Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9106400212 |
| Date | 01 April 1991 |
| Published date | 01 April 1991 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR SIR
JOHN
WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.,
The University
of
SheffieldLegal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal.
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
SQUEEZY
BOTI'LE
R. v. Formosa
[1990] 3 W.L.R. 1179 Court of Appeal
Theattentionof policeofficerswas drawntoacarparkedin acentralLondon
street.Thereweretwooccupants, wearingglovesand caps. Onthe floorwas
a machete. Insidethejacketpocket ofone of them,Upton,theofficers found
a plasticFairy Liquid bottlecontaining400 millilitres of hydrochloric acid.
Oneoftheoffencesforwhichtheyweresubsequently chargedwaspossession
of a prohibitedweaponcontrary tos.5 of the FirearmsAct 1968. Bothwere
convictedand appealed.
Section5(1)(b)concerns'anyweaponofwhateverdescription designed
oradaptedforthedischargeof any noxiousliquid,gas orotherthing.' At the
trial the Judge ruled that the bottle fell within this definition, having been
adaptedby beingfilledwith acid. Thisrulingwaschallengedand formedthe
basis of theappeal.
Itwasfirstpointed outon behalfof theappellantsthatthebottlewasnot
in any sense a weapon if empty. That could not be otherwise
than
right.
Fillingit withacid wassaid notto be 'adapting' as requiredbythe Act.
It
was
suggestedthat a more apt charge wouldhave been one laid unders.1 of the
Preventionof Crimes Act 1953 whichdefines an offensiveweaponas 'any
article intendedby the personhaving it withhim for use for causing injury
to the person.'
Inpreviousdecisionsthe wordadaptedappearstohave'takenitscolour
and meaning from the context in which it appears' but may be interpreted
widely. InMaddox v.Storer [1963] 1 Q.B.451 it was held to indicateto be
fitfora purpose. Butwhen connectedinthe phrase'constructedoradapted'
it appearsto havea narrower meaning. It wasso interpretedin both French
v.Champkin
[1920]
1K.B. 76 and Taylorv. Mead
[1961]
1W.L.R.435.
It
hasto involvean alteration. The prosecutiontried,a littlehopefullyperhaps,
to suggestthat 'designed' could cover the changeto a present intendeduse
as well as the original conceptbut that idea wasrejected.
Having settledthat point thecourt decided that therecould not be said
to be any adaptation on the facts it was considering. Indeed if that view
had not been taken, any such bottle used to contain a dangerous substance
would involve possession of an illegal weapon however harmless the
intent. An early ruling, in R. v. Titus [1971] Crim. L.R. was held to be
correct. Other convictions in the case were not affected and the sentence
was reduced from three years to 18 months.
Note
This 'minor' case is yet another example of the way courts approach statutory interpretation
- a mixture of language and linguisucs. Common sense would say, by analogy, that the
180
April
1991
To continue reading
Request your trial