R v Bentham

In the case of Regina v Bentham, the appellant, Bentham, was convicted of robbery and perverting the course of justice. The central issue in the appeal was whether Bentham could be held to have possessed an imitation firearm during the course of the robbery under section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. Bentham had his hand inside his zipped-up jacket, creating a bulge that gave the impression of holding a gun. The Crown Court and the Court of Appeal held that this constituted possession of an imitation firearm. Bentham appealed, arguing that he could not possess his own hand in this context. The House of Lords considered this argument and concluded that a person cannot possess their own limb, and thus Bentham could not be said to possess an imitation firearm as defined by the statute.

The House of Lords found that the lower courts’ interpretation of the statute was flawed. They held that possession under section 17(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 required an object separate and distinct from the person, which Bentham’s hand was not. The Lords also rejected the purposive construction of the statute that the lower courts had adopted, finding that such an interpretation would create an offence that Parliament had not intended. The Lords emphasised the importance of adhering to the plain meaning of the statutory language and the requirement that possession involve an object distinct from the person. Consequently, the House of Lords allowed the appeal and quashed Bentham’s conviction on the count relating to possession of an imitation firearm.