Firearm Charge Withdrawn After Defence Challenges Alleged Firearm Component
Case Summary
Client Profile
A client found with a component alleged by police to be a component of a firearm and a shell casing in his pocket.
As the client was a Prohibited person due to previous court orders, this resulted in a charge of Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm, which would almost certainly attract a term of imprisonment.
The Circumstances Surrounding the Matter
Police maintained that the client should plead to the charge.
Research by the defence revealed that the component was likely that from a gel blaster gun. Rather than withdraw the charge, police changed their position to seeking a plea on Prohibited Person Possess an Imitation Firearm.
That charge carried the same maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
Our Strategy
Luke Metherell engaged in persistent negotiations with the prosecution.
He first addressed why a charge of Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm was not made out, and then why an equally serious charge of Prohibited Person Possess an Imitation Firearm was not made out.
Luke prepared written submissions with reference to the developing law in the area and made it plain that the matter would be contested, as the component simply could not reasonably be mistaken for an operable firearm in any sense.
Result
The charge was withdrawn at Mention, finalising the matter.
Why the Client Benefited from Our Representation
The matter involved persistent negotiations with the prosecution, a firm understanding of the relevant case law and charges, and written submissions addressing the developing law in the area.
Disclaimer: The case results featured are real matters handled by our firm. However, every case is different and outcomes vary depending on a range of factors, including the specific facts, circumstances and evidence involved. Past results are not a guarantee of future outcomes and should not be relied upon to predict or determine the result of your matter.