Convicted

[MC]

Morning guys,

 

This may have been posted before but the two ladies who were charged with having an imitation firearm were convicted.

 

Link Here

 

It just goes to show what this country is coming to.

[al4x]

It absolutely stinks.

 

I'm local to it and the reporting has been atrocious, It was reported in our local rag that the officers were shot at by poachers!

they had permission to be there and really where do you have to go to find land that the public can't access?

 

You would have thought someone would have seen common sense before they were convicted

[tenbears10]

What are the implications for dummy launchers?

 

If somthing uses a blank round to make the noise but does not look like a firearm will you still get done?

 

It sounds like you would get in less trouble using a live shotgun round because it would not be an immitation firearm.

 

Was the issue that they were doing the training on public land? If you were in a farmers field with a footpath at the other end would you still get in strife?

[al4x]

Simple answer is yes. they were in a private wood I believe and had permission to be there but they were near a footpath or some such rubbish. I think the imitation firearm is what did it. What makes me fume is that its hardly in the public interest to prosecute them and we pay the money to take them to court and all the police time investigating something so ridiculous.

[Cranfield]

The only information I have is from that news article, as it came from a canine newspaper, lets assume it was "sympathetic".

 

So, two ladies take their dogs, some cold game and a starting pistol to some "public woods".

Note, not private land with a footpath through it, "public woods".

 

They then discharged the starting pistol (how many times is not stated, but assume more than once) and get arrested.

 

I am not surprised by what happened and I would expect the same to happen to me, if I was stupid enough to do what they did.

Most people train their dogs on private land (away from footpaths, although the 50ft rule applies), when they are using any type of gun.

 

All the starting pistols I have seen look pretty authentic, even to experienced gun owners (mine does).

 

They were charged with having an imitation firearm in a public place.

Did they have an imitation firearm in a public place ?.........Yes.

Case closed.

[al4x]

This is the letter that was released afterwards on quite a few sites. Personally I think its something my local police have dealt with very badly.

 

Dear All

 

A situation has arisen in the Hertfordshire Area that I believe all Gundog members should be made aware of and one that could have serious implications for the manner in which gundogs are trained in the future.

 

On 29th January 2006 two ladies, Jacqui Crew and Sue Jones, went to Symmonshyde Woods near Hatfield to train their gundogs. Prior to doing so they contacted the local farmer and sought his permission to go to the woods for this purpose. That permission was readily granted.

 

They took with them dummies and a starting pistol and during the afternoon gave their dogs a number of retrieves.

 

They were approached by two local police officers who immediately seized the starting pistol and informed them that they were being reported for their possession of the starting pistol. According to the ladies the officers were brusque and aggressive towards them and refused to listen to any explanation. When the ladies telephoned the farmer using their mobile in the presence of the officers they refused to speak to him.

 

They were clearly shocked and upset by what had happened and wrote to the local Chief Superintendent complaining about the actions of his officers and demanding the return of the starting pistol. They did not receive any response, indeed the letter was not even acknowledged.

 

Within the last few days they have both received through the post a summons to appear at Hatfield Magistrates Court next Wednesday. The offence is:

 

On Sunday 29th January 2006 at Hatfield without lawful

 

authority or reasonable excuse had with you in a public place,

 

namely the Public Picnic Area, Symmondshyde Wood,

 

Hammond Lane, Hatfield an imitation firearm revolver.

 

Contrary to Section 19 The Firearms Act 1968.

 

 

 

The receipt of this summons has come as a terrible shock to both of them and they have sought and obtained legal advice. The case will be adjourned this coming week until September in order that they can mount a vigorous defence to the charge.

 

There are two major issues that I see in this case, the first is the status of the land upon which the training was taking place. The two ladies clearly believed that they were on private land hence they had asked permission to be there. The second and more worrying aspect is the starting pistol being interpreted as ‘an imitation firearm’ in these circumstances. I do not believe that parliament envisaged this section of the Act being used against two ladies training their gundogs on a Sunday afternoon.

 

I am concerned about the outcome of this case for Jacqui and Sue but I also feel the implications for every Club or Society in the country could be far reaching. Most of the people that I know that train dogs often use a starting pistol to do so. Everyone needs to be aware of this case so I would ask you to communicate it to as many as you can.

 

If anyone had experienced similar situations can you let me know in order that I can pass it to the defence representative

[rarms]

I think you will find they left the private land un were un-knowingly (according to them) on public land where they had no permission to be with a gun.

 

They got done because they were breaking the law!

 

I agree a bit of discretion should have been applied but it is legally no different to a bloke shooting pigeons in a public place where he has no permission. Ignorance is no defence!

[pin]

When this came up months ago I read through what I could find but nowhere did it mention they were somewhere they didn't have permission to be.

