Adaptations to an authorised firearm might render it a prohibited weapon for the purposes of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 if they involved breach of the conditions of the related firearms certificate.

The Court of Appeal so stated when dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Cyrus Shahabi-Shack, against his conviction on 24 July 2014 in the Crown Court at Bolton (Judge Knopf and a jury) of possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968.

OPENSHAW J, giving the judgment of the court, said that the defendant, a registered firearms dealer, bought a Ruger SP101 38mm revolver from K, another registered firearms dealer, having obtained authorisation by variation of a certificate for the possession of firearms, the variation incorporating a condition that the weapon could only be used for the humane killing of animals and that it could fire no more than two shots. K had therefore blocked three of the five barrels of the gun by the insertion of steel rods glued into place with epoxy resin. In that condition the gun was not a prohibited weapon. But when some years later it was found by the police, the steel rods had been removed and in their place were steel plugs kept in place by putty or Blu-Tack, easily removable so that the weapon was adaptable to five-chamber firing. The defendant declined to explain the change to the weapon. He was charged with being in possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. His defence to the charge was that there was no case to answer because nothing in the certificate required the blockage of the excess barrels to be permanent and because breach of a condition engaged a summary offence under section 1(2) of the 1968 Act and did not render the gun a prohibited weapon. The prosecution contended that the changes to the gun had made it into a prohibited weapon. The trial judge declined to accept that there was no case to answer, reasoning that whether the weapon was a prohibited weapon was a question for the jury on the evidence. The defendant was convicted. On appeal he relied on the same arguments as those put to the trial judge. The policy of the 1968 Act was to protect the public and, if the defendant’s arguments were right, any restriction of excess chambers, however light, would suffice to establish that the weapon was not prohibited. That could not be right. Whether a weapon was prohibited was a question of fact and degree. The trial judge had been right to leave the matter to the jury, and they had brought in the conclusion that the weapon did not accord with the certificate, which was the correct conclusion. The defendant claimed that, by section 3 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, he did not need the authority of the Secretary of State to be in possession of the revolver because possession was authorised by a firearms certificate subject to a condition for use only in connection with the humane killing of animals. But to come within that exemption possession must be in accordance with the certificate, including its conditions. Not every breach of condition would matter. But where alterations had been made such that the firearm was no longer within the scope of the certificate, the person concerned was no longer holding the weapon in accordance with the certificate and the weapon was a prohibited weapon.