Williams v R.

Williams v R.

Section 1(5) of the Firearms Act 1982 imposes a legal (persuasive) burden on the accused to show lack of knowledge or suspicion that the imitation firearm was readily convertible. This reverse burden is justified and proportionate given the statutory context, public interest in controlling dangerous weapons, and the accused's ability to explain his state of mind. The trial judge's direction was correct and the conviction is safe.

Parties
Appellant: Orette Williams; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Burden of Proof, Human Rights, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Burden of Proof Human Rights Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orette Williams

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 1(5) of the Firearms Act 1982 impose a legal (persuasive) or evidential burden on an accused charged with possession of a readily convertible imitation firearm?
  2. 2 Is the reverse legal burden compatible with Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights?
  3. 3 Is the derogation from the presumption of innocence justified and proportionate?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 1(5) of the Firearms Act 1982 imposes a legal (persuasive) burden on the accused to show lack of knowledge or suspicion that the imitation firearm was readily convertible. This reverse burden is justified and proportionate given the statutory context, public interest in controlling dangerous weapons, and the accused's ability to explain his state of mind. The trial judge's direction was correct and the conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld
  • sentence of 5 years' imprisonment affirmed