R v Pommell [1995]

R v Pommell [1995] 2 Cr App R 607 is a key case on the application of duress of circumstances and necessity to offences involving prohibited items. The defendant, Pommell, was found in possession of a firearm, an offence under the Firearms Act. His defence was that he had taken the gun from another person to prevent it from being used in a crime and intended to hand it over to the police. He argued that his possession was temporary and motivated solely by a desire to avert harm.

At trial, the jury rejected his explanation and convicted him. One of the critical legal issues was whether, even if his account were true, the defence could apply. The Court of Appeal held that defences such as duress of circumstances or necessity could, in principle, be available for possession offences. However, they also stressed a key limitation: the defendant must act as soon as reasonably possible to rid themselves of the prohibited item or to involve the authorities once the danger has passed.

In Pommell’s case, the court found that he had not taken immediate steps to hand the weapon over to the police, which undermined his claim that his possession was solely for the purpose of preventing harm. The delay in acting suggested that the link between the danger and his continued possession had been broken.

This case is significant because it confirmed that duress of circumstances could, at least in theory, apply to possession offences, but only where the defendant’s actions are prompt, proportionate, and strictly limited to addressing the immediate threat. R v Pommell stands as a warning that the defence is lost if the accused retains the prohibited item any longer than is reasonably necessary.