Weaver, R. v

For all purposes of the Firearms Act 1968, the statutory definition of a firearm includes every prohibited weapon, whether or not it is a lethal barrelled weapon capable of discharging a missile. The definition cannot be restricted because an offence carries a minimum sentence. Accordingly, an electric stun gun which is a prohibited weapon, and is disguised as another object, is capable of constituting a firearm for the offence of possessing a disguised firearm.

The respondent used an electric stun gun, resembling a torch, during an assault in a public house. He pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited weapon and to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The prosecution nevertheless sought a trial on a further count of possessing a disguised firearm. The Crown Court ruled on 21 August 2007 that the stun gun was not a firearm for the purposes of section 5(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968. The prosecution appealed against that ruling.

The central issue was whether an electric stun gun, accepted to be a prohibited weapon, could be a firearm under the Act despite not being a lethal barrelled weapon.

1. Appeal allowed. The Crown Court ruling was reversed. A stun gun disguised as a torch is capable of being a firearm for the purposes of section 5(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968.

2. Section 57(1) defines a firearm for all purposes of the Act. Its opening words cover lethal barrelled weapons, but paragraph (a) additionally includes any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon or not. The word “any” means all prohibited weapons. The definition therefore includes prohibited weapons which are neither barrelled nor lethal.

3. The wording of section 57(1)(b) confirmed that Parliament distinguished a “lethal” weapon from a “prohibited” weapon. The expressions “such” and “as aforesaid” in section 57(1)(a) refer back to the complete description of a lethal barrelled weapon. They do not restrict the additional category of prohibited weapons to barrelled weapons.

4. The court followed the accepted position, established in Flack v Baldry [1988] 1 WLR 397, that an electrical stun gun is a prohibited weapon under section 5(1)(b). The potential effect of the minimum-sentence regime could not justify a restricted construction of “firearm”; Parliament could have imposed one expressly.

5. Although the legal ruling was reversed, the court considered that, given the respondent’s guilty pleas and the sentencing powers available, it would not be right for the further count to proceed. The Crown Prosecution Service indicated that it would allow that count to lie on the file.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the prosecution’s appeal and reversed the Crown Court ruling that the stun gun was not a firearm for section 5(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968.

• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: ruled on 21 August 2007 that the stun gun was not a firearm for that offence.