The Queen v Young - [2006] NZCA 22

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA266/05
THE QUEEN
v
DAVID JOHN YOUNG
Hearing:15 February 2006

Court:O'Regan, Goddard and Chisholm JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

M D Downs for Crown

Judgment:8 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
REASONS
(Given by O’Regan J)
Introduction
[1]       After a jury trial in the District Court at Christchurch, Mr Young was convicted of being in possession of an airgun except for some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose, in contravention of s 45(1) of the Arms Act 1983. He now appeals to this Court against that conviction.
[2]       At the relevant time, Mr Young was a taxi driver in Christchurch. Three men entered his taxi as it was standing at a taxi stand near the Christchurch Casino. One of the men, Luke McLintock, had had a dispute over a fare with Mr Young in the past. As a result of this, he and various associates had had many encounters with Mr Young. The purpose of these was, in Mr McLintock’s words, to “get a reaction”, and in Mr Young’s words to “provoke” him.
[3]       On the night of the incident in issue in this case, Mr Young ordered the three men out of his taxi, but they did not immediately comply. The Crown alleged that Mr Young then placed an air pistol on his lap, without making any comment. The three men then left the taxi, and Mr Young drove off.
[4]       The matter came to the attention of the Police a few months later, and a search warrant was executed at Mr Young’s home. Mr Young produced a photocopy of an air pistol and told the police that this was what he had put on his lap. Subsequently, the police found an air pistol at Mr Young’s home.
[5]       Mr Young represented himself at trial, and before this Court. He advanced two substantive grounds of appeal. These were:
(a)The jury could not have properly concluded that the object which he had on his lap at the relevant time was an “airgun” as defined in s 2 of the Arms Act;
(b)The Judge misdirected the jury in relation to the potential application of ss 42 and 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.

Definition of airgun
[6]       Section 2 of the Arms Act has the following definition of airgun:
“Airgun” includes –
(a)       Any air rifle; and
(b)       Any air pistol; and
(c)Any weapon from which, by the use of gas or compressed air (and not by force of explosive), any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile can be discharged:

[7]       Section 45 of the Arms Act says:
45       Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose
(1)       Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—
(a)…

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 The Queen v Young

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Young [2006] NZCA 22
Case: [2006] NZCA 22
Decision Date: 8 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction was brought by David John Young, who was convicted in the District Court at Christchurch for being in possession of an airgun except for some lawful, proper and sufficient purpose, in contravention of s 45(1) of the Arms Act 1983. Young had ordered three men out of his taxi, who then left, and Young subsequently placed an air pistol on his lap. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal raised two substantive issues: whether the object on Young's lap was an "airgun" as defined in s 2 of the Arms Act, and whether the Judge misdirected the jury in relation to the potential application of ss 42 and 48 of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court found that the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of the police armourer, and that the exhibit fell within paragraph (c) of the definition of airgun in s 2 of the Arms Act. Furthermore, the Judge's direction as to the application of s 42 and s 48 of the Crimes Act was not misdirected, as there was no evidence before the jury that a breach of the peace had occurred or was imminent at the time Young placed the airgun on his lap. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders