R v Burns [2024] NSWLC 11

R v Burns [2024] NSWLC 11

Sequence 1 is dismissed because, at the relevant time (charging), the goods were not in the custody of Ms Burns; police had exclusive possession. Sequence 2 is proven, as Ms Burns was in custody of a laser pointer in a public place, and the legal requirements of s 11FA Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) are satisfied.

Parties
Defendant: Melanie Burns; Prosecutor: NSW Police
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Sequence 1 is dismissed; Sequence 2 is proven.
Legal Topics
Possession of Suspected Stolen Property, Possession of Laser Pointer in a Public Place
Criminal Law Possession of Suspected Stolen Property Possession of Laser Pointer in a Public Place

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melanie Burns

Defendant

NSW Police

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had custody of suspected stolen goods at the relevant time for the purposes of s 527C Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the accused was in possession of a laser pointer in a public place contrary to s 11FA Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Sequence 1 is dismissed because, at the relevant time (charging), the goods were not in the custody of Ms Burns; police had exclusive possession. Sequence 2 is proven, as Ms Burns was in custody of a laser pointer in a public place, and the legal requirements of s 11FA Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Sequence 1 is dismissed; Sequence 2 is proven.

Orders

  • Sequence 1 dismissed
  • Sequence 2 proven