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 calculated to interfere 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
Use in any manner whatever is to contemplate a situation short of actually firing the weapon and to present a rifle is equivalent to or means the same thing.

Question 6

R V KELT - immediate control

Answer 6

R V KELT

Having 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 those which are sufficient to show or establish intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.