R v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 428

R v Johnson [2023] NSWDC 428

Taking the Firearms Act 1996 as a whole and applying a purposive construction, the homemade item was a firearm under s 4(1) because it was capable of propelling a projectile by means of an explosive with reasonable external assistance; the hammer and vice were treated as necessary external assistance to operate the item rather than additions to the instrument. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the item was a firearm and therefore found the accused guilty on all three counts.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict
Outcome
The accused is found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3.
Legal Topics
['possession of Loaded Firearm in a Public Place' 'possession of Unregistered Firearm' 'possession of Firearm Without Licence or Permit' 'meaning of Firearm Under S 4 of the Firearms Act 1996' 'purposive Statutory Construction' 'homemade Firearm Capable of Propelling a Projectile']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'firearms Regulation' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['possession of Loaded Firearm in a Public Place' 'possession of Unregistered Firearm' 'possession of Firearm Without Licence or Permit' 'meaning of Firearm Under S 4 of the Firearms Act 1996' 'purposive Statutory Construction' 'homemade Firearm Capable of Propelling a Projectile']

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; Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the homemade item was a firearm within the meaning of s 4(1) of the Firearms Act 1996.' 'Whether an item that could discharge a primed cartridge case only when placed in a vice and struck with a hammer was capable of propelling a projectile by means of an explosive.' 'Whether s 4 of the Firearms Act 1996 extends to a homemade item requiring external force to operate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the Firearms Act 1996 as a whole and applying a purposive construction, the homemade item was a firearm under s 4(1) because it was capable of propelling a projectile by means of an explosive with reasonable external assistance; the hammer and vice were treated as necessary external assistance to operate the item rather than additions to the instrument. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the item was a firearm and therefore found the accused guilty on all three counts.

Court Disposition

The accused is found guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3.

Orders

  • ['Count 1, I find the accused guilty.' 'Count 2, I find the accused guilty.' 'Count 3, I find the accused guilty.']