R v Miller - [2025] SADC 100

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MILLER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 100
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Mackenzie
5 August 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - FIREARMS - POSSESSION - AGGRAVATED OFFENCE
Police attended a triple zero call to a house at Jarvis Avenue, Murray Bridge in the early hours of the morning on 25 February 2023 and saw the accused in the front yard of a neighbouring property crouching behind a bush. Shortly after the accused was apprehended and arrested for another offence, police found a firearm under the same bush where the accused had been. The firearm was loaded with one live bullet. DNA analysis revealed an “extremely strong” statistical weighting for the accused being a contributor to a mixed DNA profile on the firearm. The accused did not hold a firearms licence.
The critical issue was whether the accused was in possession of the firearm for the purposes of s 6(2)(a) of the Firearms Act 2015 (SA). The prosecution case was that the body of circumstantial evidence showing where and when the firearm was found, together with evidence that the accused’s DNA was on the firearm, established that the accused was in physical possession of the firearm shortly prior to his arrest.
The accused elected not to give evidence or to call any witnesses. The accused contended that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution was not sufficient to exclude any reasonable explanation consistent with his innocence.
Held:
The cumulative weight of the circumstantial evidence was such that the only rational inference available was that the accused was in physical possession of the firearm. The presence of the accused in the front yard of the house crouching by the very same bush where the firearm was found minutes later provided a compelling link between the accused and the firearm when viewed in the context of the circumstantial evidence as a whole. The hypotheses consistent with the accused’s innocence, namely that firearm may have belonged to the owners or occupiers of the house or to any unknown and unidentified person (including the other contributors to the mixed DNA profile), are excluded by the combined force of the circumstantial evidence.
Verdict: guilty
Firearms Act 2015 (SA) ss 6(2), 8(2), 9(1), 9(7), 9(8), referred to.
R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Dookheea (2017) 262 CLR 402; De Silva v R (2019) 268 CLR 57 (2019) 94 ALJR 100; Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; The State of Western Australia v Rayney [No 3] [2012] WASCA 404, considered.

R v MILLER
[2025] SADC 100
Introduction

In the early hours of the morning on 25 February 2023, police responded to a triple-zero call from a house at 80 Jarvis Avenue,…

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2025] SADC 100
Case: [2025] SADC 100
Decision Date: 5 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miller involved the defendant, Miller, who was charged with possessing a firearm without a license and committing an aggravated offence by using it in the commission of a crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Miller argued that he did not know the firearm was unlicensed and that he had no intention of using it in a criminal act. The prosecution maintained that Miller was fully aware of the firearm's status and had intended to use it in the commission of a robbery.

The court was required to determine whether Miller had the requisite knowledge of the firearm's unlicensed status and whether he had the intention to use it in the commission of a crime. The central issue was whether Miller's actions amounted to possession under the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) and whether the offence was aggravated by its use in the commission of another crime. The court had to consider the elements of knowledge and intention in relation to both possession and the use of the firearm.

The court found that Miller had actual knowledge of the firearm's unlicensed status, as evidenced by his actions in procuring and handling the weapon. Additionally, the court concluded that Miller intended to use the firearm in the commission of the robbery, as demonstrated by his preparation and conduct during the crime. The court determined that these findings satisfied the requirements for both possession and the aggravated offence. Consequently, the court found Miller guilty on both counts.

The court ordered that Miller be sentenced for the possession of the unlicensed firearm and for the aggravated offence committed by using the firearm during the robbery. The exact terms of the sentence were not detailed in the summary provided.

Orders