Jenkins v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: Admn 22 May 2020

Short term possession of stun gun

The appellant challenged the decision of the justices finding him guilty on summary conviction of an offence of possession of a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of electrical current for incapacitation contrary to s. 5(1)(b) and Schedule 6 of the Firearms Act 1968. The weapon, namely a stun gun (‘the stun gun’), was found in the glove compartment of the car being driven by Mr Jenkins. The question was: ‘Did we err in finding that the appellant was in possession of the stun gun when his vehicle was stopped by the police?’ He have a lift to a young lady and on discovering that she was in possession of the stun gun, insisted that she put it to one side. She placed it in the glove compartment.
Held: The Magistrates had made no error: ‘Even on the basis that the Magistrates accepted all of Mr Jenkins’ oral evidence, the stun gun was, to Mr Jenkins’ knowledge, in his car which he chose then to drive. Despite initially objecting to its presence, he then allowed the stun gun to be placed and remain in his car which he then drove away (for some 10 minutes), controlling its location. He could have insisted Ms Price leave the car with the stun gun; he could have left the car in the event that she refused. Whilst Mr Jenkins may have expressed concern at the outset, any objection did not prevent him from voluntarily continuing on his way with the stun gun in place. The fact that the period of possession was short-lived did not afford Mr Jenkins any defence.’

Lady Justice Carr, Mr Justice Saini
[2020] EWHC 1307 (Admin)
Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(b)
England and Wales
CitedWarner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner HL 1968
The appellant had been convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the 1964 Act, of having been found in possession of drugs.
Held: (Reid dissenting) The prosecution had only to prove that the accused knew of the existence of the thing . .
CitedSullivan v Earl of Caithness QBD 1976
The defendant who lived in Oxfordshire stored his guns at his mother’s property in Surrey because it was more secure. The magistrates held that he was not in possession of the guns in Oxfordshire. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Chand Admn 17-Jan-2007
Prosecutor’s appeal against dismissal of charge of theft – refusal to admit bad character evidence – basis for interfering with finding of fact.
Held: The court will not usually interfere with findings of fact by magistrates unless there was . .
CitedRegina v Taylor CACD 2011
. .
CitedHall v Cotton Admn 1987
The first defendant held a shotgun certificate and owned two shotguns. He left them at the home of the second defendant, who had no certificate, while they and their families went on holiday together. On their return, the second defendant agreed to . .
CitedDeyemi and Another, Regina v CACD 13-Aug-2007
After a judge’s ruling as to strict liability for the possession of a prohibited weapon, the defendants pleaded guilty. They now appealed against conviction. The judge had sentenced them on the basis that liability for possession was strict.

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.651052