Replies

Using a weapon in self defence is legal in Australia in particular circumstances.

The fact that Dunstan was cleared and has had his firearms returned basically confirms this.

Having watched this case and read the law, I am not convinced of this. Dunstan won through because he was able to mobilize significant support in his case, and because he carefully structured his answers to the effect that he “did not use” his unloaded rifle in self defense.

It might have come out very differently if he said he had pointed the rifle at the miscreant, or if he had loaded it.

Political pressure was brought to bear for him.

That is not something I would want to count on.

The firearms law in New South Wales has been held, buy the Supreme Court, to only allow use of a firearm for the purpose(s) listed on the firearm license.

Self Defense is no considered a legitimate purpose.

I value your opinion, but anyone other than a police officer, or maybe a licensed security guard, who uses a firearm for self defense in NSW is quite likely to lose their license. IMHO

I agree that most police seem sensible in Australia. I think the reform proposed to add “without reasonable excuse” would be an excellent reform for the law.

buy the Supreme Court should be by the Supreme Court.

Having watched this case and read the law, I am not convinced of this. Dunstan won through because he was able to mobilize significant support in his case, and because he carefully structured his answers to the effect that he “did not use” his unloaded rifle in self defense.

Dunstan's case didn't reach the courts. That's not a bad thing (certainly not for him) but the arguments made are far from the legal arguments that I believe would have been applied in court. And I think part of the reason why New South Wales police did not charge him with anything is because they knew the arguments that would have been made in court.

In court, I would expect a lawyer arguing this case to base things on the precedents of Zecivek v DPP, and R v Conlon, and they'd have won on that basis. These are still the two most important court cases in Australia concerning both self defence in general, and specifically self defence with a firearm. Both of those cases were more serious than Dunstan's - Zecivek and Conlon actually killed the people they were defending themselves against, and Conlon was drug affected (impaired judgement) and protecting his illegal drug plantation! Self defence still applied in both those cases. The Conlon case in particular is significant because it still applied even though Conlon was committing other serious crimes at the time, which means self defence continues to apply even if other laws are not being fully observed - and that has direct relevance because even a technical violation of firearms law (which could have been argued in Dunstan's case) does not extinguish the right to self defence, even if a firearm is used.