Gregory, R. v

Possession of a firearm without a firearm certificate under section 1(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 is an offence of strict liability, not absolute liability. A mistaken description of the offence as absolute does not render a conviction unsafe where the ruling’s substantive effect was correct.

Duress of circumstances and necessity are strictly limited defences. Exceptional emergency possession of a firearm by a public-spirited person may require careful consideration. However, no such defence arises where the accused voluntarily retains the firearm for private use and no circumstances of duress exist.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Swindon to possessing an altered firearm without a firearm certificate, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, and to possessing a firearm while prohibited. He did so after the judge ruled that section 1(1) created an absolute offence and that his asserted intention to take a shotgun to the police disclosed no defence.

Following a Newton hearing, the judge rejected the appellant’s and his mother’s account that he had found the weapon by chance and intended to hand it in. The appellant appealed against conviction, initially challenging the characterisation of the offence and later contending that duress of circumstances rendered his guilty plea unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe. The guilty plea was properly informed and voluntary because, on the facts advanced before the plea, no defence was disclosed.

2. The judge was wrong to describe section 1(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 as creating an offence of absolute liability. Its effect was nevertheless correctly identified: possession without a firearm certificate is an offence of strict liability. The court treated that conclusion as consistent with R v Zahid [2010] EWCA Crim 2158, which had adopted R v Deyemi and Edwards [2008] 1 Cr App R 25.

3. Duress of circumstances is a defence of strictly limited scope. The court observed, without deciding hypothetical cases, that exceptional emergency possession of a firearm by a person who disarms an offender or secures a weapon pending police attendance might potentially raise duress or necessity. The prospect that such a person would not be prosecuted, or would receive an absolute discharge if prosecuted, would not necessarily make the defence bound to fail.

4. Those exceptional considerations did not assist this appellant. Even on his own account, he was voluntarily in possession of the firearm and initially intended to keep it for his own use. There were no circumstances creating duress, and none had been raised before the judge’s ruling. The judge’s ruling was therefore correct in its context.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed; the conviction was held safe.
• Crown Court at Swindon: Judge Field ruled that the appellant’s account disclosed no defence to the section 1(1) offence. The appellant then pleaded guilty and, following a Newton hearing, received concurrent sentences of four and three years’ imprisonment.