REGINA v MICHAEL CHANG

The Crown’s exemption from statutory burdens is a rule of statutory interpretation, not a personal immunity for Crown servants. It extends to acts performed by Crown servants in their capacity as such, not to their private activities.

Firearms Act 1968 section 54 does not exempt police officers generally from the criminal provisions governing prohibited weapons. A police officer is exempt from section 5 only while acting in an official capacity. That is a factual question and is not necessarily answered by whether the officer is formally on duty. Unauthorised retention of police-issued PAVA spray in a private vehicle was outside that capacity and remained an offence.

Michael Chang, a police officer, pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. He had retained a police-issued PAVA incapacitant spray in the boot of his private car after duty, contrary to force instructions.

He contended that, because section 54(3)(a) deemed police officers to be Crown servants, section 5 did not apply to him at any time. He also sought leave to appeal against a total suspended sentence imposed for that offence and an unconnected dangerous-driving offence. The central issue was whether the Crown exemption protected a police officer acting outside his official capacity.

1. The appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.

2. The principle that the Crown is not bound by legislation unless Parliament has used express words or necessary implication is a rule for construing the statute. It does not create a personal immunity from criminal liability. Although acts of Crown servants may be acts of the Crown, the principle applies only where they act in their capacity as Crown servants.

3. On its proper construction, section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968 positively applies specified provisions, with modifications, to persons in the service of the Crown acting in that capacity. Section 54(3)(a) enlarges the class of persons treated as Crown servants for that purpose. It does not alter the underlying limit that the exemption concerns official activity.

4. Accordingly, a police officer is exempt from section 5 only when acting officially as a police officer at the relevant time. Whether that condition is met is a question of fact. It is not necessarily identical to whether the officer is on duty.

5. Chang had no permission or duty-related reason to keep the PAVA spray in his private car. His possession was outside his official capacity, so section 54 afforded no exemption and his guilty-plea conviction was proper. The total suspended sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive; the ancillary orders were unexceptional.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence in [2022] EWCA Crim 463.
• Crown Court at Northampton — accepted Chang’s guilty pleas to possession of a prohibited weapon and dangerous driving, and imposed consecutive suspended terms totalling 16 months’ imprisonment, with ancillary orders.