From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David,
It was my posting on R v Fagan which appeared recently. On checking the
judgement, I see that it is not dated and the name is spelled Fegan.
I thought it was a 1986 case but on checking the A-G's Reference (1994) 1
All ER, it is shown as R V Fegan (1972) NI 80.
About three years ago, whilst researching our right to arms for defence,
several people told me of a rumour that there was a Northern Ireland case
back in the '80's where someone was convicted for having a firearm without a
certificate but was freed on appeal on self defence grounds.
It took me some time to find this case, as I had little to go on, not even a
name, and it was possible that it was just a rumour.
I had forgotten that I had checked as far back as1972 before finding it.
The substance of the case is almost as described above. Fegan was convicted
on three counts, having a firearm without a certificate, possession of
explosive substances contrary to section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act
1883 and possession of 12 rounds of ammunition.
Count 2 was given as: " Possession of explosive substances, namely the said
Colt pistol and 12 rounds of ammunition, under such circumstances as to give
rise to a reasonable suspicion that he did not have the same in his
possession for a lawful object, contrary to section 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act 1883."
Fegans appeal was upheld in the judgement of Lord MacDermott LCJ.
I have mislaid one of the pages of the judgement but when I find it, I try
and scan it and send you and Steve a copy.
A further reference to anarchy is noted in the A-G's reference above in
relation to R v Fegan.
"In our judgement, a defendant is not left in the paradoxical position of
being able to justify acts carried out in self defence but not acts
immediately preparatory to it. There is no warrant for the for the submision
on behalf of the Attorney General that acts of self defence will only avail
a defendant when they have been done spontaniously. The is no question of a
person in danger of attack 'writing his own immunity' for violent future
acts of his.
He is not confined for his remedy to calling the police or boarding up his
premises. He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency
arises, although in so doing he may commit other offences. That he may be
guilty of other offences will avoid the risk of anarchy contemplated by the
reference."
Regards,
Mike Burke.
--
Call me a cynic, but I think the chances of that kind of ruling being issued
today are zero.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
