Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Fireworks activist acquitted

By Kerces 25 November 2005 34

Bernard Leslie Brennan, who bought illegal fireworks in May last year for an expose in the Canberra Times showing how easy it was, has been acquitted of charges of purchasing a prohibited dangerous substance, the ABC reported.

RiotAct’s earlier coverage of this case is here.

The court found that Mr Brennan had no intention of using the fireworks.

Ben Doherty, the CT reporter who was contacted by Mr Brennan to set up the photo shoot, told the court that at the time, about a month before the Queen’s Birthday long weekend, there was a huge amount of public interest in the banning of fireworks.

The ABC says,

Chief Justice Terence Higgins concluded there was insufficient evidence against Mr Brennan.

He added he could not explain why a man who exposed a criminal activity was being prosecuted.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
34 Responses to
Fireworks activist acquitted
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Spitfire3 1:23 pm 28 Nov 05

I find it funny that, when a court shows some common sense, some people start jumping up and down and saying “No no no! They must stick to the letter of the law as it’s written in black and white!”

The fact is there is often more than one possible way to interpret law. That’s one of the reasons we have courts – to find the most sensible and reasonable interpretation of the law for any given case!

They got it right.

Jay Wayward 2:16 pm 26 Nov 05

For got to mention(above comment posted by Jay’s friend ‘borrowing’ login)

Jay Wayward 1:58 pm 26 Nov 05

There doesn’t even seem to be much logic in bothering to debate such a case.

If the guy had been caught and THEN used the defence that it was all a plan to expose a illigal activity then sure you all have the right to debate the irony of him getting off.

But the thing was he handed himself in to make a point and then unfortunately become caught up in some confused legal mess that had to go to court to sort out.

This case seems to be showing once again that if you are willing to take on the big guys you have to be prepared to fight whatever strange attacks they are prepared to throw at you in return to ruin your life, just to show you that they can, making others run scared from also trying.

The kind of arguments constructed here seem to be in the same fanasty ‘denial of the facts land’ that enable such legal messes to continue in the first place.
It’s not wotrth the hastle, please just use you logic rather than boredom or whatever causes one to want to stir people up with contraversial ideas and make life easier for all of us!!!

Also I in regards to the ’emotional attachment’ issue that’s just silly. ‘Lets kill people cause someonein my family has never been killed and I have no emotional attachment to such an issue’.

Someone who has first hand experience in a matter logically knows more than someone who doesn’t. The person who doesn’t know as much may be in the position and have the freedom and right to say what they like as speculation, but’s that all it can be until you get the facts, speculation. So please listen to people who have experience and maybe we can broaden all of our knowledge without having to go out and experience everything for ourselves first.


Big Al 1:02 pm 26 Nov 05

Regardless of whatever bits of legal twaddle from the legislation chaps like Maelinar can trot out – the simple reality is that the court found that no offence was committed. Sure a couple of pen-pushing pubes at Worksafe probably got their (brown) noses out of joint as a result of this guys exposure of inadequate or absent compliance and enforcement but that doesn’t change the fact that the court – upon hearing all of the evidence – found that no offence was committed. Regardless of all the undisputed facts – that the fireworks were purchased, that the plan was to expose slack licensing arrangements, that the whole thing was premeditated – the prosecution still failed to show that an offence had occurred.

Sure all you bush lawyers will continue to trot out mindless quotes of black-letter law in blissful ignorance of the simple principles of the proofs for indictable offences but it wont change the fact that the guys innocent.

I think that many are confusing the fact that the guy has been found innocent with another outcome that can happen in these types of cases – where the prosecution proves its case, the defendant is found guilty but the Judge or Magistrate records no conviction – different kettle of bungers altogether.

Now stop your bleating.

barking toad 11:51 pm 25 Nov 05

Higgins for once in his life on the bench got it right – now he can go back to freeing crims.

Can someone please explain why this matter got beyond someone saying “yeah, well copped son, now go and mow some lawns or something”. Or did some little diddums get his nose out of joint and want to make an issue of it – sadly it’s not diddums’s money!

