R v Wood [2019] NSWDC 778

R v Wood [2019] NSWDC 778

Because the firearms were found in premises leased and occupied by the accused, s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996 applied. The accused did not satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the firearms were brought onto the premises by an authorised person, that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of their presence, or that he was not in possession of them. His evidence about replica firearms was rejected, and the circumstantial evidence, including the photograph of him holding the same shotgun and the intercepted calls, supported guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 5. Count 6 was not proved because the cash found in the Adidas bag was insufficient to establish...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judge Alone Trial on Indictment After Pleas of Not Guilty
Outcome
Verdicts of guilty on counts 1 to 5 and not guilty on count 6.
Legal Topics
['firearms Offences' 'possession of Firearms' 'unregistered Firearms' 'shortened Firearms' 'money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'judge Alone Trial' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'onus and Standard of Proof']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['firearms Offences' 'possession of Firearms' 'unregistered Firearms' 'shortened Firearms' 'money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'judge Alone Trial' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'onus and Standard of Proof']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judge Alone Trial on Indictment After Pleas of Not Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether, under s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996, the firearms found in the roof cavity were taken to be in the accused's possession and whether the accused discharged the statutory onus." 'Whether the Crown proved the elements of counts 1 to 5 concerning possession of shortened firearms, an unauthorised firearm and unregistered firearms.' 'Whether the Crown proved that the accused possessed $4,950 in circumstances where there were reasonable grounds to suspect it was proceeds of crime.' "Whether the accused's explanation that intercepted conversations concerned replica firearms raised a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the firearms were found in premises leased and occupied by the accused, s 4A of the Firearms Act 1996 applied. The accused did not satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the firearms were brought onto the premises by an authorised person, that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know of their presence, or that he was not in possession of them. His evidence about replica firearms was rejected, and the circumstantial evidence, including the photograph of him holding the same shotgun and the intercepted calls, supported guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 5. Count 6 was not proved because the cash found in the Adidas bag was insufficient to establish...

Court Disposition

Verdicts of guilty on counts 1 to 5 and not guilty on count 6.

Orders

  • ['Verdict of guilty on count 1.' 'Verdict of guilty on count 2.' 'Verdict of guilty on count 3.' 'Verdict of guilty on count 4.' 'Verdict of guilty on count 5.' 'Verdict of not guilty on count 6.']