Slocombe v Whittle - [2022] ACTMC 3

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Slocombe v Whittle
Citation:	[2022] ACTMC 3
Hearing Date:	18 February 2022
DecisionDate:	18 February 2022
Before:	Magistrate Theakston
Decision:	The offence of possession of prohibited firearms, while not authorised by licence or permit, contrary to s 42(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act 1996, is an offence that ‘relates to property’, and accordingly the Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to dispose of that charge, subject to the other requirements of s 375 of the Crimes Act 1900.
Catchwords: .	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Jurisdiction – Unauthorised possession or use of prohibited firearms
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 375, s 477 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (QLD) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 42, s 145 Human Rights Act2004 (ACT), s 22, s 30 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 190
Cases Cited:	Anic, Stylianou & Suleyman v R (1993) 68 A Crim R 313 Fares v Longmore [1998] ACTSC 133; 148 FLR 255 Joye v Beach Petroleum NL [1996] FCA 1552 Momcilovic v R [2011] HCA 34; 245 CLR 1 Police v Le Pavoux (unreported, Magistrates Court of the ACT, Magistrate Taylor, 11 March 2021) Project Blue Sky v ABA Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 R v Waterhouse (1911) 11 SR (NSW) 217 Shergold v Tanner [2002] HCA 19; 209 CLR 126 Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53; 201 CLR 35
Parties:	Leigh Slocombe (Informant) Joshua Whittle (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel K Sheridan (Informant) P Edmonds (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutors (Informant) Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number:	CC 7372 of 2021

MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Introduction

In the Territory, criminal offences can be divided into two main categories – indictable offences and summary offences. By default, the former are disposed of in the Supreme Court and the latter in the Magistrates Court. However, some indictable offences may also be disposed of summarily in the Magistrates Court, but only in the circumstances prescribed in the applicable procedural provision that extends the Magistrates Court’s criminal jurisdiction.

In this matter, a question has arisen about whether the Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to determine an offence of possess prohibited firearms. I have ruled that it does, and these are my reasons.

Background

The defendant is charged with possession of three prohibited firearms while not authorised by licence or permit, contrary to s 42(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). The maximum penalty for the offence is 14 years imprisonment. Relevantly, the offence provision reads:

42 Offence – unauthorised possession or use of prohibited firearms
(1) A person commits an offence if the person –
(a) possesses …
(i) …
(ii) 3 or more prohibited firearms, but less than 10 prohibited firearms; …
(iii) … and
(b) is not authorised by a licence or permit to possess … each of the prohibited firearms.

The charge particularises the prohibited firearms as three gel…

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 Slocombe v Whittle

Details

AGLC: Slocombe v Whittle [2022] ACTMC 3
Case: [2022] ACTMC 3
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Slocombe v Whittle involved a dispute regarding the possession of prohibited firearms without proper authorisation. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Slocombe, was charged with possessing prohibited firearms without the required licence or permit, under section 42(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act 1996. The key legal issue before the court was whether the offence of possessing prohibited firearms without authorisation constituted an offence that ‘related to property’. If it did, the Magistrates Court had the jurisdiction to dispose of that charge under section 375 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The court considered whether the nature of the offence aligned with the definition of an offence that ‘related to property’. The court concluded that the offence of possessing prohibited firearms without authorisation indeed related to property, as the firearms themselves were property. The court reasoned that the possession of firearms, even if not authorised, implicated issues of property rights and control. Therefore, the Magistrates Court had the jurisdiction to handle this charge, provided it met the other criteria set out in section 375 of the Crimes Act 1900.

Based on the reasoning that the offence related to property, the court held that the Magistrates Court had the requisite jurisdiction to deal with the charge. The court did not find it necessary to address other potential jurisdictional issues that might arise under the Crimes Act 1900. The outcome confirmed that the Magistrates Court could proceed with the case against Slocombe, provided all other jurisdictional requirements were satisfied.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offence of possession of prohibited firearms, while not authorised by licence or permit, contrary to s 42(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act 1996, is an offence that ‘relates to property’, and accordingly the Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to dispose of that charge, subject to the other requirements of s 375 of the Crimes Act 1900.

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.