Peter Glenser KC and Sean Sullivan represented JD, a former serviceman with an interest in modelling and 3D printing, who was accused of possessing a prohibited weapon. The allegation concerned a 3D-printed item said to be the lower receiver of an FGC-9 semi-automatic firearm.
If the item fell within the definition of a component part of a prohibited weapon under the Firearms Act 1968 then JD would be liable to a sentence of at least five years’ imprisonment.
The prosecution’s starting point was that, JD having accepted possession of the item, it was a matter of law whether it was a component part of a prohibited weapon. They argued this should be decided by the judge and there was no issue to be litigated before a jury.
The defence opposed those submissions and the prosecution in due course conceded that the defendant’s intention in making and possessing the item was relevant and a matter for the jury.
The court was called upon to decide a number of issues and the trial judge, Mr Justice Foxton, gave a ruling providing clarification of general importance in this area of firearms law.
The definition of a receiver
It was ruled that, as a matter of law, where section 57 of the Act defined a component part of a prohibited weapon as including a “receiver” a lower receiver fell within that definition.
Although the explanatory notes to the legislation that amended the relevant part of the Act provided a definition of “receiver” which could not include a lower receiver; the court found that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the notes did not narrow the statutory definition given its legislative purpose. In doing so the court relied upon the definition identified by the Firearms Consultative Committee which fed into the proposals of the Law Commission which ultimately led to the proposed amendment being considered by Parliament.
The capability test
An item would not fall within the definition of a component part if it was not “capable of being used as part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon” (section 57(1D)). In JD’s case the hammer had been purposefully broken off the item.
In considering the statutory wording and authority the court identified the relevant consideration to be the use of the component part rather than the item of which it was, or was intended to be, a component part. This requires a jury to ask itself whether only a minor repair would be required or more major work. If the former then the capability test is met, if the latter it is not.
The “dual use” argument
A key defence argument on JD’s behalf was that the possession of the item could just as consistently have been charged as a section 1 offence (possessing a firearm without a certificate – meaning no five year minimum sentence would apply) as opposed to the prohibited weapon offence. The court described that as a “complex issue” and deferred any decision until after evidence had been heard at trial.
The outcome for JD
The Judge’s ruling led to the prosecution indicating that a plea to the lesser section 1 offence would be acceptable. JD went on to plead guilty to that offence and was sentenced to a 12 month conditional discharge.
The ruling can be found here.
This was a highly complex case involving novel points of law. Substantial expert evidence was heard from three different experts on firearms and extensive legal argument was advanced before the court.
JD benefitted from being represented by counsel from 9BR Chambers. Barristers from 9BR regularly appear in complex and serious firearms cases. Our firearms expertise is led by Peter Glenser KC who was described in Chambers and Partners 2026 as “the guru of firearms” and “completely on top of his subject, reassuring, charming, dogged and persuasive”.
Peter and Sean were instructed to defend JD by Nick Seeley of Lawtons Solicitors.
