Turek 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 section 5(1)(b) of the 1968 Act. The expert said there was nothing to suggest that the pistol had been modified, that it would be capable of discharging gas cartridges, and: ‘Although guns of this type are advertised as including the gas firing capability, it is my opinion that this is no more than the identification of a marketing opportunity by those selling such items in countries including Germany and France where it is permitted to possess CS cartridges for self-defence purposes; as the pistols could be used for this purpose in addition to firing blanks, why not highlight this capacity, and perhaps increase sales? This is not to say that pistols with barrel blockages are specifically designed for that purpose.’ It was argued that it was perfectly possible to construct a firearm pistol, the barrel of which is totally blocked and which vents in some other more innocuous manner.
Held: Silber J said: ‘To my mind, the very fact that these weapons can be used for the discharge of gas and emergency bullets shows that they must have been designed for that purpose, otherwise it is difficult to see why they are capable of fulfilling this function, which seems to be an integral part of it.’


Silber J


[2011] EWHC 1556 (Admin)


Extradition Act 2003 64(1) 64(3), Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(b)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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.


Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.655467