Shahabi -Shack, R v

The statutory exemption for possession of a prohibited short-barrelled firearm is available only where possession accords with the firearm certificate, including conditions governing the firearm’s essential physical nature and functioning. Whether an obstruction genuinely restricts a revolver to the permitted number of chambers is a question of fact and degree. Easily removable plugs may properly be found insufficient. Not every breach of a certificate condition has this consequence: conditions concerning use or secure storage stand differently. However, alteration of the firearm so that it no longer meets a condition governing its functioning removes the exemption under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.

The appellant, a registered firearms dealer, held a firearms certificate permitting possession of a .38 revolver for the humane killing of injured deer, subject to a condition restricting it to two shots. The revolver was originally modified by fixed steel rods to limit three chambers.

When police seized it in 2011, the rods had been replaced by crudely made plugs which could readily be pushed out, allowing all five chambers to be used. The appellant gave no explanation for the alteration. At the Crown Court at Bolton, a jury convicted him of possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968.

On appeal, he contended that the plugs met the certificate condition and that any breach of that condition could amount only to an offence under section 1(2), without removing the statutory exemption.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe. The court granted leave to appeal but rejected both grounds.
2. Whether an obstruction restricts a revolver to two usable chambers for the purposes of a firearms certificate is a question of fact and degree. It depends on all the circumstances. The judge must decide as a matter of law whether the evidence is capable of supporting a finding of non-compliance; if it is, the issue is for the jury.
3. On the evidence, the judge was entitled to leave the issue to the jury. The contrast between the original fixed steel rods and the crude, readily removable plugs supported a finding that the latter did not restrict the revolver as the certificate required. The jury’s conclusion was plainly right.
4. Section 3 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 exempts possession only where the person is authorised by a firearms certificate to possess the firearm for the humane killing of animals. Possession must therefore be in accordance with the certificate and its conditions. The court distinguished conditions concerning the firearm’s nature and functioning from conditions concerning, for example, its use or secure storage. Breach of the latter will not necessarily turn the firearm into a prohibited weapon.
5. Here the alteration concerned the firearm itself. It no longer complied with the condition restricting it to two shots. Its possession was consequently outside the section 3 exemption and fell within section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that the appellant’s altered revolver was outside the statutory exemption.
• Crown Court at Bolton On 21 July 2014, following trial before Judge Knopf and a jury, convicted the appellant of possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968 and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.