 

The stories I read were to do with members of the public seeing them and reporting, then an over zealous police response, nothing mentioning they were somewhere they had no permission to be.

 

I sent the ladies a letter of support, but based on what has come out now I don't have any sympathy. Just like I would expect to get the book thrown at me for shooting on land I am not allowed to be on, so should they.

 

Like has been said, ignorance is no defence. If I wandered off a permission onto some other land, I wouldn't expect it to be seen as a "little mistake" or a "lapse in concentration". I'd be on someone's land with a firearm, the law is clear on these kinds of things.

 

Shame, sounded from the first reports this was something they would win (based on permission to be there).

[Cranfield]

"On Sunday 29th January 2006 at Hatfield without lawful

 

authority or reasonable excuse had with you in a public place,

 

namely the Public Picnic Area, Symmondshyde Wood,"

 

If I had been walking in the Public Picnic Area that Sunday and heard shots from nearby, I would have probably phoned the Police myself. :look:

[mossy835]

i think this country has gone over the top on guns,

[pin]

I agree with you, in this case though the law was known and broken...

 

The whole banning of pistols was a farce and everyone knows it, can't fault your comment :look:

[MC]

"On Sunday 29th January 2006 at Hatfield without lawful

 

authority or reasonable excuse had with you in a public place,

 

namely the Public Picnic Area, Symmondshyde Wood,"

 

If I had been walking in the Public Picnic Area that Sunday and heard shots from nearby, I would have probably phoned the Police myself. :look:

 

Cranfield,

 

I am very suprised at this comment. I spend quite a lot of time outside in public area and quite often here gunshots. I do not give them a second thought as I know that the surrounding areas are farmland and people could be shooting legally.

 

The thing that is wrong with this case is that the two women in question were carrying out a legitimate act on land which they believed to be private. Which is why they asked permission to enter it.

 

It was an easy case for the police as they knew that there would be no resistance from the women, other wise they would have sent an armed response unit.

It is a case of boosting their arrest figures and making themselves look like they are earning they salary.

 

They are not able do anything about the chav's and hoodies that are carrying imitation guns like the ones you can buy at any sunday market.

 

This case will have massive implications on people training dogs as starting pistols are widely used and carried by a hell of a lot of people. I would have considered dog training to be a reasonable excuse. I have a starting pistol in my training bag and do use it when I am training. I do not however expose it for someone to see, I normally will fire it in my pocket or bag. Anybody can go into any shop and buy a starting pistol and blanks and in my mind there is no difference between one of these and a cap pistol that you can buy for children.

[Lord Geordie]

Then perhaps a new NOISE making devise is called for the does NOT look like a gun :look:

 

Just a square thing about the size of a Zippo lighter (nice and small to pocket) pivoted to insert a Flobert Blank and a small lever on the back spring loaded you just pull back on the lever and let go when you require the BANG.

 

It's NOT an imitation firearm it is a specific tool to training and does NOT look like a gun either so no risk or being done either

 

 

 

 

LG

[Cranfield]

"On Sunday 29th January 2006 at Hatfield without lawful

 

authority or reasonable excuse had with you in a public place,

 

namely the Public Picnic Area, Symmondshyde Wood,"

 

If I had been walking in the Public Picnic Area that Sunday and heard shots from nearby, I would have probably phoned the Police myself. :look:

 

Cranfield,

 

I am very suprised at this comment. I spend quite a lot of time outside in public area and quite often here gunshots. I do not give them a second thought as I know that the surrounding areas are farmland and people could be shooting legally.

 

 

Just to clarify, when I say "nearby", I mean "very close", within the Public Picnic Area.

I wouldn't report shooting from private areas, unless it was to the Landowner, if I thought it was suspect (poachers).

 

The noise made by a starting pistol is loud, its meant to be.

It makes much, much, more noise than the loudest cap gun, or bb gun.

 

I still believe that anyone firing, or displaying, a starting pistol, or imitation pistol, in a public place is asking for trouble.

[al4x]

"On Sunday 29th January 2006 at Hatfield without lawful

 

authority or reasonable excuse had with you in a public place,

 

namely the Public Picnic Area, Symmondshyde Wood,"

 

If I had been walking in the Public Picnic Area that Sunday and heard shots from nearby, I would have probably phoned the Police myself. :look:

 

 

"reasonable excuse"

 

one could say that in this instance dog training was a reasonable excuse to have a starting pistol on them. It certainly could be said they weren't causing a nuisance or about to commit an armed robbery with it.

 

Personally the world is going mad when you have to watch your back that much. I'm sure these women didn't go out thinking they had a replica firearm as it was a starting pistol, which I believe even the police use in training their dogs. I've certainly been to a lot of country shows and watched demonstrations etc using starting pistols and from this anyone doing that could be arrested.