R v Tillman - [2025] NSWDC 127

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tillman [2025] NSWDC 127
Hearing dates: 11 April 2025
Date of orders: 11 April 2025
Decision date: 11 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs [94]–[97]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – firearms offences – significance of good character – whether it is material that late plea of guilty delayed because of earlier legal advice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25D
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 51D

Cases Cited:
Athos v R (2013) 83 NSWLR 224
Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81
Gurin v R [2022] NSWCCA 193
Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
R v Quatami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
Taylorv R [2018] NSWCCA 50

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Mr Troy Tillman (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Chegwidden (Offender)
S Foggo (solicitor advocate) (Crown)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/00345985
Publication restriction: Nil.

Ex TEMPORE REMARKS ON SENTENCE

(Revised from the transcript)

Background

On 17 March 2025 Mr Troy Tillman was arraigned on a charge, contrary to s 51D(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), that on 30 October 2023, at Marulan, he possessed more than three unregistered firearms (being four firearms) that were not registered and that one of them (a 22 Long Rifle calibre Gevarm model A6 self-loading rifle) was a prohibited firearm, when he was not authorised (by license or permit) to possess the firearms. On the same day, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The Crown accepted this plea in full satisfaction of his liability.
Mr Tillman, who I will henceforth refer to as to the offender, is now before the Court for sentencing. He adhered to his guilty plea at today’s sentencing hearing.
The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment. The standard non-parole period is 10 years’ imprisonment.
What sets apart the aggravated form of the offence under s 51D(2) from the offence under s 51D(1) of the Firearms Act, is that any one of the three or more unregistered firearms in his possession were a pistol or ‘prohibited firearm’.

The facts

These were the subject of written agreement, signed by the offender, and his lawyer, on 17 March 2025.
In the lead up to the offending, the offender had been in a relationship with Ms Kylie Butcher and her son Jacob. Ms Butcher resided at premises in Goulburn Street, Marulan (the ‘Marulan premises’) and the offender resided with them. The offender stored his belongings in an unregistered caravan parked on the front lawn of the Marulan premises. Occasionally, he slept in that caravan.
At approximately 6pm on 30 October 2023, police received a report from Ms Butcher of a domestic violence incident at the Marulan premises. Police attended those premises and in the course of that attendance, Ms Butcher informed police that the offender had multiple unregistered firearms in the caravan which she had observed…

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 Tillman

Details

AGLC: R v Tillman [2025] NSWDC 127
Case: [2025] NSWDC 127
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tillman involved the defendant, Tillman, who was charged with various firearms offences. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Tillman, taking into account his plea of guilty and the delay in entering that plea due to earlier legal advice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the sentencing principles applicable to firearms offences and the relevance of the defendant's good character and the circumstances surrounding his plea of guilty. The court had to determine whether the delay in Tillman's plea of guilty, which was attributed to earlier legal advice, should be considered a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to firearms offences, considering the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence. It also assessed the importance of the defendant's good character, which was a mitigating factor. The court considered whether the delay in Tillman's plea of guilty, caused by his earlier legal advice, should be taken into account as a mitigating factor. The court needed to balance the delay in the plea against the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the principles of justice.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised that the delay in Tillman's plea of guilty was due to his earlier legal advice, which he had relied upon in good faith. The court determined that this delay could be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing. However, the court also emphasised the seriousness of the firearms offences and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the court decided that the mitigating factor of the delay in the plea should be balanced against the aggravating factors of the offences. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and just.

The court made specific orders regarding the sentence to be imposed on Tillman. These orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence, the length of which was determined by considering all relevant factors. The court also ordered that certain conditions be attached to Tillman's sentence, such as supervision and rehabilitation programs. These orders aimed to ensure that Tillman would be adequately punished for his crimes while also providing opportunities for his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [94]–[97]

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 Tillman [2025] NSWDC 127
Hearing dates:	11 April 2025
Date of orders:	11 April 2025
Decision date:	11 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs [94]–[97]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – firearms offences – significance of good character – whether it is material that late plea of guilty delayed because of earlier legal advice
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 25D Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 51D
Cases Cited:	Athos v R (2013) 83 NSWLR 224 Doyle v R [2022] NSWCCA 81 Gurin v R [2022] NSWCCA 193 Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216 R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219 R v Quatami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 Taylorv R [2018] NSWCCA 50
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Mr Troy Tillman (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: G Chegwidden (Offender) S Foggo (solicitor advocate) (Crown) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/00345985
Publication restriction:	Nil.