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, but the adaptation was not fully effective with the result that it was still capable of automatic fire in the hands of an expert or a man with sufficient knowledge of the gun to use it for that purpose.
Held: The appeal failed. The Court rejected his argument that the prosecution had to prove that the firearm had been designed or adapted with the intention of being used as a semi-automatic weapon. The mere fact that a weapon’s capacity to discharge a missile could only be demonstrated by an expert is irrelevant to whether the weapon falls within the statutory definition of firearm.
Swinton Thomas LJ said: ‘Section 5 does not import either explicitly or implicitly any intention on the part of the designer or the adapter. The section is not framed using words such as ‘designed or adapted ‘for the purpose of’ burst fire or repeated fire. The central and vital words, in our judgment, are the words ‘can be successfully discharged’. On the agreed facts two or more missiles could be successfully discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger. Once that is proved, in our judgment, the firearm is so designed or adapted.’
Judges:
Swinton Thomas LJ, Tucker, Penry-Davey JJ
Citations:
[1999] Crim LR 837, [1999] EWCA Crim 210
Links:
Statutes:
Firearms Act 1968 5(1A), Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 1(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bewley v Regina CACD 6-Jul-2012
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Rhodes CACD 20-Jan-2015
Appeal from conviction on 22 counts of possessing, purchasing or acquiring, manufacturing, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, contrary to section 5(1) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968. He had sold guns which were incapable of firing bullets, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.156610