Interpreting 'Lethality' in the Firearms Act 1968

The law commission makes it clear there is an issue with the fact that there is not a definition of the word ‘lethal’, the point is also made that it is due to this there is an overreliance on expert witnesses to determine the lethality of a firearm thus leading to longer and more expensive trials. Furthermore, for the purposes of this legislation (Firearms Act 1968) it is unclear whether low power air rifles or poorly modified imitation firearms which cause reduced harm can come under the banner of lethal. This is further complicated by section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 which gives provisions on those who have served a sentence by the courts and places restrictions on their rights to possess a firearm, the issue here is whether one who has

The case of Moor v Gooderham was appealed after the trial left the defendant acquitted due to it being deemed that a low power airgun was not lethal however the appeal court held that in the context of the case where a child was being sold the airgun the was a possible risk of lethal injury whereby for example an eye or ear was injured and t was the opinion of Lord Parker CJ that misuse of even a small airgun can lead to lethal effect. In addition to this the case of Castle v DPP held that the term ‘lethal’ was not only restricted to humans but even small vermin, this could be seen as further complicating matters due to the notion that providing small vermin could be killed by a relatively low powered firearm (although injury to a human would be trivial) an offence would still be committed. The possible solutions given was first to remove the word lethal from the Act in order to avoid further confusion, this approach while somewhat logical has been criticized on the grounds that the use of the word lethal has been used for so long and when thought of initially should not be too difficult of a word to

In this case the mains ones are the fact the three significant words in the act i.e. Antique, Curiosity and Ornament remain undefined, this is problematic because they are the pivotal words of the provision which decide whether a firearm is exempt or not. The case of Burke states that when sufficient evidence has been raised by the defendant that there is now an argument as to whether or not the firearm in question is an antique, it is now a burden on the prosecution to adduce evidence that the firearm is not exempt from the Act. In the case of Howells the trial judge referred the jury to the oxford dictionary to define the term ‘antique’ which used terms like; old fashioned, from olden times and ancient. It was upto the jury as to whether this was adequate for the case in question. The case held that regardless of the fact that the defendant had a genuine belief that he was in possession of an antique the question of whether the firearm was an antique or not was a matter of fact not law thus he was convicted. This poses a threat for the antique collector’s trade as collectors may be committing an offence without knowing which is problematic considering they may be law abiding citizens. This approach is seen to be inconsistent as in the case of Richards v Curwen the defendant had two revolvers hung as ornaments and although