R v Downey
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1971 |
| Date | 01 January 1971 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Firearm -Whether firearm an "explosive substance" -Explosive Substances Act, 1883 (46 47 Vict.(c. 3), s. 4 - Meaning of "possession" for the purposes of Firearms Act (Northern Ireland), 1969 (c. 12), s. 1 (1) - Consent of Attorney General to prosecution - Consent given in respect of possession at wrong address - Whether sufficient to found jurisdiction - Explosive Substances Act, 1883 (46 47 Vict. c. 3), s. 71.
The applicant was convicted under s. 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, of being knowingly in possession of a shotgun in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he did not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object. He was further convicted, under s. 1 of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland), 1969, of having the shotgun in his possession without holding a firearm certificate therefor. He appealed against conviction on the grounds (i) that a firearm is not an "explosive substance"; (ii) that the Attorney General's consent to prosecution, as required by s. 7 of the Act of 1883, was invalid by reason of the fact that it related to an address other than the address at which the offence was alleged to have been committed; and (iii) that there had been a misdirection on the meaning of "possession" for the purpose of s. 1 of the Act of 1969. Held (i) that a shotgun is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Cain ; R v Schollick
...in this case has been in regular use in England and Wales for over 100 years. The position in Northern Ireland is, however, different. In R. v. Downey (1971) Northern Ireland Reports 224 an Appellant was convicted under the same section as in the present case, namely, section 4 of the 1883 ......
-
Queen v George Angus McKenzie
...to justify the inference that he knew it was a prohibited weapon within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b). He also relied on R v Downey [1971] NI 224 in which the trial judge had directed the jury that “you can have possession of a thing though you don’t know. It is a difficult idea but you mu......
-
Singh v Attorney General et Al
...to the affidavit evidence. 178 He relied on R v. Cain 61 Cr. App. R 186 and the dictum of Lord Mac Dermott, C.J. in R v. Downey (1971) N.I. 224 to the effect that the consent should describe the offences charged with reasonable particularity and is not a mere rubber stamp to the preferment ......
-
Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v James Kirkby Roulston
...void because no consent for prosecution was given under the 1978 Order or the 1988 Order: see R v Smyth [1982] NI at 276F and R v Downey [1971] NI 224. Our Conclusions [13] The Resident Magistrate in his written “judgment” delivered on 24 November 2003 stated that “no Director’s consent to ......