Outcome of the Police Officers selling guns.

[Bazooka Joe]

Original_Thread

 

 

Shamed police officers pay price for crime

 

 

TWO police officers who sold on guns surrendered to their force have been ordered to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains.

 

Shamed PCs Maurice Allen and Damian Cobain were given suspended prison sentences last year for the weapons scam.

 

Now the pair have been brought back to Newcastle Crown Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act in an effort to claw back the money they made.

 

The court heard Allen had made £9,970.88 but his “realisable assets” are only £1,342.77 so that is all he can be ordered to pay back. Those assets comprise £1,092 from equity in a house and £250 from a “cherished” number plate.

 

Allen was given longer than usual to pay the money because he is struggling to sell the property due to the economic climate.

 

Judge John Milford told him: “You have 12 months to pay because of the exceptional circumstances in the economic climate and the slowdown in the housing market. The financial circumstances are likely to get worse in this region, I fear.”

 

If Allen fails to pay up in time, he will face 30 days in prison instead.

 

 

Cobain, who played a lesser role and who prosecutors said “did not fall into the criminal lifestyle Allen did”, was ordered to pay back the £370 he had made from his crimes. He was given two months to pay and faces seven days in prison in default. Allen and Cobain were firearm inquiry officers with Durham Constabulary when they staged the four-year racket.

 

Their job was to process weapons handed in during amnesties or those seized in operations.

 

But instead the pair took advantage of their department’s failings to run their own trade in shotguns and rifles.

 

Firearms were sold – some for £500 – to licensed shooters and legitimate gun dealers without the original owners ever knowing.

 

Allen, who was more experienced than Cobain, forged letters and documents as part of a “bespoke” service to complete the deals, the court was told.

 

Sales were struck at police stations across the county, with Allen even selling some of the guns twice. The constables were finally caught when a former customer reported his shotgun stolen, the court heard. By then more than 100 surrendered weapons had been mishandled, internal investigators discovered.

 

Allen, 48, from Houghton-le-Spring, and Cobain, 42, from Sunderland, were allowed to keep their freedom on suspended sentences after a judge was told the weapons were never sold to the criminal underworld.

 

Allen was given a 51-week jail term suspended for two years with a six-month curfew. Cobain received a 40-week sentence suspended for 18 months with a four-month curfew.

 

Both admitted misconduct in a public office and have since resigned from the force.

 

Read More http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/05/shamed-police-officers-pay-price-for-crime-61634-28283270/2/#ixzz1G5YcBew1

[blunt shooter]

Original_Thread

 

 

Shamed police officers pay price for crime

 

 

TWO police officers who sold on guns surrendered to their force have been ordered to pay back some of their ill-gotten gains.

 

Shamed PCs Maurice Allen and Damian Cobain were given suspended prison sentences last year for the weapons scam.

 

Now the pair have been brought back to Newcastle Crown Court under the Proceeds of Crime Act in an effort to claw back the money they made.

 

The court heard Allen had made £9,970.88 but his “realisable assets” are only £1,342.77 so that is all he can be ordered to pay back. Those assets comprise £1,092 from equity in a house and £250 from a “cherished” number plate.

 

Allen was given longer than usual to pay the money because he is struggling to sell the property due to the economic climate.

 

Judge John Milford told him: “You have 12 months to pay because of the exceptional circumstances in the economic climate and the slowdown in the housing market. The financial circumstances are likely to get worse in this region, I fear.”

 

If Allen fails to pay up in time, he will face 30 days in prison instead.

 

 

Cobain, who played a lesser role and who prosecutors said “did not fall into the criminal lifestyle Allen did”, was ordered to pay back the £370 he had made from his crimes. He was given two months to pay and faces seven days in prison in default. Allen and Cobain were firearm inquiry officers with Durham Constabulary when they staged the four-year racket.

 

Their job was to process weapons handed in during amnesties or those seized in operations.

 

But instead the pair took advantage of their department’s failings to run their own trade in shotguns and rifles.

 

Firearms were sold – some for £500 – to licensed shooters and legitimate gun dealers without the original owners ever knowing.

 

Allen, who was more experienced than Cobain, forged letters and documents as part of a “bespoke” service to complete the deals, the court was told.

