Farmer loses appeal for using gun as scare tactic

A farmer who shot his rifle in the air to prevent receivers taking formal possession of his property in Denmark last year has lost his appeal against his conviction.

Lewis Michael Tomcsanyi, 54, was jailed for 10 months in August after a trial in Albany Magistrate's Court, where he was found guilty of two counts of discharging a firearm with intent to cause fear.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected his appeal after concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success.

Tomcsanyi was jailed after he approached two members of a receivership firm who had arrived at his 280ha Kordabup property to serve him with documents and take possession of the farm.

As they drove up the driveway and parked near the residence, Tomcsanyi drove towards them from the rear of the property, stopped 50m away and walked towards them holding a 0.223 rifle before discharging it into the air.

The receivers made a "hasty" retreat at speed and reported the incident to Denmark police.

Delivering her verdict last year, Magistrate Tanya Watt said she was satisfied Tomcsanyi walked in a "purposeful" way and shot the rifle into the air with an intention of causing fear.

Representing himself at appeal, Tomcsanyi argued Ms Watt failed to take into account inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, and give adequate reasons for the guilty verdict and why she rejected his evidence.

Tomscanyi had admitted to being at the property as he was expecting the receivers, but fired the shot at vermin.

Tomcsanyi stated at appeal the evidence from two principal prosecution witnesses, the two members of the receivership firm, was inconsistent and the magistrate could not properly have accepted their evidence as truthful and reliable.

However, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Hall refused leave to appeal, stating there was no merit in the claims of inconsistencies, which were "minor" in the prosecution evidence, and the witnesses were entirely consistent and unshaken in cross-examination.

He said the second grounds for appeal of Ms Watt failing to give proper reasons for her guilty verdict was incorrect as she had more than adequately explained how she came to her conclusions.