Flint & Anor, R v

The convictions are safe because, even if the correct legal directions had been given regarding the lawful object defence, the applicants' possession and use of explosive substances involved clear risks to people and property, public nuisance, and unlawful conduct, thereby tainting any ostensibly lawful object and precluding the defence. No substantial injustice would result from refusing exceptional leave to appeal out of time.

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, Lawful Object Defence, Exceptional Leave to Appeal, Change in Law, Possession of Explosives, Public Safety

Criminal Law Explosive Substances Lawful Object Defence Exceptional Leave to Appeal Change in Law Possession of Explosives Public Safety

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 10

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 Whether the applicants should be granted exceptional leave to appeal out of time in light of the Supreme Court decision in R v Copeland regarding the lawful object defence under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883
2 Whether the convictions are unsafe due to misdirection on the lawful object defence

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

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