Williams, R v

For an offence concerning an imitation firearm, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had an actual thing, independent of his body, whose appearance would enable a jury to be sure that it was a firearm. The object need not be adapted into, or be a replica of, a firearm. Its appearance at the material time is a question of fact for the jury on all the evidence.

Witness accounts and a defendant’s words or pretence may assist in showing the object’s appearance, but they are not decisive. The jury must focus on the appearance of the object itself. The reasoning in R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18, concerning a defendant’s own hand, does not alter that rule.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court on 12 July 1999 to robbery and to carrying an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, contrary to section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968. The latter conviction resulted in a life sentence under the sentencing legislation then applicable.

During the robbery, the appellant said that he had a gun while holding a bottle concealed in a plastic carrier bag. The shop assistant did not see the object, but described its apparent shape and the sound made when the bag was tapped against the hatch. The appellant later admitted that he had pretended that the bottle was a gun.

Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the appeal raised whether the later decision in R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18 undermined the guilty plea and whether the concealed bottle could amount to an imitation firearm.

1. Appeal dismissed. There was no basis to disturb the conviction founded on the appellant’s guilty plea.

2. Section 18 of the Firearms Act 1968 requires proof that the defendant had with him a thing, separate from his own body, which had the appearance of a firearm. Whether an object is an imitation firearm depends upon its actual appearance at the material time, assessed against the definition in section 57.

3. R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18 did not assist the appellant. It concerned the use of a hand or fingers, which are part of the body and cannot be possessed. The appellant had an independent object, namely a bottle. The difference between possession under section 17(2) and having an object with one under section 18 did not alter the need for an actual thing in either context.

4. The court followed R v Morris and King [1984] 79 Cr App R 104. An object need not be altered or adapted to resemble a firearm. A stick or table leg concealed in a bag might have that appearance. The jury must decide the issue on all the evidence, including eyewitness evidence and, where available, their own observation of the object. Witness evidence is material but not decisive.

5. A defendant’s words or other pretence may be admissible if they assist in proving the object’s appearance. The jury should nevertheless be directed to decide what the object actually looked like, rather than whether the defendant asserted or acted as if he had a firearm. The appellant’s plea admitted that the bottle, as carried in the bag, had the requisite appearance. Bentham provided no reason to reopen that admission.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2006] EWCA Crim 1650.
2. Lewes Crown Court: On 12 July 1999, the appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and to the section 18 offence under the Firearms Act 1968.
3. Earlier appellate proceedings: The judgment records earlier applications and an appeal which was dismissed in 1999 and 2000, but gives no citations or further details.