Flint & Anor, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 1266 (06 October 2020)

Flint & Anor, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 1266 (06 October 2020)

The convictions are safe because, even if the correct directions on lawful object had been given, the applicants' possession and use of explosive substances involved obvious risks to people and property, and their objects were mixed and not wholly lawful. No substantial injustice would result from refusing exceptional leave to appeal out of time.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Crim 1266
Parties
1st Appellant: Simon Paul Flint; 2nd Appellant: Anthony Michael Holmes; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Exceptional Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Applications for exceptional leave to appeal out of time refused; convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Explosive Substances Act 1883, Lawful Object Defence, Exceptional Leave to Appeal, Possession of Explosive Substances, Regulatory Offences, Ratio Decidendi in Copeland
Criminal Law Explosive Substances Act 1883 Lawful Object Defence Exceptional Leave to Appeal Possession of Explosive Substances Regulatory Offences Ratio Decidendi in Copeland

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Paul Flint

1st Appellant

Anthony Michael Holmes

2nd Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Exceptional Leave to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether possession of explosive substances for experimentation/self-education constitutes a lawful object under section 4(1) Explosive Substances Act 1883
  2. 2 Whether breach of Explosives Regulations 2014 precludes the defence of lawful object
  3. 3 Whether substantial injustice would result if exceptional leave to appeal out of time is refused

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions are safe because, even if the correct directions on lawful object had been given, the applicants' possession and use of explosive substances involved obvious risks to people and property, and their objects were mixed and not wholly lawful. No substantial injustice would result from refusing exceptional leave to appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

Applications for exceptional leave to appeal out of time refused; convictions upheld.

Orders

  • No exceptional leave granted.
  • Convictions remain safe.