Possession of a Firearm
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834801200108 |
| Published date | 01 January 1948 |
| Date | 01 January 1948 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Possession of a
Firearm.
R.
v. O'Connor
THE accused
had
committed a series of robberies in-
cluding
the
stealing of a motor-car,
and
later,
the
Reading Police, having heard
that
he was passing through
the
town, went
to
a cafe where
they
found
the
stolen car
in
the
yard
and
three men, one of whom was
the
accused,
having
tea
inside. They were
not
sure of
the
identity of
the
accused and, in order to establish
that
he was
the
man
they
were after, one of
the
detectives entered
the
cafe
to
interview O'Connor while
the
remainder of
the
Police
surrounded
the
building on
the
outside.
While
the
detective was interviewing O'Connor
another policeman, looking through
the
window, saw
the
accused
put
something down on
the
floor by
the
table.
The accused was
then
asked to go outside and, after further
questioning,
the
Police, having satisfied themselves
about
their man, arrested him. The object
put
on
the
floor
by
the
accused was found
to
be a glove containing aloaded
automatic pistol.
The accused was in due course indicted for larceny of
the
car;
but
he refused
to
admit
that
he
had
committed
an offence under Section 23 of
the
Firearms Act, 1937,
and
declined to have
it
taken
into consideration when he was
eventually sentenced
to
a
term
of imprisonment. The
Police thereupon obtained his appearance before
the
Reading
magistrates on a Home Office Order, when he was charged
with
"at
the
time of his apprehension for an offence specified
in
the
3rd
schedule of
the
Firearms Act, 1937, namely,
stealing amotor-car, he was found in possession of a
firearm".
At
the
close of
the
Prosecution's case
the
Defence
submitted there was no case
to
answer, on
the
ground
that
when
the
accused was actually arrested outside
the
cafe
he was no longer in possession of
the
pistol. The prose-
cuting advocate argued
that
the
accused could be considered
under arrest from
the
moment
the
policemen arrived
at
the
cafe,
but
the
Court would have none ot this argument, on
cgT
To continue reading
Request your trial