Key Facts
- •Christopher Kyei pleaded guilty to possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate (Firearms Act 1968, section 1(1)(b)).
- •Ammunition was found in a shoebox in Kyei's car boot.
- •Kyei claimed the box was placed there by Abukor, who had panicked during a video shoot.
- •Kyei's fingerprints were on the box; he admitted moving it.
- •The trial judge ruled Kyei had no legal defense.
- •Kyei's appeal challenged the judge's ruling on possession and the application of legal principles from previous cases (R v Zahid, R v Hannat Hassan, R v Bradish).
Legal Principles
Sections 1 and 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 impose strict liability.
R v Zahid [2010] EWCA Crim 2158; R v Bradish [1990] QB 981
A vehicle can be considered a 'container' for the purposes of possession offences.
R v Hannat Hassan [2022] EWCA Crim 786
Possession of a container is possession of its contents; a defendant cannot claim ignorance of the contents unless the item was truly 'planted' without opportunity for control.
R v Bradish [1990] QB 981
In 'planted' article cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant had knowledge of the item's presence in their possession.
Various cases, including discussion of Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256 and R v Deyemi and Edwards [2008] 1 Cr App R 25
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found Kyei's awareness of the box, and his opportunity to inspect its contents, negated a 'planted' defense. The established legal principles of strict liability under the Firearms Act 1968 applied. The court also found the previous cases did not support Kyei's claim.
Order for Kyei to pay £56.70 for transcripts.
This was made under section 18(6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.