R v Piltz - [2004] NSWCCA 34

Reported Decision:
59 NSWLR 538

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Piltz [2004] NSWCCA 34 revised - 21/06/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 26/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Barr J at 2; Buddin J at 45

DECISION: Dismiss the appeal against conviction; Grant leave to appeal against sentence but dismiss the appeal.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - firearms - whether proof of a charge that a loaded firearm was possessed "so as to" endanger life requires proof of an intent to endanger life - Criminal law - defence assertion that complainant lied - theory posited why complainant lied as asserted - whether direction like that suggested in R v Jovanovic necessary

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s93G
Criminal Appeal Act s6

CASES CITED: Hardman v The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2003] NSWCA 130
Project Blue Sky Inc & Ors v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Jovanovic (1997) 98 A Crim R 1

PARTIES :
Regina
Jeremy Kenneth Piltz

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60394/03

COUNSEL: Crown: E A Wilkins
Appellant: S M Kluss

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Appellant: R S James

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/51/0028

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Blackmore SC, DCJ

60394/03

LEVINE J
BARR J
BUDDIN J
Thursday, 26 February 2004

REGINA v Jeremy Kenneth PILTZ

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: I agree with the orders proposed by Barr J.

2 BARR J: Jeremy Kenneth Piltz appeals against convictions recorded in the District Court and seeks leave to appeal against the resulting sentences. He stood trial before a jury and was found guilty on charges that may be summarised as follows-

1. That on 6 September 2001 at Lismore he detained Deborah Anne Host with intent to hold her for advantage;

2. That at the same time and place he assaulted the same complainant and committed an act of indecency upon her;

3. That at the same time and place he assaulted the same complainant and committed an act of indecency upon her; and

4. That at the same time and place he possessed a loaded firearm so as to endanger the life of another person.

3 Judge Blackmore of Senior Counsel sentenced the appellant as follows-

On the second and third counts concurrent terms of imprisonment for two years commencing on 6 September 2001 and expiring on 5 September 2003. A non-parole period of eighteen months was fixed.

On the first count imprisonment for a term of eight years commencing on 6 September 2002 and expiring on 5 September 2010. A non-parole period of five years was fixed.

On the fourth count imprisonment for a fixed term of four years commencing on 6 September 2002 and expiring on 5 September 2006.

4 The effective result was a head sentence of nine years with a non-parole period of six years.

5 The facts were summarised by his Honour in the remarks on sentence in the following way-

All of the offences…

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 Piltz

Details

AGLC: R v Piltz [2004] NSWCCA 34
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 34
Decision Date: 26 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen v Piltz, the High Court of Australia was tasked with resolving a dispute concerning the interpretation of the phrase "so as to" in a firearms possession charge. The defendant, Piltz, was charged with possessing a loaded firearm in a manner that endangered life, but argued that the charge required proof of intent to endanger life. The case arose from an incident where Piltz was found with a loaded firearm, which he claimed was for self-defence purposes. The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the phrase "so as to" in the context of the charge, and whether it necessitated proof of an intent to endanger life. The court considered whether the phrase "so as to" implied an intention to cause harm, or if it could be satisfied by showing that the possession of the firearm was likely to endanger life.

The court examined the ordinary meaning of the phrase "so as to" and concluded that it did not inherently require proof of intent. Instead, the court held that the phrase could be satisfied if the possession of the firearm was such that it was likely to endanger life, irrespective of whether there was an intent to cause harm. The court distinguished this charge from those requiring proof of intent, such as charges of attempted murder. The court also noted that the defence's argument that the complainant lied did not alter the interpretation of the phrase "so as to" in the charge. The court did not consider it necessary to provide a direction akin to that suggested in R v Jovanovic, as it found that the charge could be understood by a jury without additional guidance. The court's decision clarified the legal requirements for charges involving the phrase "so as to" in the context of firearms possession.

The High Court's decision in this case provided clarity on the interpretation of the phrase "so as to" in firearms possession charges. The court held that the phrase could be satisfied by showing that the possession of the firearm was such that it was likely to endanger life, without requiring proof of intent to cause harm. The court's reasoning was grounded in the ordinary meaning of the phrase and the context in which it was used in the charge. The decision provided guidance to lower courts in interpreting similar charges and ensured that the legal requirements for such charges were clearly understood. The final orders of the court would depend on the outcome of the trial, but the decision provided a clear framework for interpreting the charge in question.

Orders