Ulverston man who had firearms permit revoked to pay police £22k
The man was keeping two rifles, one loaded, in his Ulverston home, a court hears.
www.bbc.co.uk
Expensive oversight of FAC conditions.
- Thread starter Budgie Smuggler
- Start date
www.bbc.co.uk
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
My guess is a complacent gamekeeper or stalker.
Bavarianbrit
Well-Known Member
Typical BBC reporting (gun permit?).
tonyshooter
Well-Known Member
100 % correct outcome.
I'd absolutely agree he's guilty and should never hold firearms again. However, I'm a bit unsure about have to pay police legal costs. Is this normal practice across the board, for instance with motoring offenses or burglary?
i assumed it’s because he challenged the decision?
The court must have felt that the appeal was extremely speculative. Costs can go three ways, so even if you win you can still suffer. E.g. if you win the appeal but do not win costs then you still have your huge legal bill to pay.
For legal cases generally it is not great:
Win case, win costs
Win case, pay own costs
Lose case, pay own costs
Lose case, pay their costs and yours
BASC’s legal team from the fighting fund seem to have won costs every time. I don’t believe it is a universal coverage and do they can probably cherry pick the obvious winners so it is self funding.
For legal cases generally it is not great:
Win case, win costs
Win case, pay own costs
Lose case, pay own costs
Lose case, pay their costs and yours
BASC’s legal team from the fighting fund seem to have won costs every time. I don’t believe it is a universal coverage and do they can probably cherry pick the obvious winners so it is self funding.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
If the criminal justice system was to take burglaries and thefts seriously this would primarily be a health and safety issue
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
Quite. Carry a knife with bad intentions and previous a mere slap on the wrist.
Agree with the prosecution though seems silly to leave them out unless it’s for a reason such as cleaning.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
I sort of think there may be more to this than meets the eye? I've raised this before if an fac holder leave his gun in the airing cupboard or similar overnight after a wet stalk he could be technically breaking the law but its seems a sensible thing to do.... I'd guess most sensible police officers would probably be ok with it ???
“In this instance the Constabulary reached the decision to revoke the certificates in light of a number of factors – not least the former certificate holder’s irresponsibility with regards the safe storage of firearms and ammunition."
“In this instance the Constabulary reached the decision to revoke the certificates in light of a number of factors – not least the former certificate holder’s irresponsibility with regards the safe storage of firearms and ammunition."
glasshalffull
Well-Known Member
Wondering why the police entered his house?
Utectok
Well-Known Member
I'd say there are some other factor in play here and they just stitched him up on the low hanging fruit?
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
It will costs half a dozen police officers plus vehicles plus all the paperwork. Add in all the costs of prosecution anf legal costs of the appeal etc.
We don’t know the full details, but a fundamental condition of any FAC/ SC is that you keep the firearms unless in use. There was clearly a good reason as to why police turned up at his premises - unless you read court transcripts this is a matter on conjecture.
There may be occasions when a gun is kept in close proximity whilst doing your everyday duties. But unless the firearm is in hand it should not be loaded. In the eyes of the law and in the eyes of a jury “loaded” would mean that ammo is in or on the firearm.
If you are pottering about and have a gun with you to shoot that fox or magpie that keeps putting in an appearance keep the ammo on your person and only load when you pick the gun up to take the shot. If you are leaving the gun in a vehicle, leave it out of sight and remove the bolt / and or a cable lock through the action to the vehicle. And lock the vehicle. You have taken “reasonable” precautions.
Quite correctly imo! The guy had a loaded 243 out of any safe or other device - remember loaded in the house ! the other rifle though unloaded was not in a safe etc ( we cant guess what he was doing with it out the safe , but i guess it wasn't covered by cleaning / service or repair ?
The fact they turned up as a pair pretty much means they where coming to get the guns due to other intelligence and not service and repairs ( the latter would be fine otherwise) .
Its a big bill to pay for his legal costs i bet ( seriously dont think any regular shooting legal cover could be gained by any org on this matter ) so with that and police costs as well as his own legal fees , i assume he had a very healthy state of finance personally or was very -very stupid !
The fact they turned up as a pair pretty much means they where coming to get the guns due to other intelligence and not service and repairs ( the latter would be fine otherwise) .
Its a big bill to pay for his legal costs i bet ( seriously dont think any regular shooting legal cover could be gained by any org on this matter ) so with that and police costs as well as his own legal fees , i assume he had a very healthy state of finance personally or was very -very stupid !
that will be the barristers bill from the other side.
Similar threads
