FIREARMS - Case Law

Question 1

DPP V SMITH - GBH

Answer 1

DPP V SMITH ‘Bodily harm’ needs no explanation, ‘grievous’ means no more and no less than ‘really serious’.

Question 2

R v PEKEPO - A reckless discharge

Answer 2

R v PEKEPO

• A reckless discharge of a firearm in the general direction of a passer-by who happens to be hit is not sufficient proof.
• An intention to shoot that person must be established.

Question 3

R V DONOVAN - Bodily harm

Answer 3

R V DONOVAN

• Bodily harm includes any hurt or injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim.
• It need not be permanent
• But must be more than merely transitory or trifling.

Question 4

R V HARNEY - Recklessness

Answer 4

R V HARNEY Recklessness involves foresight of dangerous consequences that could well happen together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of the risk.

Question 5

POLICE v PARKER - Use in any manner whatever

Answer 5

POLICE v PARKER Uses in any manner is short of actually firing the weapon and to present a rifle means the same thing.

Question 6

R V KELT - immediate control

Answer 6

R V KELT

• Having a firearm with him requires a very close physical link; and
• A degree of immediate control over the weapon.

Question 7

TULI V POLICE - Prima facie circumstances

Answer 7

TULI V POLICE

Prima facie circumstances

• Are to show or establish intent
• In the absence of evidence to the contrary.