R v Christopher Kyei

In a strict-liability firearms offence, ignorance of a container’s contents normally does not prevent possession of those contents. A genuine planted-article case is different where the defendant had no opportunity, before discovery, to take control of the article by ejection or otherwise. Awareness that a box is present, moving it within a vehicle and leaving it there for several days may amount to deliberate ignorance and defeat that characterisation. Sections 1 and 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 do not require different meanings of possession or container. Where ammunition is inside a box within a vehicle, it is unnecessary to decide whether the vehicle itself is a container if the box is sufficient.

The applicant pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate after the prospective trial judge ruled that he had no defence in law. He was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, with substantial custody and curfew credit. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal, arguing that the ammunition had been planted in his vehicle, that he lacked knowledge of its contents and that the principles concerning containers and possession should not extend to a vehicle or to an offence under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. He relied in part on R v Hannat Hassan [2022] EWCA Crim 786. The central issue was whether the evidence disclosed a legally available planted-article defence.

1. Disposition. The renewed application was refused. The conviction was neither arguably nor remotely unsafe. The applicant was ordered under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to pay £56.70, being the reasonable cost of the transcripts.
2. Applicable principles. The court accepted that the authorities establish strict liability for offences under sections 1 and 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. In a container case, a defendant cannot ordinarily avoid possession by asserting that he did not know what the container held. The court applied the approach in R v Zahid [2010] EWCA Crim 2158, finding no valid distinction between sections 1 and 5 which would require different meanings of possession or container.
3. Planted articles. The court accepted that a genuinely planted article may raise a defence where the defendant literally had no opportunity, before discovery, to take control of it by ejection or otherwise. The applicant was entitled to have such a case considered by a jury if it were properly raised.
4. Application to the facts. This was not such a case on the facts placed before the judge. The applicant knew that the box was in his vehicle, moved it from the back seat to the boot and had the opportunity to inspect or remove it during the seven days before discovery. His lack of curiosity about its concealed contents amounted to deliberate ignorance and did not support the contention that it was planted without his knowledge.
5. Container issue. The question whether the vehicle itself was a container did not affect the result. The ammunition was inside a box, which was itself a container, and the container concept was relevant only to possession. The court noted that the renewed application in R v Hannat Hassan had been refused and that no indication had been sought that the judgment should be treated as authority in future cases involving similar facts.

• Trial proceedings: On 15 May 2023, the applicant changed his plea to guilty after the prospective trial judge ruled that he had no defence in law. He received ten months’ imprisonment, with 843 days ordered to count towards sentence, and an order for forfeiture and disposal of the ammunition.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2024] EWCA Crim 341: The renewed application was refused. The conviction was held to be safe, and transcript costs were ordered.