The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a firearm. The crown had been able to make it discharge a pellet only by taking elaborate preparatory steps. ‘There being no dispute but that the starting pistol was a lethal-barrelled weapon, the statutory question was whether any shot, bullet or other missile could be discharged from it.’
Held: The appeal succeeded. The starting pistol fell outwith the definition in s.57(1). It was not a lethal-barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other missile could be discharged. It was an imitation firearm within the meaning of s.57(4). As to whether it was a component part of ‘such a lethal or prohinited weapon’: The definition of firearm cannot include a component part of a lethal-barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can not be discharged. Any other construction would ignore the use of the word ‘such’. If the starting pistol does not fall within the definition of firearm within s.57(1), no part of it could do so.’
Judges:
Moses LJ, Underhill J, Inman QC J
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Crim 1457
Links:
Statutes:
Firearms Act 1968 5(a)(aba) 57(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Law CACD 1-Feb-1999
The defendant appealed against a conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon, namely an MAC 10 submachine gun. It was the opinion of an expert at that laboratory that the weapon was capable of burst fire. It had been adapted to prevent this, . .
Cited – Regina v Jobling CACD 1981
The court considered an appeal against a conviction for possession of a prohibited automatic weapon.
Held: It was insufficient to ask whether the weapon was originally designed to fire continuously; the question was whether it remained so. . .
Cited – Regina v Pannell CACD 1982
The defendant had been found in possession of the disassembled parts for three prohibited automatic firearms.
Held: The appeal failed despite the fact that the ability of the carbines to fire automatically required an operation of some . .
Cited – Cafferata v Wilson KBD 1936
The defendant appealed by case stated against a decision that a dummy revolver which was not capable of firing a bullet or other missile was a firearm within the meaning of section12(1) of the 1920 Act or, alternatively, all the parts of the dummy . .
Cited – Regina v Freeman CACD 1970
The Defendant had been charged on indictment with possessing a firearm without holding the appropriate certificate. The item alleged to be a firearm was a .380 starting revolver described as being of solid construction and with constrictions in the . .
Cited – Kelly (John Joseph) v Mackinnon HCJ 11-May-1982
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.462290