Uddin, R. v

For possession of a firearm, an intended purchase and an inspection of the bag containing it do not alone establish possession. Possession may commonly be considered through control, but a prospective buyer who has neither taken the bag nor the firearm has not, on those facts, acquired control. Where police intervention prevents the intended transfer from occurring, the firearm remains in the seller’s sole possession and control. A conviction under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 cannot stand where there is no evidence on which a properly directed jury could find possession.

The appellant was convicted at Southwark Crown Court on 24 June 2004 of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that he had arranged to buy a handgun and ammunition from Powell. Police observed Powell show him a substantial carrier bag. Before any transfer took place, officers intervened. Powell dropped the bag, which contained the weapon and ammunition, and the appellant ran away.

On an appeal against conviction, the central issue was whether there was evidence capable of establishing that the appellant had possessed the firearm.

1. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside. The Court held that there was no evidence on which a properly directed jury could convict the appellant of possessing the firearm.
2. Possession was the statutory requirement under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. Control is commonly an aspect of possession and may assist in deciding whether possession has been established. The trial judge had correctly identified knowledge and control as relevant matters, but the evidence did not permit a finding of control by the appellant.
3. The evidence could support an inference that the appellant and Powell intended to complete a sale of the handgun and ammunition for cash. That intended exchange never occurred. The appellant did not take the bag, put his hands on it or its contents, or take the gun from Powell.
4. Until the appellant took the gun, he was not in possession of it. Powell retained sole possession and sole control. The matter was not one of joint possession. A different result might have followed had police intervened later, after a transfer, but that possibility did not establish the completed offence on the facts proved.
5. In consequence, the Court did not need to consider the subsidiary grounds of appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction allowed; the conviction was set aside in [2005] EWCA Crim 2653.
• Southwark Crown Court: On 24 June 2004, the appellant was convicted under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.