The court was asked whether an air rifle amounted to a ‘lethal’ weapon.
Held: Allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions, Auld J said that: ‘the test applied by the justices as to what constituted a firearm within section 57(1) was correct. Their error lay in their approach to determining whether on the evidence before them the prosecution had proved the weapon satisfied the definition. Their inquiry should have involved two issues: (1) whether the weapon was one from which any shot, bullet or other missile could be discharged or whether it could be adapted so as to be made capable of discharging such a missile and (2) if so satisfied, whether it was a lethal barrelled weapon.’
. . And: ‘It could not constitute evidence as to the working or the capacity to work and the capacity or potential capacity to injure or kill of the air rifle in the present case. Expert evidence might not have been necessary. It could have been established by evidence of a witness to the firing of the gun or of someone familiar with such a weapon who could indicate to the court not only that it did work but what its observed effect was when it was fired.’
Judges:
Mann LJ, Auld J
Citations:
[1989] Crim LR 365
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Castle v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-Mar-1998
Appeal by case stated from conviction of possession of firearms (air rifles) within five years of release from prison. The court was asked as to whether they were ‘lethal’
Held: The appeal failed: ‘ the Justices were entitled to reach the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.608656