Smith, R. v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE DAVIS
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE ZEIDMAN QC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted for possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life under the Firearms Act 1968. A search of his flat revealed firearms and ammunition. The jury was directed that there was no need for unanimity regarding whether the appellant intended to endanger life himself or enable another person to do so. The appellant contended this direction was wrong. The appellate court upheld the conviction, ruling that the judge's instructions were correct and the conviction was safe.
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE DAVIS :
Introduction
2. Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended, reads in the relevant respects as follows:
"It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life or to enable another person by means thereof to endanger life whether any injury has been caused or not."
3. In the present case the appellant was tried on a count of possessing a firearm with intent under section 16 of that Act.
4. The prosecution case at trial was either that he had possession of the firearm himself intending to endanger life or that he had possession intending to enable another to endanger life. The judge directed the jury that it was not necessary for them all to be sure as to which alternative applied before they could convict; that is to say, he refused to accede to a defence request to give what is commonly known as a Brown direction in this regard (see R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115). The principal point arising on this appeal is whether the judge was wrong so to direct the jury.
5. The trial was conducted before His Honour Judge Grobel and a jury at the Inner London Crown Court. On a previous occasion the appellant had pleaded guilty to various counts of possession of a prohibited firearm, possession of expanding ammunition or ammunition held without a certificate and further counts of producing and possessing cannabis. The only count on the indictment on which he was tried thus was the count (count 1 on the indictment) of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16.
6. On 2nd August 2013 he was convicted by the jury. In due course he was, by a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences, sentenced to a total term of 9 years' imprisonment, of which eight-and-a-half years was imposed in respect of count 1.
7. He appeals against conviction by leave of the single judge. In addition, he renews his application for leave to appeal against conviction on a further ground, in respect of which leave had been refused by the single judge.
Background Facts
8. The background facts in summary were these. On the 12th July 2012 a search warrant was executed at an address in Kennington, South London. This was a one bedroom ground floor flat with an open plan kitchen and living room. The appellant lived on his own at this address. He was detained by police officers on that occasion as he left the property.
9. In the h