Zahid v R

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 November 2009, before HH Judge Pillay at Blackfriars Crown Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of expanding ammunition contrary to section 5(1A)(f) of the Firearms Act 1968. The learned judge ruled that these offences were strict liability offences, meaning the prosecution only needed to prove possession of the ammunition and that the Appellant's belief that the ammunition was an innocent material was no defence as a matter of law.

The facts were largely agreed: on 25 January 2008, the Appellant was arrested for non-payment of a road traffic fine and searched with a metal detector, which revealed two bullets in his jacket pocket. He claimed these were leftover from shooting in Dubai and was unaware of their presence. A subsequent search of his home uncovered a package containing 38 live expanding bullets inside a washbag. The Appellant stated he found the package outside his home, believed it contained bolts or screws left by workmen, and did not know it contained ammunition. When informed of the contents, he associated it with a prior kidnap plot against him.

The Appellant’s explanation was rejected after a Newton hearing held on 24 March 2010, where the judge found it "utterly improbable" that the Appellant was unaware of the ammunition’s presence. The judge concluded the Appellant knew the package contained bullets and sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment concurrent on each count.

The Appellant’s application for leave to appeal was referred to the Full Court. Permission to appeal both conviction and sentence was granted despite a delay in lodging the appeal against conviction. The appeal against sentence was dismissed on 14 September 2010, and this judgment provides reasons for dismissing the appeal against conviction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether offences under section 5(1A)(f) of the Firearms Act 1968 are strict liability offences, precluding a defence based on the defendant’s mistaken belief as to the nature of the ammunition possessed.
2. Whether a distinction exists between (i) a defendant being unaware of the contents of a container and (ii) a defendant mistakenly believing the contents to be innocent, and if such a mistaken belief can constitute a defence.
3. Whether established case law, including Warner v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and subsequent cases, allows for a defence based on genuine mistaken belief about the contents of a container in firearms possession offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant, represented by Attorney Gifford QC, argued that the strict liability principle applied in previous cases should be distinguished in cases where the defendant genuinely and mistakenly believed that the contents of a container were innocent (e.g., bolts or screws) rather than being unaware of the contents altogether.
• He relied heavily on the speech of Lord Pearce in Warner v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, contending that a defence should be available where the defendant’s mistaken belief relates to the nature of the contents of a container.
• He submitted that none of the earlier firearms cases had considered this factual situation and that a similar direction to that proposed by Lord Pearce for drugs possession offences would be appropriate in firearms cases.
• Attorney Gifford also invoked the constitutional principle from R v K that mens rea is presumed necessary for statutory offences unless clearly excluded by Parliament, arguing that strict liability should not apply here.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Court rejected the distinction drawn by the Appellant, holding that the strict liability principle applies equally whether the defendant was unaware of the contents or mistakenly believed them to be innocent.
• The Court relied on the judgment in R v Bradish, which established that offences under sections 1 and 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 are strict liability offences and that no defence based on ignorance or mistake as to the nature of the firearm or ammunition is available.
• The Court emphasized the public policy rationale for strict liability in firearms offences—effective control of dangerous weapons and prevention of misuse.
• It was noted that previous cases, including R v Waller, rejected defences based on mistaken belief about the nature of possessed firearms or ammunition, even when the defendant thought the contents were something else innocent.
• The Court held that the Appellant had ample opportunity to ascertain the true nature of the contents and thus could not rely on a defence of mistaken belief.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by affirming the strict liability nature of offences under section 5(1A)(f) of the Firearms Act 1968, referencing the ruling of the trial judge and established case law. It carefully analyzed the Appellant’s argument seeking to distinguish between ignorance of contents and mistaken belief about the nature of the contents of a container. The Court found no principled basis for such a distinction, emphasizing that in both scenarios the defendant effectively claims ignorance of the true nature of the firearm or ammunition.

The Court reviewed the authoritative judgment in R v Bradish, which provides multiple reasons for strict liability in firearms offences, including statutory wording, legislative intent, and public policy concerns about controlling dangerous weapons. The Court rejected the "half-way house" approach suggested by the Appellant and Lord Pearce’s speech in Warner, holding it inapplicable to firearms legislation.

Further, the Court considered the Appellant’s reliance on cases such as R v Waller and R v Vann and Davis. It found that Waller clearly rejects defences based on mistaken belief about contents and that Vann and Davis was disapproved by subsequent binding authority in Deyemi. The Court underscored that the Appellant had ample opportunity to ascertain the true nature of the bullets, negating any defence based on mistaken belief.

The Court acknowledged the constitutional presumption that mens rea is required for statutory offences but held that this principle is displaced by clear statutory provisions and binding precedent establishing strict liability in this context.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the Appellant had no legal defence to the charges, affirming the trial judge’s rejection of the Appellant’s explanations and the resulting conviction.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The holding confirms that offences under section 5(1A)(f) of the Firearms Act 1968 are strict liability offences, and no defence based on a mistaken belief about the nature of possessed ammunition is available. This decision reinforces established precedent and affirms the strict approach taken by the courts in controlling possession of firearms and ammunition. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s conviction stands, and the ruling does not introduce any new legal principles or alter existing case law.