L, R. v

L, R. v

The judge erred in law by misinterpreting the statutory definition of 'air weapon' and its relationship to prohibited firearms under s5(1)(aba); the correct interpretation excludes specially dangerous air pistols from exemption, making the respondent's weapon a prohibited firearm if found to be specially dangerous.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Ruling
Outcome
decision quashed and matter remitted for trial
Legal Topics
Firearms, Statutory Interpretation, Penal Sanctions
Criminal Law Firearms Statutory Interpretation Penal Sanctions

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

L

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Crown Court Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the modified Crossman 2250B CO2-powered .22 calibre gun is a prohibited firearm under s5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'air weapon' under s1(3)(b) and s5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by misinterpreting the statutory definition of 'air weapon' and its relationship to prohibited firearms under s5(1)(aba); the correct interpretation excludes specially dangerous air pistols from exemption, making the respondent's weapon a prohibited firearm if found to be specially dangerous.

Court Disposition

decision quashed and matter remitted for trial

Orders

  • The Crown Court ruling is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted for trial.