 

Sales were struck at police stations across the county, with Allen even selling some of the guns twice. The constables were finally caught when a former customer reported his shotgun stolen, the court heard. By then more than 100 surrendered weapons had been mishandled, internal investigators discovered.

 

Allen, 48, from Houghton-le-Spring, and Cobain, 42, from Sunderland, were allowed to keep their freedom on suspended sentences after a judge was told the weapons were never sold to the criminal underworld.

 

Allen was given a 51-week jail term suspended for two years with a six-month curfew. Cobain received a 40-week sentence suspended for 18 months with a four-month curfew.

 

Both admitted misconduct in a public office and have since resigned from the force.

 

Read More http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/05/shamed-police-officers-pay-price-for-crime-61634-28283270/2/#ixzz1G5YcBew1

[jackinbox99]

Thats amazing. So, both of them got no prison sentence for admiting stealing 100 guns and selling them on.

 

Also, why an earth does the guy only have to pay £1300 odd back when he made nearly 10grand out of it. Who cares if he hasnt currently got 10k sitting there, they should do an attachment to any future earnings and take it back from him as soon as he gets it.

[blunt shooter]

Bazooka Joes article is a tad misleading

I will cover the points he/she has raisewd in cronological order

First "sdhamed officers having to pay back ill gotten gains"

A fuller understanding of the proceeds of cime act is needed to understand how/why they have had to pay the court money. The Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA)is a very draconian act and seeks to punish criminals making vast sums not really appropriate in this instance BUT never the less was used. The POCA goes back 10 years and aANY cash amounts paid into an account which can not be traced are deemed subject of POCA. The sum relating to Allen £9970.88 IS NOT money made BUt money in his account over 10 years, this was actually a joint account with his wife BUT POCA does not allow for this so sums she paid in as well become part iof the equation.Also POCA states that if the sum is over £5000 then a criminal lifestyle has been lead.

As Allen continued to work as a cop for several years after he ceased to be an FEO and during this time and his time as an FEO he received several awards and commendations I fail to see how he lived the live of a criminal?The sum of money (nearly £10000) was made up of £5000 he had made from the legitimate purchasae restoration and sale of guns over a 12 year period( REMEMBER his misconduct as stated by the Judge was 3 year 2003 to 2006)the othe £4000 odd was sums paid into previsouly mentioned joint account over 10 years , these include ridiculous sums like £33.17 in March 2003 ands £17.50 in May 2002( you go back over your accounts for 10 years and try to remember where all those little amounts of cah came from? bet you can't & they all soon add up.

So when tyaking this awful POCA and how the sum was reached not really a criminal is he?

AQs fro realisable assets he has lowered the price of his house several times to try to sell it BUT can't if he did sell it this is all the profit he would have so his asset as for the private plate he doesnt even own it this belongs to his son also of the same name BUT the police wouldn't accept this so he got stung for that as well.

*** for the 30 days in prison if he doesnt pay well he will still owe the money plus interest when he gets out.

As for Cobain the police did not even check his bank accounts hence why he got such a low sum to repay.

As always throughout this it was a very one sided investigation, with the BBC proiving this was common practice with other officers doing the same BUT they are still empoloyed and will retire on full pensions. Depite paying 13.% of his wage into his pansion for 29 1/2 years Allen has lost his pension , not really fair when it was his money.

BJ also states that FEO's processed guns handed in on amnesties and from operations this is only partly true, the main bulk of weapons handed in are handed in voluntarily by licensed holders and actions after that were with their knowledge,The soc alled 4 year racket was in fact 3 years .

As for Allen forging letters etc this was never poved and he was NEVER charged with forgery or theft, he did give handwriting samples to the police BUT for some reason they never used them so forgery not proved and the theft charged he plead not guilty to at Crown Court and they were dropped.

Agin the mewntioned bespoke service was the officers informing people who had purchased guns that as they had done so from Police Property and as they would have to inform HQ anyway of their acquisition of said weapon they need not as would normally be required to by law inform HQ as the FEO would do so, hardly a bespoke servicer but a common sense approach saving the public time and cost, and obviously NOT the action of someone trying to cover up what he had done as he thought he had done wrong MORE like the actions of a manm beleiveig he was doing nothing wrong? IF HE WAS doing WRONG hwne he sent such letters to HQ why was it not questioned and why was it alloweed to continue?

