R E G I N A v John Rhodes

Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 covers a weapon whose deliberate design features enable it to discharge noxious gas. The provision does not require proof of the designer’s subjective purpose, nor is liability avoided because the weapon is also designed for lawful uses elsewhere. A weapon’s built-in capability to fire gas cartridges may establish that it is designed for that discharge. By contrast, an ordinary object which is not itself a weapon does not fall within the provision merely because it contains a noxious substance.

John Rhodes was tried in the Crown Court at Isleworth on 22 counts under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 concerning unlicensed sales of blank-firing pistols. The recovered pistols had forward vents and partially blocked barrels. They could discharge hot and irritant gases from blank or gas cartridges.

After the trial judge ruled that the statutory question was one of law and accepted the prosecution’s construction, Rhodes pleaded guilty and the jury entered guilty verdicts. He appealed against conviction. The central issue was whether the pistols were weapons designed for the discharge of noxious gas, rather than merely weapons capable of doing so.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge correctly construed section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 and was entitled to direct the jury on that basis.

2. The phrase designed or adapted for the discharge concerns the weapon’s relevant design characteristics. It does not import a requirement to prove the subjective intention of the designer, manufacturer or seller. A weapon deliberately configured so that gas cartridges can be discharged has the necessary design capability, even if it has other functions and is lawfully marketed for them abroad.

3. The court treated the reasoning in R v Law [1999] Crim LR 837, concerning the same expression in section 5(1)(a), as applicable by analogy. It also applied the directly comparable reasoning in Turek v Regional Court In Gliwice Poland [2011] EWHC 1556 (Admin). A pistol’s ability to discharge gas as an integral feature supports the conclusion that it was designed for that purpose.

4. R v Formosa R v Upton was distinguishable. The object there was an ordinary bottle containing acid, rather than a weapon designed or adapted to discharge a noxious substance. The appellant’s pistols had forward-venting features which enabled the prohibited discharge. Their sale therefore fell within section 5(1)(b).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction: [2015] EWCA Crim 155.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: the Recorder ruled on the construction of section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968; following that ruling, the appellant pleaded guilty and guilty verdicts were entered.