Yong v R

Yong v R

On the evidence before the trial judge, there was no basis to conclude the flash eliminators were for use with non-controlled weapons; they were accessories to firearms requiring certification. The judge was correct not to withdraw the case from the jury, and the conviction is safe.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Matthew Yong; Respondent: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Component Parts and Accessories, Strict Liability, Mixed Use Items, Jury Determination
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Component Parts and Accessories Strict Liability Mixed Use Items Jury Determination

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Yong

Appellant

R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession of a flash eliminator without a firearm certificate constitutes an offence under section 1(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 when not attached to a firearm
  2. 2 Whether the judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury on the basis that the flash eliminators could have a mixed use and may not require certification

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the trial judge, there was no basis to conclude the flash eliminators were for use with non-controlled weapons; they were accessories to firearms requiring certification. The judge was correct not to withdraw the case from the jury, and the conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld