R v Mikac - [2018] ACTSC 269

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mikac
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 269
Hearing Dates:	30 July 2018, 3 August 2018, 24 September 2018
DecisionDate:	24 September 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The offender is sentenced as follows: Count 1: 22 months’ imprisonment; Count 2: eight months’ imprisonment; Count 3: $750.00 fine; Count 4: four months’ imprisonment; Count 5: two months’ imprisonment. The sentences are to be served by way of intensive correction in the community
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – firearms offences – unauthorised possession of prohibited firearms – unauthorised possession of firearms – unauthorised possession of ammunition – failure to properly store a prohibited firearm – failure to properly store a firearm – early pleas of guilty – no criminal history – good prospects of rehabilitation – impact of incarceration on offender’s family – intensive correction order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 35, 36 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) ss 42(a)(ii), 43(1)(a)(iii), 249(1), 180(1)(a)(i), 180(1)(a)(ii)
Cases Cited:	R v Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331 R v Mitchell [2016] ACTSC 85
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Nikolas Mikac (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Mr K Ginges (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aulich (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 80 of 2018

Murrell CJ:

The offender pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity to the following offences against the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) committed on 19 March 2018:

(a)Count 1: Unauthorised possession of six firearms (modified semi-automatic rifle, sawn-off double barrel shotgun, .45 calibre semi-automatic pistol, STAR 9 mm handgun, .22 calibre revolver, revolver of unknown make and model)—maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment: s 42(a)(ii);
(b)Count 2: Unauthorised possession of two firearms (.22 calibre self-loading, .357 Magnum revolver)—maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment: s 43(1)(a)(iii);
(c)Count 3: Unauthorised possession of ammunition (119 rounds of assorted ammunition)—maximum penalty $1500.00: s 249(1);
(d)Count 4: Failure to properly store a prohibited firearm (the six firearms forming the subject of Count 1)—maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment: s 180(1)(a)(i);
(e)Count 5: Failure to properly store a firearm (the two firearms forming the subject of Count 2)—maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment: s 180(1)(a)(ii).

Facts

On 19 March 2018, the police executed search warrants at the offender’s address.

The offender’s Mitsubishi truck (his work vehicle) was parked in the driveway. The police located a black duffel bag on the front passenger seat. The bag contained four prohibited firearms, two other firearms and rounds of assorted ammunition (some loose and some housed in magazines).

In a vehicle located in a shed, the police located a blue cooler bag containing two further prohibited firearms and a large amount of assorted ammunition.

There was no evidence before the Court regarding the relative dangerousness of the various firearms, whether they were in working order or whether the ammunition found in the offender’s possession fitted the firearms that were found.

The prosecutor accepted that the offender was polite and cooperative during the search and in…

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 Mikac

Details

AGLC: R v Mikac [2018] ACTSC 269
Case: [2018] ACTSC 269
Decision Date: 24 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mikac involved an individual charged with multiple firearms offences. The defendant pleaded guilty to five charges: unauthorised possession of a prohibited firearm, unauthorised possession of a firearm, unauthorised possession of ammunition, and failure to properly store both a prohibited firearm and a firearm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant had no prior criminal history and had entered into early pleas of guilty, which were considered in sentencing.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's plea of guilty, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact of incarceration on the defendant's family and the potential for rehabilitation through a community-based sentence. The court examined the statutory guidelines and case law on sentencing for firearms offences and the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the seriousness of the firearms offences but also recognised the defendant's early guilty plea and lack of criminal history. The court placed significant weight on the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation and the potential for an intensive correction order to address the underlying issues leading to the offending behaviour. The court concluded that the defendant's family would suffer disproportionately if the defendant was incarcerated, and this factor was taken into account in determining the sentence. The court ultimately decided that the most appropriate sentence was an intensive correction order, which would allow the defendant to remain in the community while addressing the offending behaviour through structured rehabilitation programs.

The final orders of the court were as follows: the defendant was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment for count 1, to be served by way of an intensive correction order; eight months’ imprisonment for count 2, to be served by way of an intensive correction order; a $750.00 fine for count 3; four months’ imprisonment for count 4, to be served by way of an intensive correction order; and two months’ imprisonment for count 5, to be served by way of an intensive correction order. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently through the intensive correction program.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offender is sentenced as follows:

Count 1: 22 months’ imprisonment;

Count 2: eight months’ imprisonment;

Count 3: $750.00 fine;

Count 4: four months’ imprisonment;

Count 5: two months’ imprisonment.

The sentences are to be served by way of intensive correction in the community

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.