Smith, R. v

Smith, R. v

Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 does not require jury unanimity as to which limb of intent applies; it is sufficient if the jury is sure that the appellant possessed the firearm with intent to endanger life, whether by himself or by enabling another. The judge's direction was correct and a Brown direction was not necessary.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Owen Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Firearms Offences, Jury Directions, Intent, Brown Direction
Criminal Law Firearms Offences Jury Directions Intent Brown Direction

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Owen Smith

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Brown direction was required for jury unanimity on the specific intent under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer

Ratio Decidendi

Section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 does not require jury unanimity as to which limb of intent applies; it is sufficient if the jury is sure that the appellant possessed the firearm with intent to endanger life, whether by himself or by enabling another. The judge's direction was correct and a Brown direction was not necessary.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld
  • renewed application for leave to appeal refused