Riding, Regina v: CACD 7 Apr 2009

Appeal from conviction under the 1883 Act – that the judge was wrong to hold that the reverse onus placed on a defendant by section 4 in relation to a defence of lawful object was a legal rather than an evidential onus; and that the judge was wrong to hold that it could not be a lawful object to make the pipe bomb that he did out of no more than curiosity to see whether he could do it.


The Vice President
(Lord Justice Hughes)
Mr Justice King
His Honour Judge Radford
(Sitting as a Judge of the Cacd)


[2009] EWCA Crim 892, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 7




Explosive Substances Act 1883 4


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCopeland, Regina v SC 11-Mar-2020
The Court was asked whether under the 1883 Act: for the purposes of section 4(1) can personal experimentation or own private education, absent some ulterior unlawful purpose, be regarded as a lawful object? The defendant, a young man on the autistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.396425