Myfanwy and Nicholas Halliwell plead not guilty to firearms offences
A couple facing firearms offences have had their bail varied – to allow them to keep trading in the weapons industry, a court has ruled.
Police & Courts
Don't miss out on the headlines from Police & Courts. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A couple who run a weapons business and facing firearms offences and have asked a court to vary their bail conditions to allow them to continue trading.
Myfanwy Halliwell, 40, and Nicholas Halliwell, 43, have pleaded not guilty to two counts of supplying firearms.
It is alleged the Para Hills couple supplied a Wedgetail .308 calibre semi-automatic rifle and a Wedgetail .223 calibre semi-automatic rifle “to a person not authorised to acquire that firearm” at Pooraka in April last year.
Mr Halliwell – who lists himself on social media as “The Bearded Gunsmith” – is also facing other weapons charges, including the alleged alteration of a bolt-action rifle, and dishonesty offences, but is yet to enter any pleas to those charges.
Eugene McGee, for Mr Halliwell, asked the court to clarify and vary his client’s bail agreement, particularly considering the meaning of “firearms parts” because of Mr Halliwell’s employment.
Karen Ingleton, prosecuting, said the Bail Act requires a mandatory firearms condition that states they “not to be in possession of any firearm, ammunition or any ‘part’ of a firearm”. But she said the Bail Act did not provide a definition for “firearm part”.
“In the Firearms Act there is a different turn of phrase,” she said.
“The Firearms Act refers to ‘firearms parts’ and there is a specific definition for firearms parts in the Firearms Act.”
She said the difference meant there was a “tension” between the definitions.
Ms Ingleton said police did not oppose the couple continuing part of their business, which she said could occur if the definition provided in the Firearms Act was adopted for their bail agreements.
She said the change would “enable them to continue to conduct a portion of their business without the risk that they may breach their bail”.
Magistrate Karim Soetratma said the distinction between the two definitions was “relevant to the applicants because they run a business which involves trade in certain accessories which may or may not constitute a breach of their bail agreement, depending on which expression is used”.
He said an affidavit provided to the court by the couple “indicated the kinds of accessories which they wish to trade”.
Mr Soetratma said the possession of the parts of firearms as set out in the affidavit “would not represent an undue risk to the safety of the public” and was not opposed by police.
He varied the bail agreements of the couple as sought for the firearms condition included in their bail agreements to now read: “I will not possess a firearm, ammunition or a firearms part as defined in the Firearms Act”.
The couple will return to court in November.
More Coverage
Unmasked: St Peter’s Girls’ coach accused of exploitation offending
UPDATED: The elite private school coach charged with child abuse material offending can be identified – as can be his former links to a top AFL club.
Man accused of sexually abusing child fronts court
A southern suburbs man was allegedly in an unlawful relationship with a child – sexually abusing them over a nine-month period, court documents allege.