Crimes Act 1900 Discharge firearm in manner dangerous	10 years
4	s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996 Possess prohibited pistol	14 years

Sentence indictment

Count

Offence

Maximum Penalty

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 Lynch

Details

AGLC: R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 168
Case: [2024] NSWDC 168
Decision Date: 10 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Lynch, the defendant was found guilty of multiple firearm offences, including discharging a firearm in a dangerous manner, possessing a prohibited pistol, supplying a pistol, and supplying a firearm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant was also found to be in contravention of a Firearms Prohibition Order. The primary issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for these offences and the consideration of both aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sentence.

The court identified several aggravating factors in the case. The defendant had used a weapon without regard for public safety, which demonstrated a high degree of culpability. Additionally, the offences were committed in the context of a Firearms Prohibition Order, highlighting a deliberate breach of legal restrictions designed to protect public safety. The court also noted the seriousness of the offences, which involved multiple breaches of firearms laws and the potential for significant harm to the community. On the other hand, the defendant pleaded guilty at a late stage, which was considered a mitigating factor. The court acknowledged the importance of general deterrence in cases involving firearms offences, given the potential for serious harm.

After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was an aggregate term of 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the importance of protecting the community from the risks associated with firearms offences. The court concluded that this sentence was necessary to achieve these objectives while also taking into account the mitigating factor of the late plea of guilty.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years imprisonment

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 Lynch [2024] NSWDC 168
Hearing dates:	2 May 2024
Date of orders:	10 May 2024
Decision date:	10 May 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years imprisonment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Discharge firearm in manner dangerous – possess prohibited pistol – supply pistol – supply firearm – contravene Firearms Prohibition Order SENTENCING – Multiple firearm offences – Aggravating factors – Use of weapon – Without regard for public safety – Mitigating factors – Late plea of guilty – General deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 92
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Samuel Lynch (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Franklin (Crown) Mr P Davies (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Pollack Greening & Hampshire (Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/198961