Salih v R.

For an offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, the prosecution need not prove an immediate or unconditional intention to endanger life. It is enough to prove possession of a firearm ready for use to endanger life if occasion arises.

A claimed intention to use a firearm only in lawful self-defence is available only in rare circumstances. There must be evidence of a fear of imminent attack at the time of possession and a weapon carried against a specific danger. A general fear of future attack does not suffice. A person lawfully possessing a firearm for another purpose is not necessarily guilty merely because they may conditionally use it if attacked.

The appellant was convicted on count 7 of possessing a loaded pistol with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. The pistol was found in his trouser pocket after his arrest at his shop.

The Crown alleged that he carried it for protection while dealing in firearms. The appellant said that it had long been in the shop and that he had put it in his pocket only to conceal it before surrendering it under an amnesty.

On appeal from the Central Criminal Court, he contended that the jury should have been directed that an intent to use the pistol only in lawful self-defence would not establish the offence. The issue was whether the evidence required a self-defence direction.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The judge’s direction correctly reflected the requirement under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968. The Crown was not required to prove an immediate or unconditional intention to endanger life. It was sufficient to prove possession of a loaded firearm ready for use, if occasion arose, in a life-endangering manner.

2. Georgiades established a narrow possible defence where the intended endangerment of life would be lawful self-defence. That defence arises only where the evidence tends to show that, at the time of the alleged possession, the defendant feared an imminent attack and carried the weapon to meet that specific danger.

3. Following Stubbs and Thomas [2007] EWCA Crim 1714, a genuine and even justified general fear of a future murderous attack does not permit a person to carry a loaded firearm in public. Such a rule would seriously impair legislation directed at preventing the carrying of firearms and offensive weapons.

4. The appellant’s case did not raise self-defence. His alleged possession was capable of having occurred before any immediate threat, and there was no evidential basis for a fear of imminent attack. The jury were therefore not entitled to acquit on that basis.

5. By analogy with Malnick v DPP [1989] Criminal L. R. 451, the policy does not necessarily criminalise a person who lawfully possesses a firearm for a purpose other than endangering life, merely because that person may conditionally use it if attacked.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction in [2007] EWCA Crim 2750.

• Central Criminal Court: His Honour Judge Forrester convicted the appellant on count 7 of possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life.