Zahid v R

Possession of prohibited firearms or ammunition contrary to section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 is an offence of strict liability. Once possession is proved, a defendant cannot rely on ignorance that an item was a firearm or ammunition, or on a genuine belief that a package contained an innocent object.

No relevant distinction arises between being unaware of a package’s contents and believing them to be bolts, screws, or another harmless article. The restrictive approach to possession under firearms legislation reflects its statutory scheme and the need for rigorous public protection. In any event, a person with an ample opportunity to inspect a package cannot rely on a claimed mistaken belief about its contents.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Blackfriars Crown Court to two counts of possessing expanding ammunition contrary to section 5(1A)(f) of the Firearms Act 1968. He did so after the trial judge ruled that the offences were of strict liability and that his asserted belief that a package contained bolts or screws afforded no defence in law.

At a subsequent Newton hearing, the judge rejected the appellant’s account and sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment concurrently on each count. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. Permission was granted out of time for the conviction appeal. The Court of Appeal had already dismissed the sentence appeal and considered whether a genuine but mistaken belief about the innocent contents of a package could negate possession of ammunition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Crown Court was correct to rule that no defence in law was available and the conviction appeal was dismissed. The sentence appeal had already been dismissed.
2. Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 creates a strict-liability offence. The statutory wording, the comparable treatment of section 1, the Act’s express inclusion of mental-state qualifications elsewhere, and the public-safety purpose of firearms control all supported that conclusion. The court followed R v Bradish (1990) 90 Cr App R 271 and treated R v Deyemi and Edwards [2008] 1 Cr App R 25 as binding authority.
3. The appellant’s proposed distinction was rejected. It made no material difference whether a defendant said that he did not know what was in a container or said that he believed it contained an innocent item. In either case, the asserted defence was that he did not know that the object possessed was a firearm or ammunition. The reasons for rejecting that defence applied equally to both formulations.
4. The more permissive container analysis in Warner v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1969] 2 AC 256, a drugs case, did not govern offences under the firearms legislation. R v Waller [1991] Crim LR 381 directly precluded a defence based on an asserted belief that a bag contained an innocent or different object. The court also accepted Deyemi and Edwards in rejecting the contrary suggestion in R v Vann and Davis [1996] Crim LR 52.
5. Further, the appellant had ample opportunity to inspect the package. Thus, even on the alternative analysis advanced from Warner, he could not have relied on a genuine but mistaken belief as to its contents.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Zahid v R [2010] EWCA Crim 2158, permission was granted to appeal conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the sentence appeal at the hearing and dismissed the conviction appeal in this judgment.
• Crown Court at Blackfriars: On 20 November 2009, HHJ Pillay ruled that possession contrary to section 5(1A)(f) of the Firearms Act 1968 was strict liability. The appellant pleaded guilty. Following a Newton hearing, he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment concurrently on each count.