Emanuel v Barrow

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Cecil Lewis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 17 June 1970
• Neutral Citation: AG 1970 CA 10
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1970
• Date: 17 June 1970

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Lewis, J.A.; St. Bernard, J.A. (Acting)

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1970

Emanuel

and

Barrow

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction — Possession of unlicenced firearms — Firearms Ordinance Cap. 313. — “Firearms” defined — Lethal weapon defined — Whether appellants firearm was lethal in the meaning of the ordinance.

Practice and procedure - Filing appeal — Whether appeal was properly filed.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the appellant's firearm was effective within twenty yards.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the appellant was convicted for two offences.

Held: The words effectively must be given their ordinary meaning i.e. able to cause injury. The gun if misused could cause serious injury which might be lethal. The appellant's gun was a firearm within the meaning of the ordinance. Appeal dismissed.

Held: A single recognizance would have been appropriate if the appellant intended to only pursue one appeal, but as he intended to appeal against both convictions this was unsatisfactory. Furthermore he was taken to have abandoned the other appeal. Other appeal accordingly dismissed.

Cecil Lewis, J.A.

1 The appellant was convicted on the 25th of May, 1969, of two offences. The first was assaulting Edric Potter, a member of the Police Force, while in the execution of his duty for which he was reprimanded. The second offence was that he, not being a dealer in firearms, did keep a certain firearm, namely a .22 calibre rifle which was not licensed in accordance with the Firearms Ordinance Chapter 313. He was discharged under the Probation of Offenders Act in respect of this charge.

2 The appellant filed a notice of appeal and one recognizance. A single recognizance would have been appropriate if he intended to pursue only one appeal, but as he intended to appeal against both convictions this was unsatisfactory and he elected to proceed with his appeal in respect of the conviction for being in possession of an unlicensed firearm. He therefore abandoned the ether appeal which was accordingly dismissed.

3 Originally three grounds of appeal were filed, but the first and third were abandoned leaving only the second which was argued before this Court. This ground of appeal reads as follows:–

“That the decision was erroneous in point of law in that the learned magistrate convicted the defendant for being in possession of an unlicensed firearm notwithstanding the fact that there was no evidence that the said gun in question was lethal and therefore a firearm under section 2 of Cap, 313

of the Laws of Antigua Revised Edition.

Further that penal statutes should be narrowly defined and ambiguities construed in favour of the defendant, therefore evidence that the said gun could kill a bird at 15 feet ought not to he constructed as evidence that the said firearm was lethal under the aforesaid section.”

4 The second sentence in this ground of appeal in which the statement is made that the gun could kill a bird at 15 feet was in fact evidence given by the appellant himself in cross-examination in which he said,

“I can kill a bird with that gun if it is about 5 yards away.”

5 This Court in view of the nature of the question it has to decides, i.e. whether or not this gun was a “firearm” within the meaning of the Firearms Ordinance, does not intend to pay any attention to the fact that the appellant gave evidence that he could kill a bird with the gun if it was about 5 yards away. No significance, in the opinion of the court, ought to be attached to this statement and the court intends to ignore it for the purposes of this appeal.

6 There is a definition of “firearm” in the Firearms Ordinance which is very wide indeed, but the appellant's counsel indicated that for the purposes of his appeal he was confining his argument to that portion of the definition which reads as follows:–

“Firearm” means any lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged.”

7 It should be here observed that this definition is, in all material respects, similar to the definition contained in the United Kingdom firearms legislation, i.e. in the United Kingdom Firearms Act 1920, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1936, The Firearms Act 1937 and The Firearms Act...