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.
Judges:
The Vice President
(Lord Justice Hughes)
Mr Justice King
His Honour Judge Radford
(Sitting as a Judge of the Cacd)
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Crim 892, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 7
Links:
Statutes:
Explosive Substances Act 1883 4
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Copeland, 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.
Crime
Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.396425
