Bentham, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

On the morning of 24 May 2002 the Appellant broke into the bedroom of his former employer, referred to here as Individual A. With one hand pushed up inside his zipped-up jacket, he created a bulge that was meant to look like the muzzle of a firearm. Pointing the bulge toward Individual A, the Appellant demanded money and jewellery and threatened to shoot if the demands were not met. Believing the threat to be genuine, Individual A complied.

Afterwards, the Appellant told Individual G that he had merely used his fingers to simulate a gun. When Individual G made a witness statement to that effect, the Appellant attempted to have the statement withdrawn.

An indictment with three counts was preferred in the Crown Court:

• Count 1: Robbery (pleaded guilty).
• Count 2: Possessing an imitation firearm during the robbery, contrary to section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 (contested).
• Count 3: Acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice (pleaded guilty).

At first instance, Judge Badley ruled that the hand-in-jacket configuration could amount to possession of an imitation firearm. The Appellant then entered a guilty plea to Count 2 and received 18 months’ imprisonment, concurrent with five years on Count 1 and six months consecutive on Count 3.

The Court of Appeal (Judge Kennedy, Judge Curtis, and Judge Forbes) upheld the ruling. The matter came before the House of Lords on further appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does a person who places his hand inside a zipped-up jacket to mimic the presence of a gun thereby have “in his possession an imitation firearm” within the meaning of section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• An individual cannot “possess” a part of his own body; possession requires an object distinct from the possessor.
• The statutory phrase “imitation firearm” contemplates a tangible thing capable of being possessed, not a mere posture or gesture.
• Parliament could have criminalised the act of falsely pretending to have a firearm but did not do so.
• The lower courts wrongly focused on the victim’s perception, which is irrelevant to the element of possession.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The legislative purpose is to deter the use of objects or actions that create the same fear and compliance as real firearms.
• Section 17(2) should be construed purposively to include anything that successfully presents itself as a firearm during the commission of a scheduled offence.
• The danger to the public is identical whether the “gun” is real, an imitation, or simulated by hand; therefore the statute should cover the Appellant’s conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The House of Lords held that the statutory language of section 17(2) is clear: an “imitation firearm” must be an object capable of being possessed. A limb is inseparable from its owner and cannot be the subject of possession.

Key points in the analysis included:

• Concept of Possession: One cannot possess something that is not distinct from oneself; an unsevered hand or finger is part of the person, not an object.
• Statutory Interpretation: Where statutory wording is plain, courts must not deploy purposive construction to extend criminal liability beyond Parliament’s language.
• Irrelevance of Victim Perception: The impression made on the victim is pertinent to sentencing for robbery but irrelevant to the statutory element of possession.
• Comparison with Other Jurisdictions: Foreign case law adopting broader interpretations was deemed unpersuasive given the clarity of the domestic statute.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; CONVICTION ON COUNT 2 QUASHED.

As a direct consequence, the Appellant’s 18-month concurrent sentence for possessing an imitation firearm was set aside. The decision clarifies that section 17(2) requires possession of a discrete object that is an imitation firearm; a mere bodily posture or gesture does not suffice. No broader legal reform or new offence was created, but the ruling limits the scope of future prosecutions under the provision.