In the Irish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700209 |
| Published date | 01 April 1973 |
| Date | 01 April 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the
Irish
Courts
COURT
OF
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
IN
NORTHERN
IRELAND
POSSESSION
OF
FIREARMS
R. v. Murphy, Lillis and Burns.
THE appellants in this case (1971, N.I.
193)
were acquitted
of offences
contrary
to
the
Explosive Substances Act, 1883
and
s.14 of
the
Firearms
Act
(N.!.),
1969,
but
were
found
guilty
of
an
offence against s.18 of
the
Act
of 1969
and
of being in
possession of firearms
and
ammunition
without
the
required
certificate.
On
appeal, they
argued
that
the
jury
had
been mis-
directed
upon
the
question of possession
and
that,
in
any
event,
their
conviction on
two
charges
ought
to be
quashed
on
the
ground
that
it was inconsistent with
their
acquittal
on
the
other
charges.
The
accused
had
been
apprehended
during
acurfew in a
house in
an
area
in which there
had
been a
great
deal of disturbance
and
much
shooting.
They
were found in rooms in which rifles
and
aconsiderable
quantity
of
ammunition
were found on
and
under
the
beds.
They
were
charged
under
s.4 of
the
Act
of 1883
with
being knowingly in possession of explosive substances in
circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion
that
they did
not
have
the n for a lawful object.
The
jury
found them 'guilty'
of possession
but
not in
the
circumstances mentioned.
They
were
equally
found
not
guilty,
under
s.18 of
the
Act of 1969, of
possessing
the
same explosive substances with
intent
to
endanger
life etc.
But
the
jury
found
that
they
had
entered
the
house as
trespassers
with
two
rifles, so
that
they were guilty of
an
offence
against
s.18 of
the
Act of 1969
and
that
they
had
these two rifles
without
firearms certificates.
The
defence
had
been
that
the
accused were
caught
out
during
acurfew when firing broke
out
and
that
they
had
entered
the
house
unarmed,
in
order
to
obtain
shelter.
The
difficulty to which these verdicts gave rise was
that,
in
order
to rationalise
the
verdicts of
not
guilty
upon
the
first
two
charges, it is necessary to assume
that
the
jury
concluded
that
the
men
did
not
bring
the
rifles
and
ammunition
into
the
house with
them,
but
merely found
them
there,
and,
further,
that
they
did
not
intend
to use
the
rifles
and
the
abundant
supply of
ammunition
which was
to
hand.
140
To continue reading
Request your trial