Firearms - defendant pointing fingers covered by jacket at victim during course of robbery - fingers capable of constituting imitation firearm

R v Bentham: CA (Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Curtis and Mr Justice Forbes: 5 December 2003

Early one morning the defendant went to the house of A, whom he believed owed him money, pointed his fingers, which were covered by his jacket, at A and demanded all the money in the house.

The defendant was charged with robbery, possessing an imitation firearm during the course of a robbery and perverting the course of justice.

He pleaded guilty to the first and third offences.

Before the trial started on the second offence a ruling was sought from the judge as to whether or not placing fingers inside a jacket could constitute possession of an imitation firearm for the purposes of section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968.

The judge indicated that she would direct the jury that in certain circumstances it could, so the appellant pleaded guilty to that offence also.

He appealed against conviction on the second offence on the grounds that the judge's ruling was wrong.

Charles Lander (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Ian Dacre (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Preston) for the Crown.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that a purposive approach had to be adopted to section17 of the Act, which was clearly designed to protect the victim confronted with what he thought was a firearm; that it did not matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro or simply anorak material stiffened by a finger, and that if it had the appearance of a firearm the jury was entitled to find the offence made out; and that, accordingly, the trial judge's ruling was correct.