Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Taylor

Tasmania v Taylor

Case [2021] TASSC 39 25 August 2021

Criminal Liability

Firearms – Offences

Trafficking in firearms

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2021] TASSC 39

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Taylor [2021] TASSC 39

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  TAYLOR, Lachlan

FILE NO:  981/2020
DELIVERED ON:  25 August 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:   21 July, 6 August, 18 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J
CATCHWORDS:

Firearms – Offences – Firearms Act 1996 (Tas) – Trafficking in firearms contrary to s 110A – Section 110A provides for a rebuttable presumption as to trafficking.
Firearms Act1996 (Tas), s 110A.

Macquarie Bank Ltd v Fociri Pty Ltd (1992) 27 NSWLR 203; The Queen v Billick (1984) 36 SASR 321; Director of Public Prosecutions (Acting) v Eather [2016] TASCCA 2, considered
Aust Dig Firearms [1043]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Defendant:  M Sheehy
             The State:  A Chisholm
Solicitors:
             Defendant:  Tasmanian Legal Aid
             The State:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 39
Number of paragraphs: 51

Serial No 39/2021
File No 981/2020

STATE OF TASMANIA v LACHLAN TAYLOR

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

25 August 2021

The defendant has pleaded guilty and is due for sentence in relation to a number of summary and related indictable offences, including an indictable offence of unlawful trafficking in firearms contrary to s 110A(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. A question of statutory interpretation arises as to whether the defendant has been correctly charged and can be sentenced for trafficking in firearms.
On 8 October 2020 police officers searched the defendant's home at Turners Beach. He was 20 years of age and living with his family. Police officers found various items including one .177 air rifle in the garage and a homemade .22 pistol in his car.
The only further information advanced by the State is that provided by the defendant during an interview with police that same day.
The uncontroverted facts based on his admissions are as follows. About five days before, the defendant acquired the .22 pistol from a male at Riana, he did not identify that person. It cost him two packets of cigarettes. He put it in a plastic case and hid it in the centre console of his car. At an unknown time he purchased the .177 air rifle for $50 from a person. He put it in a bag and drove it to a location past Bakers Beach, loaded it with a pellet and tried to shoot with it but it did not work. He took it home and wrapped it in a towel to disguise it before hiding it in his garage.
Giving rise to other charges, during the same search, police found firearm parts, and a quantity of ammunition.
Section 110A creates the indictable offence of trafficking in firearms:
"110A Unlawful trafficking in firearms
(1)A person is guilty of an indictable offence punishable under the Criminal Code if the person traffics in firearms without lawful excuse.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is taken to traffic in firearms without lawful excuse if –
(a) the…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Taylor [2021] TASSC 39
Case: [2021] TASSC 39
Decision Date: 25 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Taylor, the respondent, Taylor, was convicted of trafficking in firearms in contravention of section 110A of the Firearms Act 1996 (Tas). The appeal against the conviction was brought before the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The central issue in the case was the interpretation and application of the rebuttable presumption of trafficking in firearms as outlined in section 110A of the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had successfully rebutted the presumption that Taylor was not trafficking in firearms. Under section 110A, the presumption operates unless the contrary is proven, placing the onus on the prosecution to establish trafficking beyond reasonable doubt. The court examined the evidence presented to assess whether the prosecution had discharged this burden.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, in delivering its judgment, considered the statutory language and the principles of statutory interpretation. It held that the presumption in section 110A could be rebutted if the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove trafficking. The court found that the prosecution had presented compelling evidence, which met the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, thereby successfully rebutting the presumption. Consequently, the court upheld Taylor’s conviction for trafficking in firearms.

The final orders of the court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Taylor for the offence of trafficking in firearms, as determined by the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

Orders