R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 168

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 168 Hearing dates: 2 May 2024 Date of orders: 10 May 2024 Decision date: 10 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Newlinds SC DCJ Decision: Aggregate sentence of 16 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years imprisonment Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Discharge firearm in manner dangerous – possess prohibited pistol – supply pistol – supply firearm – contravene Firearms Prohibition Order SENTENCING – Multiple firearm offences – Aggravating factors – Use of weapon – Without regard for public safety – Mitigating factors – Late plea of guilty – General deterrence Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Firearms Act 1996 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Lynch [2024] NSWDC 92 Category: Sentence Parties: Rex (Crown) Samuel Lynch (Offender) Representation: Counsel: Ms M Franklin (Crown) Mr P Davies (Offender)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Pollack Greening & Hampshire (Offender) File Number(s): 2021/198961

JUDGMENT

Overview 1. On 10 July 2021 there was a serious gun-related incident in South Grafton wherein a man, Adam Pacey ("Mr Pacey") was knocked unconscious after the offender's elbow connected with his head. Very shortly after that, a pistol in the possession of the offender was discharged on two separate occasions, injuring two teenage boys. 2. As a direct consequence of that event, the offender was arrested and charged with a number of offences. 3. Ultimately he pleaded guilty to most of those charges but defended the two most serious, and after a 15-day trial before me and a jury at the Grafton District Court commencing on 29 January 2024, the jury acquitted the offender of those two charges, being that he assaulted Mr Pacey (the father of the first boy who was shot, Kayne Pacey) and that he deliberately shot Kayne Pacey with the intention of causing him grievous bodily harm. 4. Consistent with the jury's verdict, and by reference to the way the case was run before the jury, the jury must have accepted, in relation to the alleged assault of Mr Pacey, his movement in hitting the victim was an involuntary act, being a reflex reaction. 5. As far as the firearm charge was concerned, it is clear enough that the jury was not satisfied that the Crown had disproved beyond reasonable doubt that the discharge of the firearm was a voluntary act as opposed to being caused by an unknown and unidentified person hitting the offender's hand at a time when the gun was cocked, loaded, and pointed towards the victim thus causing the gun to discharge.