Mills-Owens, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary

Under section 26(1) of the Firearms Act 1968, an application for a shotgun certificate must be made to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. A person may have more than one residence, but residence remains a question of fact requiring assessment of the evidence. On a case stated appeal, the reviewing court may intervene where the lower court misconstrued the statutory provision or reached a conclusion unsupported by the evidence. It may not reconsider the evidence or receive new evidence. The appeal was dismissed because the Crown Court had correctly construed the provision and its conclusion that the applicant did not reside at the stated address was justified.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Winchester, which had dismissed his appeal against the refusal to renew his shotgun certificate. The Chief Constable refused the renewal on the ground that the claimant did not reside within the relevant police area, as required by section 26(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.

The Crown Court found that the claimant had several addresses but was not in regular residence at the Hampshire property. The questions for the High Court were whether the Crown Court had correctly construed section 26(1) and whether the evidence justified its conclusion.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Both questions stated for the opinion of the High Court were answered in the affirmative.

2. Section 26(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 makes residence relevant to the jurisdiction of the chief officer of police exercising the statutory power to grant a firearm or shotgun certificate. Residence is a question of fact. A person may have two or more residences, but the relevant residence must be established on the facts. The court considered Burditt v Joslin [1981] 3 All ER 203 consistent with that approach.

3. On a case stated appeal, the High Court could allow the appeal only if the Crown Court had misconstrued section 26(1) or reached a conclusion that was not justified by the evidence. The High Court could not reconsider the evidence or rely on photographs produced for the first time on appeal.

4. The Crown Court was entitled to rely on the evidence concerning the condition of the property, the absence of regular occupation and the claimant’s limited and insufficiently particularised account of his residence. Its conclusion that he did not reside at the property was properly open to it.

5. The decision concerned residence alone. There was no suggestion that the claimant was otherwise unsuitable to hold a shotgun certificate. Costs of £750 were ordered against him.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 13 May 2003, the appeal by way of case stated from the Crown Court at Winchester was dismissed. The Crown Court’s construction of section 26(1) and its evidential conclusion were upheld.
• Crown Court at Winchester: On 8 November 2002, the claimant’s appeal against refusal to renew his shotgun certificate was dismissed.