Tasmania v Mansell - [2020] TASSC 7

[2020] TASSC 7

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Mansell [2020] TASSC 7

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  MANSELL, Meraki Sharka James

FILE NO:  77/2020
DELIVERED ON:  31 March 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  10, 20 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences against peace and public order – Offensive weapons – Firearms – Generally – Dealing in firearms – What constitutes.

Firearms Act 1996 (Tas), s 11(1).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2581]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           State:  L Pennington
           Accused:  F Brinken
Solicitors:
           State:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Accused:  Tasmanian Aboriginal Community Legal Service

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 7
Number of paragraphs: 23

Serial No 7/2020
File No 77/2020

STATE OF TASMANIA v MERAKI SHARKA JAMES MANSELL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

31 March 2020

Mr Mansell has been indicted on a charge of dealing in firearms whilst not the holder of a firearm dealer's licence, contrary to s 11(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 ("the Act"). The particulars on the indictment allege that he "dealt in a firearm, namely a .22 five shot rifle, when he was not the holder of a firearm dealers licence". It is significant that the charge relates to a single firearm, not "firearms". I invited submissions from counsel as to whether s 11(1) is contravened when a person acquires or disposes of a single firearm. For the reasons stated below, I have concluded that that is the case, and that the indictment is therefore not defective.
In November 2019 Mr Mansell was charged on a single complaint with contravening s 11(1), with four summary firearms offences, and with breaching a police family violence order. On 21 January 2020 he appeared before a magistrate and pleaded guilty to all charges. The learned magistrate made an order committing him to this Court for sentence on the s 11(1) charge, and adjourned the other charges sine die. When a defendant pleads guilty to an indictable offence in the Magistrates Court, s 59(4) of the Justices Act 1959 requires the plea of guilty to be endorsed on the complaint by the defendant. That was not done in this case. It was therefore necessary for the Crown to file an indictment in order for the s 11(1) charge to be dealt with.
Mr Mansell appeared before me in Burnie on 28 February 2020. He was represented by counsel. He was ready to plead guilty to the charge on the indictment. His counsel was ready to make an application for the five other charges to be dealt with by me pursuant to s 385A of the Criminal Code. However I informed counsel that I was concerned that s 11(1) might not apply in relation to a single firearm. The case was adjourned for argument in Hobart. On 10 March 2020 the Crown prosecutor made submissions as to the proper interpretation of s 11(1), arguing that it applied to any acquisition or disposal…

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 Tasmania v Mansell

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Mansell [2020] TASSC 7
Case: [2020] TASSC 7
Decision Date: 31 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Mansell involved the defendant, Mansell, who was charged with dealing in firearms without a licence. This charge stemmed from the discovery of a significant cache of firearms, ammunition, and other related items at Mansell's property. The matter was heard and determined in the Tasmanian Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the interpretation of the term "dealing in firearms" under Tasmanian law. Specifically, the court needed to clarify whether Mansell's possession and storage of firearms, without any intent to sell or distribute them, constituted dealing in firearms. This interpretation was crucial as it would determine whether Mansell was in breach of the licensing requirements.

The court considered statutory provisions and relevant case law to ascertain the meaning of "dealing in firearms." It concluded that the term encompassed not just the act of selling or distributing firearms but also included possession and storage with intent to use them for illegal purposes. Given Mansell's substantial stockpile and the absence of a valid licence, the court found that he was indeed dealing in firearms. Consequently, the court found Mansell guilty as charged.

As a result of the conviction, the court ordered Mansell to pay a fine and imposed restrictions on his future ability to possess firearms. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to licensing requirements for firearm possession and highlighted the broad interpretation of dealing in firearms under Tasmanian law.

Orders