As for selling the same gun twice agian not ptoved the gun sold twice was 1st sold by the owner then at a later date the new owner asked Allen to sell it for him whiuch As for allowed to keep their freedom, the Judge took into account that ALL weapons were accounted for and went to authorised licence holders, the public were never in danger, and the fact that Durham were called by the Judge liars, complacent and shambolic and it was proved that the Head of the Dept did know this practice went on but she did NOT stop it, she is still somehow dept Head.

I am neither against or for them BUT it still seems to me that these 2 were singled out for what was obviouslyt a common working practice, they have lost everything whilst the others have lost nothing, Surely it should have been all or none at court.

I can't begin to imagine what they are going to do to rebuild their lives , would you employ a man with 30 years a s a cop who was required to resign?

[blunt shooter]

Thats amazing. So, both of them got no prison sentence for admiting stealing 100 guns and selling them on.

 

Also, why an earth does the guy only have to pay £1300 odd back when he made nearly 10grand out of it. Who cares if he hasnt currently got 10k sitting there, they should do an attachment to any future earnings and take it back from him as soon as he gets it.

[blunt shooter]

Jackinbox99 has made a comment without been privy to all the facts, unfortuneately another one who believes all the media print, he didnt make nearly 10 grand, if it is to be attached to future earnings why should any one convicted get a job just stay on benefits and never pay it back , after all this act was made for the big criminals not really for this type of case. The reason no prison was covered several times previously but mainly no prison as other officers not charged for this common practice, no one ver in danger and all weapons accounted for and in hands of authorised persons.

Before jumping in head forst get ALL the facts

[Bazooka Joe]

Bazooka Joes article is a tad misleading

 

Not mine, it's quoted from the Journal.

 

 

So when tyaking this awful POCA and how the sum was reached not really a criminal is he?

 

Your having a laugh

 

 

As for Cobain the police did not even check his bank accounts hence why he got such a low sum to repay.

 

Another laugh

 

 

As for Allen forging letters etc this was never poved and he was NEVER charged with forgery or theft,

 

Yes he did, I & another member on here will vouch for that,

 

 

You must have missed this bit then;

 

Allen, who was more experienced than Cobain, forged letters and documents as part of a “bespoke” service to complete the deals, the court was told.

[Frenchieboy]

Just my own thoughts on the matter!

We are surposed to look up to the police as squeeky clean, honest law abiding citizens and upholders of the law. Basically role models, someone we could trust above most others for their honesty and integrity! If what we read in the media about this case id all true then surely have to accept that they acted in a criminal manner - The theft of surrendered guns, the falsifying of police records and the falsifying of letters in an attempt to show that they were legally entitled to see the weapons. Regardless of who the guns were sold to surely the basis of this case has to be recognised as criminal behaviour in itself?

If that were your average "Joe Public" that had committed these offences the police and the courts would no doubt have thrown the book at him and imposed tha maximum penalty allowed - Why has this not happened in this case and how is this sort of "soft touch" attitude surposed to give us any confidence in either the police or the judicial system?

There may well be facts that the media have failed to tell us just as there my be things that the media have distorted to sell their papers but surely this case has proven that the law is in fact a total ***!

[CharlieT]

Blunt Shooter

 

Your little story is the best bit of fiction I have read for many years, John Grisham beware.

 

I particularly like the storyline concerning the bespoke service where your story says...........

 

"was the officers informing people who had purchased guns that as they had done so from Police Property and as they would have to inform HQ anyway of their acquisition of said weapon they need not as would normally be required to by law inform HQ as the FEO would do so, hardly a bespoke servicer but a common sense approach saving the public time and cost"

 

............this really added a touch of fiction to the story, portraying how your average criminal is really a good chap at heart and always putting country and tax payer first.

 

9/10 for effort, well done.

[al4x]

the funny thing is what they did is more widespread than you might think and certainly happened till fairly recently round us. Yes they made money out of things the force were going to dispose of that it looks like it was almost seen as a perk of the job. I still can't help but think they have been a scapegoat as soon as they came to light. Lets face it how on earth did it take this long to come to light when we are in a system that has the guns logged every step of the way. I used to shoot with someone who mostly used shotgun ammo that had been handed in for destruction who also had bought some cheap guns before they went to auction as they were deemed too valuable to destroy.