The goose should’ve been prosecuted for handing over good illegal fireworks that could have been put to good use by lashing them to cat’s tails and lobbing them at deb’s place thereby eliminating ferals and getting snouts out of troughs.

Any scraps from collateral damage could be collected by the mayor and used to fill potholes.

bonfire 5:10 pm 25 Nov 05

jaywayward – owning a pet is completely for human enjoyment, so how is it any different to letting off a few crackers in the larger scheme of things.

and im afraid the whole poor pet thing is a crock. dogs go nuts over thunder, cars backfiring, you walking past the gate, other dogs on heat, shadows on the wall, you name it and dogs go off.

teh poor dog goes nuts ban crackers argument
is just another thing the softhead anti fireworks antifun control your life because they have none crowd use to try and further their social agenda.

lg obviously has an emotional attachment to this case, and therefore cannot objectively assess the issue.

i of course having no involvement can see the issues clearly.

zealots of all shades assume they are always right and you are always wrong, and whats more not only are you wrong bet you must be an evil person because they are so right that anyone who opposes them is just plain evil, wrong and probably clubs baby harp seals.

these types often pop up at any demonstration you care to name with a rotating placard for protest du jour.

Ari 4:12 pm 25 Nov 05

Forget trying to argue with the P.E.T.A. brigade, JoeyJoeJoe, for them anything is justified if you can claim it’s “for ANIMAL WELFARE”.

JoeyJoeJoe 3:58 pm 25 Nov 05

LG, obviously I touched a nerve there. Whilst your personal attack gave me a good chuckle, I believe it was misdirected. I’m an animal lover, more of a dog person than a cat person though. My dog has no problems with fireworks night, but hates storms (go figure). I haven’t bought fireworks for years now, but I fondly remember being a little kid and enjoying Queen’s BD weekend with my parents and friends, and think it would be a shame for that to be curtailed.

Of course the moronic few ruin it for everyone – I live in Banks and receive about 4 or 5 weekends of fireworks in the neighbourhood. I don’t know what the solution is, but I consider outright bans akin to banning pets because of the occasional maltreated dog that bites a child. Prosecute the irresponsible individual.

Breaking the law (which I believe this person did) isn’t the right way to forward a social agenda, IMHO. “Undercover sting operations” are the responsibility of the police. Oh, and Ray Martin.

Jay Wayward 3:44 pm 25 Nov 05

Nice work to you Ari. I guess ignorance is bliss after all.

Jay Wayward 3:38 pm 25 Nov 05

In regards to Bonfires comments about animal owners needing to be more responsible for securing their pets, yes i agree.

What i don’t agree with is the fact that the said animals should have to endure such a frightning ordeal regardless of where or how they are kept. Especially when the explosions causing such terror are completely for human visual enjoyment.

It’s mean. It’s shallow. It’s for Dipshits.

Ari 3:36 pm 25 Nov 05

Wow – Jay just got the triple whammy in one succcinct post – sanctimony, arrogance and hyperbole – superb work!

Jay Wayward 3:28 pm 25 Nov 05

Fireworks are for the underdeveloped. I’m not saying that i’m mentally better than anyone. What i do know is that it doesn’t seem fair to have tormented pets cowering and running off to homelessness because of those who like to waste money on poluting the environement with ash and smoke, just because they feel it is their right to watch pretty lights in the sky.

I grew out of that shit when i was 8 years old. Some people need lives.

Maelinar 3:21 pm 25 Nov 05

As much as I love a good bonfire bashing, I’m afraid to say the law was broken.

The jury or whatever have obviously weighed up all of the proofs, and allowed the fact that he was doing this to expose an illegal trader to shine through as sufficient justification for his actions.

In my own beliefs though, that he wasn’t innocent, he was guilty with no punishment.

I am not endorsing bonfires comments, nor do I have any idea what this has to do with driving.

LurkerGal 3:15 pm 25 Nov 05

Ok, I’m getting a bit passionate here. I am going to step back and agree to disagree. (except with Bonfire, but he would die of shock otherwise).

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site