NSW Police v Bowden [2022] NSWLC 6
Sequence 1 not proved because the accused's actions did not substantially hinder the officer; fleeting grabbing did not meet the threshold for 'substantial' hindrance. Sequence 2 proved as the accused maintained intentional control over the gel blaster pistol found near her residence, thus possessed it without authorisation.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 14 July 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Trial/judgment
- Outcome
- Sequence 1 dismissed—verdict: not guilty; Sequence 2 proved—verdict: guilty
- Legal Topics
- ['hindering Police' 'possession of Firearm' 'law Enforcement (powers and Responsibilities) Act' 'firearms Offences']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial/judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether accused hindered police officer in execution of duty contrary to s 546C Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)' 'Whether accused possessed a prohibited pistol contrary to s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)' 'Whether evidence was obtained in contravention of s 10 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)']
Ratio Decidendi
Sequence 1 not proved because the accused's actions did not substantially hinder the officer; fleeting grabbing did not meet the threshold for 'substantial' hindrance. Sequence 2 proved as the accused maintained intentional control over the gel blaster pistol found near her residence, thus possessed it without authorisation.
Court Disposition
Sequence 1 dismissed—verdict: not guilty; Sequence 2 proved—verdict: guilty
Orders
- ['Charge under s 546C Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) dismissed' 'Verdict of guilty for possession of prohibited pistol under s 7(1) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment