R v Bentham (Peter)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY,LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS,LORD STEYN,LORD CARSWELL,LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] UKHL 18 |
| Date | 10 March 2005 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[2005] UKHL 18
The Appellate Committee comprised:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Steyn
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Carswell
HOUSE OF LORDS
My Lords,
Can a person who has his hand inside a zipped-up jacket, forcing the material out so as to give the impression that he has a gun, be held to have in his possession an imitation firearm within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968? That is the short question raised by this appeal. Her Honour Judge Badley, sitting in the Crown Court at Preston, ruled that he could and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Kennedy LJ, Curtis and Forbes JJ: [2003] EWCA Crim 3751, [2004] 2 All ER 549, [2004] 1 Cr App R 487) upheld that decision. The appellant, who pleaded guilty on the basis of the judge's ruling, challenges its correctness.
The relevant facts are very short. Early on the morning of 24 May 2002 the appellant broke into the house of his former employer A and went to the bedroom where A was sleeping. He had his hand inside his zipped-up jacket, forcing the material out so as to give the impression that he had a gun, pointing towards A. He demanded money and jewellery, threatening to shoot A if he did not comply. In fear, and believing that the appellant was in possession of a gun, A handed over some money and the appellant left. The appellant later confided to a third party G that he had put his fingers inside his jacket when he had committed the robbery, to give the appearance of having a gun. When G made a statement recording this, the appellant tried to persuade her to retract it.
An indictment containing 3 counts was preferred against the appellant, charging him (in count 1) with robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 and (in count 3) with acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. To these counts he pleaded guilty. He was in due course sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment on count 1 and 6 months' imprisonment consecutive on count 3. He did not seek to appeal against these sentences.
This appeal concerns count 2, which charged the appellant with possessing an imitation firearm during the course of a robbery contrary to section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. The particulars alleged that at the time of committing an offence specified in Schedule 1 to the 1968 Act, namely robbery, he "had in his possession an imitation firearm namely an unknown item concealed beneath his jacket designed to give the appearance that he was concealing a firearm." It is now accepted that the bulge in the jacket was caused by the appellant's hand and fingers.
It was argued before the judge that on these facts the appellant did not have in his possession an imitation firearm, but she rejected this. She said:
"Of course, an unadorned finger cannot have the appearance of being a firearm. But any piece of cloth which was puckered or gathered in such a way that could, to the eye of a terrified person, look like being a firearm is another matter entirely …"
In the light of this ruling the appellant pleaded guilty on the basis of the facts he asserted, which are now agreed, and the judge sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently with the robbery sentence. In para 25 of its judgment, dismissing the appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal shared the opinion of the judge:
"25. Consequently, if that approach is adopted in relation to the statutory words with which we are confronted, one is left, as it seems to us, in this position. In our judgment, the wording of the English statute as explained in R v Morris shows that the ruling of the circuit judge in the present case was right. If the matter had gone to trial (and what is important is the view of the jury), the jury would have had to consider whether at the critical time when threatening [A] and his partner the appellant had in his possession an imitation firearm. That is to say, having regard to the statutory definition, anything which had the appearance of a firearm. We cannot see that it mattered whether or not that item was made of plastic, or wood, or simply anorak fabric stiffened by a finger, if in the opinion of the jury at the relevant time it had the appearance of a firearm then, in our judgment, they were entitled to find that the offence was made out."
While an imitation firearm lacks the capacity of a real, loaded firearm to kill or injure, it has much the same capacity to frighten and enforce compliance, not least because many imitations are almost indistinguishable from the real thing and those threatened have little opportunity or inclination to examine the nature of the weapon used: see R v Avis and others [1998] 1 Cr App R 420, 423. So it is not surprising that Parliament has, since the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Act 1933, legislated to criminalise the use and possession of imitation firearms. In the 1968 Act as amended, sections 16A, 17, 18, 19 and 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Borough of Hillingdon and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport (Defendant/Applicant) The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Others (Interested Parties)
...482; [2006] 4 All ER 982, CAManydown Co Ltd v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council [2012] EWHC 977 (Admin); [2012] JPL 1188R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18; [2005] 1 WLR 1057; [2005] 2 All ER 65; [2005] 2 Cr App R 175, HL(E)R v Brown (Richard) [2013] UKSC 43; [2013] 4 All ER 860, SC(NI)R v Camde......
- Yearworth and Others v North Bristol NHS Trust
-
Ghanem Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
...have intended’, this passage indicates that the grammatical meaning is the starting point and may not be rejected without cause.” 65 In R v Bentham [2005] 1 WLR 1057, Lord Bingham said: “Rules of statutory construction have a valuable role when the meaning of a statutory provision is doubt......
-
Richard Holdich V. Lothian Health Board
...& Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust (CA) [2010] QB 1 at § 30 per Lord Judge CJ giving the judgment of the court; Regina v Bentham [2005] 1 WLR 1057 at § 14 per Lord Rodger of Earlsferry]. [31] The defenders tell me that prior to the decision in Yearworth, subject to one closely defined exceptio......
-
Table of Cases
...37 R v Alexson, [1989] 6 WWR 275, 68 Alta LR (2d) 255 (Prov Ct) ..................... 136 R v Bentham, [2005] UKHL 18, [2005] WLR 1057.............................................. 13 R v Esquimalt, [1972] 5 WWR 362 at 365 ......................................................... 129 R v Fo......
-
What is Property?
...the body of a living human being is trespass to the person, not trespass to goods. 35 [2000] WASC 146, 22 WAR 331, Master Sanderson. 36 [2005] UKHL 18, [2005] WLR 1057. 37 Ibid at para 8. ...
-
Proprietary Rights in Human Tissue
...Professor Gray has said that “the ultimate fact about property is that it does not really exist: it is mere illusion.” 10 R v Bentham , [2005] UKHL 18 06 Vard.indd 102 11/06/2013 10:46 Proprietary Rights in Human Tissue 103 of organs not presuppose an organ’s existence as a proprietary obje......
-
Property rights to our bodies and their products
...existence. 24Yanner v Eaton [1999] HCA 53; (1999) 201 CLR 351, 367 [20] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby & Hayne JJ). 25R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18; [2005] 1 WLR 1057 [14]. 26D 9 2 13 pr. 27T Honoré, Ulpian: Pioneer of Human Rights (2002). 28R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18; [2005] 1 WLR 1057 [8]. 29R ......