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, but the blockage of the barrel allowed the discharge of irritant gases and hot burning gases fired from either a blank or a gas cartridge to pass through them. The Court was asked whether the guns were designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing and in particular the meaning of ‘design’ in that context.
Held: Whatever might be lawful in other countries, sale of a pistol which has the design capability and must have the deliberate design capability of discharging gas cartridges is not. In the circumstances this appeal is dismissed.


Sir Brian Leveson P QBD


[2015] EWCA Crim 155, [2015] Crim LR 445, [2015] 2 Cr App R 16




Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(b)


England and Wales


CitedRegina 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, . .
CitedTurek v Regional Court In Gliwice Poland Admn 2011
the issue was whether the conduct relied upon as justifying extradition to Poland would constitute a breach of UK law. The allegation was possession of a gas gun without the required licence. The relevant UK offence was said to be a breach of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.655464