R v Rupert Earl-Ocran
[2024] EWCA Crim 1031
R v Reyon Vincent & Anor
22 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 258
Court of Appeal
Two brothers were wrongly convicted of having illegal ammo. The court realized the ammo wasn't actually illegal in the way they were charged, so their convictions were overturned. They can't be re-charged with the lesser offense because there wasn't enough evidence.
Key Facts
- •Two appellants, Reyon and Dean Vincent, were convicted of possession of prohibited ammunition under s.5(1)(c) of the Firearms Act 1968.
- •The ammunition was not actually prohibited under s.5, but required a firearms certificate under s.1.
- •The error was noticed after conviction, when considering sentencing.
- •The indictment was in breach of Criminal Procedure Rule 10.2(1) due to incorrect offence and particulars.
- •An offence under s.5 carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence, while s.1 has a maximum five-year sentence.
Legal Principles
A conviction is unsafe if it is based on an incorrect legal provision.
Firearms Act 1968, s.5(1)(c) and s.1(1)(b)
Criminal Procedure Rule 10.2(1) requires the prosecution to correctly identify the offence and particulars in the indictment.
Criminal Procedure Rule 10.2(1)
Section 3 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 allows for substitution of verdicts, but only if the defendant could have been found guilty of the lesser offence on the indictment and the facts proved guilt of the lesser offence.
Criminal Appeals Act 1968, s.3
The lack of a firearms certificate is a necessary element to prove an offence under s.1 of the Firearms Act 1968.
Firearms Act 1968, s.1
Precedent cases (R v Lawrence [2013] EWCA Crim 1054 and R v Buddington [2015] EWCA Crim 1127) established that substitution of verdicts is not possible when the additional element required for the lesser offence (e.g., lack of firearms certificate) was not proved.
R v Lawrence [2013] EWCA Crim 1054 and R v Buddington [2015] EWCA Crim 1127
Outcomes
The appellants' convictions under s.5(1)(c) were quashed.
The convictions were unsafe due to the incorrect legal provision and the indictment's breach of Criminal Procedure Rule 10.2(1). Substitution of verdicts under s.1(1)(b) was not possible due to lack of evidence regarding firearms certificates.