Chapman v. Suttie1
| Author | A. Cirulis |
| DOI | 10.1177/0067205X6400100108 |
| Published date | 01 March 1964 |
| Date | 01 March 1964 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
CASE NOTES
CHAPMAN v. SUTTlE1
Constitutional law-Freedom
of
interstate trade, commerce and inter-
course-
Dangerous things
or
implements-Firearms-Constitution
section
92.
Section 24 (1)
of
the Firearms Act 1958 (Vic.) provides that aperson
shall not sell to any other person any firearm unless the purchaser pro-
duces to the seller afirearm certificate authorizing the purchaser to
purchase such afirearm or unless the purchaser gives reasonable
proof
that he is by virtue
of
the Act entitled to purchase such afirearm without
producing such acertificate.
Section
17
requires every holder
of
agun dealer's licence to keep a
register
of
transactions and to make therein entries
of
prescribed parti-
culars.
In
addition, it provides by sub-section
(1
)(d) that in the case
of
the sale
of
afirearm within the meaning
of
Part
III
of
the Act the
holder
of
agun dealer's licence shall
at
the time
of
the transaction require
the purchaser to produce and deliver up to him the firearm certificate
entitling the purchaser to purchase the firearm unless the purchaser
gives reasonable proof that he
is
by virtue
of
the Act entitled to purchase
the firearm without having such acertificate.
Section 22 (1) provides that subject to the
Act'
no person shall pur-
chase or have in his possession or carry afirearm unless he holds a
firearm certificate authorizing
him
to do so '. Sub-section (2) provides
that
alicence shall be issued
if
the Chief Commissioner
of
Police
or
an
authorized officer is satisfied
that-
(a) the applicant has good reason for making the application;
(b) the applicant
is
not by law prohibited from possessing afire-
arm; and
(c)
the applicant
is
not aperson
of
intemperate habits or unsound
mind or otherwise unfit
to
be
entrusted with such afirearm.2
The appellants in Chapman
v.
Suttie3were licensed gun dealers within
the meaning
of
the Act and they made, in Victoria, seven separate sales
of
firearms, to persons resident in other States, without observing the
statutory requirements concerning the production
of
afirearm certificate.
In
these circumstances thirteen informations were exhibited alleging
offences on the
part
of
the appellants.
Four
informations alleged a
breach
of
section 24
(1)
and the remainder alleged breaches
of
section
17
(1)
(d). There were convictions in each case and appeals were brought
to the High Court pursuant to section
73
of
the Constitution and section
39
of
the Judiciary Act 1903-1959.
1(1962-1963)
36
A.L.J.R. 342. High
Court
of
Australia; Dixon C.J., Taylor,
Menzies, Windeyer
and
Owen JJ.
2Italics added.
3(1962-1963)
36
A.L.J.R. 342. 140
To continue reading
Request your trial