STATE OF TASMANIA v DAVID BRIAN GEORGE REYNOLDS 14 MARCH 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE MARSHALL AJ
Mr Reynolds has pleaded guilty to serious firearms offences in respect to his ownership and possession of one Franchi Bresica 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun. The firearm was capable of holding four, 12 gauge cartridges in its magazine tube and one 12 gauge cartridge in each chamber. That is a total of six, 12 gauge cartridges, which are capable of being loaded into the firearm at any one time. However, when possessed by Mr Reynolds, the firearm was effectively dismantled and not in immediate working order. That does not detract from the unlawfulness of its possession, but illustrates that it was not available for immediate use without necessary adjustments.
After the Port Arthur massacre on 28 April 1996, all Australian jurisdictions, within six weeks, enacted gun laws to protect the community, which resulted in the banning of semi-automatic firearms and other high powered firearms. Since that time, Australia has had relatively few mass casualty shootings, whereas in other jurisdictions where such laws do not exist, such as in the USA, mass casualty shootings are almost a weekly occurrence. To maintain vigilance against slipping back to the time when anyone could enter a gun shop with enough cash, and buy a weapon of mass destruction, it is imperative that this nation’s gun laws, and Tasmania’s gun laws in particular, be rigorously policed and enforced.
That is why the current offending is to be considered serious offending. An unregistered, unsecured, dangerous firearm could easily fall into the wrong hands, especially in circumstances where it is not safely stored, as was the case in Mr Reynolds’ home. The firearm was located by police inside storage space in the hallway of Mr Reynolds’ residence. It was wrapped in a fitted sheet, which had been placed in a plastic bag. The plastic bag was then placed in a deck chair bag.
General deterrence demands that a penalty of substance be given for the breach of the indictable charge before the Court, under s 9(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”). The particulars of that charge are that on 28 February 2024, Mr Reynolds possessed the firearm without being the holder of a firearms licence with respect to the firearm. General deterrence is also significant in the context of the two summary offences which are before the Court, pursuant to s 385 of the Criminal Code. They are, first, possessing an unregistered firearm contrary to s 74(1) of the Act, and second, failing to take precautions to ensure the safekeeping of the firearm under s 89 of the Act.
In amelioration of the sentence which should be imposed, the following facts are relevant. Mr Reynolds has no relevant prior convictions. He is a 50 year old man who is well respected in his community and has a good industrial record. He knew it was wrong to keep the firearm, but did so in memory of his late father, to whom it had belonged since about 1974. He hoped to pass it on as a family heirloom to his sons, with no intention that it would actually be used. He was mistaken in his belief that it would be safe to store it in the manner in which he stored it. Also, specific deterrence does not loom large in the current circumstances in the exercise of the Court’s sentencing discretion because Mr Reynolds is most unlikely to ever offend similarly again.
Counsel for Mr Reynolds submitted that a fine would be appropriate and that Mr Reynolds would do what was needed to be done to ensure that the fine was paid. I agree with that submission.
I convict Mr Reynolds for each of the offences to which he has pleaded guilty. In all the circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to impose a global penalty for the three breaches of the Act, the indictable offence under s 9(1A)(a), and the summary offences under ss 74 and 89 thereof. The fine imposed is the sum of $5,000. In addition, the Court orders, pursuant to s 149(3) of the Act that the firearm be forfeited to the State. An order of that type was opposed by counsel for Mr Reynolds. However, firearms of this sort have no place in the Australian community at all. They should not be available for use as a keepsake in a jurisdiction which aims to keep the community safe, and does not lead the country down the American route on guns or result in the recurrence of a mass casualty experience caused by high powered guns.