Cremin, R. v

Possession of ammunition under Firearms Act 1968, section 1 requires proof that the defendant knew that the relevant item was present and had a sufficient measure of control over it. Knowledge of its exact nature is unnecessary.

When assessing whether an erroneous answer to a jury question renders a conviction unsafe, the court must consider the summing-up as a whole. A conviction remains safe where earlier directions accurately identified the decisive issue, the later error was unlikely to divert the jury from it, and the evidence made that issue clear.

The appellant was tried on counts of conspiracy to sell ammunition and possession of ammunition. She was acquitted of conspiracy but convicted of possession after police found ammunition in transparent bags in the living room of accommodation in which she was living.

Her case was that she had not seen the ammunition and did not know it was present. The trial judge initially directed the jury to focus on the ammunition outside the ammunition box. In response to a later jury question about possession, however, he gave examples concerning the contents of parcels.

The appeal concerned whether that further direction misdescribed the issue and made the possession conviction unsafe.

Appeal dismissed. Although the judge’s supplemental answer to the jury’s question was erroneous and unhelpful, the conviction was safe.

1. For possession under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, the prosecution had to prove that the appellant knew the relevant item was present and had a measure of control over it. It was unnecessary to prove that she knew its precise character. Thus, if she knew a box contained something and exercised the requisite control, ignorance that it contained ammunition would not have provided a defence.

2. That issue did not require decision in relation to the ammunition box. The prosecution case left to the jury concerned the ammunition in transparent bags lying in the living room. The proper question was whether the appellant had seen those bags before falling asleep, knew they were present, and had a measure of control over them. If she had seen them, their nature as ammunition would have been obvious.

3. The judge had accurately identified that issue in his earlier directions and shortly before the jury retired. His later references to parcels and their contents did not answer the jury’s question properly and risked reviving an irrelevant issue about the ammunition box.

4. Nevertheless, viewed in the context of the summing-up as a whole, the later error could not have misled the jury or deflected it from the simple and decisive issue. The appellant’s own evidence squarely raised that issue, and the prosecution case on it was strong. The verdict was therefore safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2007] EWCA Crim 666, dismissed the appeal against the conviction for possession of ammunition.
• Trial: The appellant was acquitted of conspiracy to sell ammunition and convicted of possession of ammunition.