From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In a post a few weeks back there was mention of a case which I noted as R v
>Fagan (1986) in which the judge observed that the firearms licensing system
>is there to prevent anarchy.
>Can you suggest where I might be able to locate it?
David,
Mike Burke has a copy. This is what happened IIRC. A man in a
mixed marriage received death threats and bought a Browning .380 in a pub.
He was visited by the RUC and was charged with uncertificated possession of
the pistol and 12 rounds and with " possession of explosives with intent to
endanger life" contrary to Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
This related to the propellant in the cartridges.
He admitted the facts which were accepted by the prosecution and threw
himself on the mercy of the Court. He appealed the last charge. He had to
accept the first two because FAC's for self defence are available in NI and
he had not applied for one. The situation would be different on the mainland
where the Home Office claim that " as a matter of policy, the law does not
allow FAC's for self defence" and instructs Chief Officers of police to that
effect ( from "Firearms Law a Manual of Guidance to Police" HMSO ).
The following case makes this point;
FIREARMS (GENERAL). R v Pommell (Fitzroy Derek). Can plead
necessity (duress of circumstance) to possession of firearms
charge. CA . [1995] 2 Cr App R 607; (1995) 145 NLJ 960; (1995)
139 SJ LB 178; [1995] TLR 296
( thank you rusty, but I already had the reference).
The Crown in the shape of the Attorney General's solicitor argued that the
Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and case law had established that "instant
arming " when attacked was acceptable but arming in "general anticipation"
was not.
Fegan was acquitted and the decision was that;
"The defence of lawful object (for possession of the pistol and ammunition)
is available to the defendant if the can satisfy the jury on the balance of
probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his
property against imminent apprehended attack, and to do so by means which he
believed were no more than reasonably necessary to meet the force used by
the attackers".
