Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7004300705 |
| Date | 01 July 1970 |
| Published date | 01 July 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
LL.M.,
The University
of
Sheffield
Legal Correspondent
of
THE
POLlCE
JOURNAL
FIREARM
R. v. Freeman
[1970}
I W.L.R. 788 Court of Appeal
This case was an appeal from conviction of possessing a firearm
without holding a firearm certificate. The police
had
found in
Freeman's room astarting revolver designed to fire blank cart-
ridges of .380 calibre. The front ends of the firing chambers were
constricted and the barrel was solid. In this state the revolver was
incapable of firing bullets.
It
could, by being drilled out, be made
capable of firing bullets and the gun in question had been drilled
along
part
of the barrel from the muzzleend. On conviction Freeman
was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for this offence. He
appealed.
The metropolitan police forensic science laboratory had reported
that this revolver
had
features preventing it discharging missiles
but these could be "readily removed by drilling". The appeal
turned mainly on the definition of firearm which is set out in s. 57(1)
of the Firearms Act 1968:
...
a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet
or other missile can be discharged and
includes-
...
(b) any component
part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon.
At the trial the Judge had ruled as a matter of law that the revolver
in its present state was a firearm. He was following Cafferata v.
Wilson
[1936}
3 All E.R. 149, in which the Divisional Court con-
sidered a gun indistinguishable from this one. This decision was
made under the Firearms Act, 1936, and the Firearms Act, 1937,
which in s. 32(1) contains a definition of firearm similar to that in the
present 1968 Act. This case had
not
been challenged since it was
decided and in Scotland it was approved in Muir v. Cassidy (1953)
S.L.T. 4.
It
seems to follow from the rules of statutory interpretation
that the decision applying to the earlier statute can be taken as
applying to the re-enactment of a similar definition. A final point in
favour of the decision made by the trial court is that in
Read
v.
Donovan
[1947]
K.B. 326, it was clearly laid down that the intention
of
the manufacturer of a signal pistol was irrelevant in determining
whether it was a firearm or not. The Court of Appeal, therefore,
324 July 1970
To continue reading
Request your trial