The fundamental is though what harm was done, in theory its theft but all guns went to licensed holders, where the money went is a little murky its a strange one but it looks like the Judge also thought so due to the sentencing

[UKPoacher]

Two points; Firstly the POCA application, once authorised as in this case can be re-visited in the future. This means that if he acquires assets in the future these can be seized. Secondly, the police are drawn from society and like all jobs with power can attract the wrong applicants. There are bound to be bent coppers, I've come across them and reported them, but bear in mind there are nearly 150,000 police officers the vast majority are straight as a die.

[Breastman]

From what i know personally of the case i find the whole thing ridiculous and i look forward to the officers involved getting the majority of their pensions back, hopefully sooner rather than later

 

Its hard to believe the bull **** the press are allowed to print as 'facts' until you have personal knowledge of the news article they're sensationalising. Fornicating onanists the lot of them

 

Mark

[kdubya]

 

I am neither against or for them BUT it still seems to me that these 2 were singled out for what was obviouslyt a common working practice, they have lost everything whilst the others have lost nothing, Surely it should have been all or none at court.

I can't begin to imagine what they are going to do to rebuild their lives , would you employ a man with 30 years a s a cop who was required to resign?

 

regardless if or how they were "singled out" they must have known what they were doing was WRONG

and should have thought about careers and pensions before they got involved, sorry no sympathy from me on this one, they knew what they were doing, they should have walked away from it but they did not, now they reap the crop.

 

KW

[lurchers]

well before this turns into an argument they should be doing time in my eyes as if it was 1 of us we would be and a mate of mine from houghton-le-spring bought 2 guns off 1 of the coppes didnt know nowt about it until he got a visit from the cops about this as he bought them legit off 1 of them coppes but they needed a statment for it.

[Dekers]

I know nothing of this story and if truth be known I don't really care, but correct me if I'm wrong, did these guys nick firearms/shotguns and sell them on??

 

Is that not a Firearms offense, and does that not attract a mandatory 5 year jail term?

[Breastman]

Yes you're wrong, and the mandatory 5 year sentence only applies to Section 5 prohibited firearms

[Dekers]

Yes you're wrong, and the mandatory 5 year sentence only applies to Section 5 prohibited firearms

 

 

 

Thanks for that, please point me in the direction of the Legislation so I can gen up more on this, I was not aware it was only S5!

 

So nicking fireams/shotguns and selling them is ok and not classsed as a firearms offence?

 

Slap on the wrist and a few quid fine , can't help thinking, as someone else mentioned, if it was you or me we would be looking at a LONG custodial!

[Breastman]

At 10pm on a Friday night typing on an iPhone I haven't got the time or patience to wade through firearms legislation for you but trust me, the 5 year mandatory thing is only for S5 guns.

 

I didn't say that other firearms offences didn't attract custodial sentencing :rollseyes:

[HW682]

1968 Firearms act section 51A

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

[Diceman]

Bluntshooter, you say you are neither against them or for them, but you seem to have a remarkable knowledge of the details of this case, you are very defensive of the officers in quetion and you seem to post only on this topic. Now, I'm no detective but I am sensing a connection here...please could you declare your interest in this case?

[Dekers]

At 10pm on a Friday night typing on an iPhone I haven't got the time or patience to wade through firearms legislation for you but trust me, the 5 year mandatory thing is only for S5 guns.

 

I didn't say that other firearms offences didn't attract custodial sentencing :rollseyes:

 

 

Chap, with respect the last thing I do is trust someone who says trust me, I may well be wrong about all firearms offences attracting a mandatory 5 year term but the legislation referred to by HW682 is about firearms..NOT S5 ONLY.

You made a statement, please advise where it says S5 only if you feel I/HW682 are wrong.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Edit

I looked a bit more..perhaps I do have it wrong!

Edited April 15, 2011 by Dekers

[Dekers]

1968 Firearms act section 51A

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

 

 

Cheers!

[HW682]

Sorry for any confusion Dekers, but I agree that 5 year mandatory is only for s5. Read 51A of the act.

[Dekers]

Sorry for any confusion Dekers, but I agree that 5 year mandatory is only for s5. Read 51A of the act.

 

 

Yeh.. I edited my post above already..looks like I may well have this one wrong!

 

Apologies to all!

[HW682]

It's not surprising because it is widely believed to apply to all firearms offences.

As someone on here once quoted "It's a bad day when you don't learn something new".

Edited April 15, 2011 by HW682