Appeal Court strikes down ‘explosives’ conviction
Not the exact gun or ammo mentioned in the story.
The Court of Appeal has struck down a conviction for unlawful possession of explosives in the BVI, ruling that ammunition does not fall within the legal definition of an explosive under the territory’s law.
The decision arose from an appeal filed by Antonio Stoutt against his 2015 Magistrate’s Court convictions for carrying a firearm without a licence and unlawful possession of explosives following a police interception in Road Town on April 14, 2013.
According to the judgment, officers searched a vehicle driven by Stoutt and found a 9mm Luger firearm containing four rounds of ammunition underneath the front passenger seat.
On appeal, Stoutt argued that his conviction for possession of explosives could not stand in light of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Selvin Chinnery v The Commissioner of Police, which clarified that ammunition is not captured by the statutory definition of explosives.
In allowing the appeal on that count, the court held that “the definition of the term ‘explosive’ as found in section 2 of the Explosives Ordinance… does not encapsulate ammunition”.
The court further explained that judicial precedents can apply retrospectively to cases that are still pending, noting that the appeal had remained unresolved since it was filed in July 2015. As a result, the Chinnery decision could properly be relied upon in determining the matter.
Even if that precedent were not applied, the court stated that, using the principle of statutory interpretation, the term “explosive” could not reasonably be construed to include ammunition under the Explosives Ordinance. Consequently, the appellant “could not have been properly charged and convicted of possession of explosives”, and the conviction was set aside.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed Stoutt’s challenge to his separate conviction for carrying a firearm without a licence. The judges found that the magistrate correctly considered both common law possession and the statutory deeming provision, which presumes possession where a firearm is found in a vehicle owned or controlled by the accused unless rebutted.
The court also rejected arguments that the absence of DNA evidence exonerated the appellant, emphasising that the presence or absence of forensic evidence is only one factor and not determinative of guilt.
Copyright 2026 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
Corruption hear BS. No wander crime in the Caribbean is how it is. These judges are disgraceful.
DPP does it again ..OMG
Why she have to used the term explosive, if there is a case law on it ????
This woman is the best ,wow,
Bet you someone in the office , suggested , advice ,told her not
To used it,, but knowing how she is , she ignored them and gave instructions to do so , why ?? ,,, because she is INCHARGED.. WTF …
What buffoonery is this??????
And the gun violence and deaths go on.
What a state of incompetence and ineffectiveness we are in, from the politicians to the court appointees.
We frig!
How many more criminals will walk free if we don’t remove this DPP from that position and send her back to school . Also do you think the police officers are pleased with this nonsense , those officers risk their lives everyday to find arrest these criminals and then to see them walk free on simple technicalities because of an incompetent DPP. The AG has to be incompetent also to sit there for years and watched her loose cases after cases and did nothing.
12 yrs!? Holy Bombaclot!
honestly unless your lawyer really knows what they are doing they will fight this charge… mainly because it has been wrongly classified for years and alot of people were sentence because of this…A BULLET is NOT an explosive case closed
The headline naturally gravitates toward sensationalism, “Appeals Court strikes down explosive conviction”. That framing reliably triggers a disproportionate backlash against the DPP. Lost in that reaction is the simple fact that the DPP successfully defended the firearm possession conviction, which remains undisturbed.
Equally obscured is the chronology. The explosives charge originated years before the Court of Appeal’s decision in Selvin Chinnery v The Commissioner of Police, which clarified that ammunition does not fall within the statutory definition of “explosive.”
An essential limb of the DPP’s argument, as I now see it, was whether the later judicial clarification in Chinnery could operate retrospectively in a matter that originated years before that ruling. This was the narrow legal question before the court and not the sensational narrative that the DPP inexplicably pursued a charge contrary to settled law.
I think in this instance the DPP should be applauded for her efforts.
so they charging people with explosives for years for ammunition and only now we figuring out they are not considered explosives.
Just legalize guns in this place. Nobody doing time for guns anyway.
Schuppps….. they don’t even know what an explosive is.