High Court

[Gordon R]

Kev - they got the wrong date - so what.

 

That is not what they are basing their case on. You have missed the point at the interview and are still doing.

 

If it wasn't that day, but another - the question is still whether you confronted the walkers and was a shot fired? Read what James Marchington has said. He has highlighted the weakness in your case. If you choose to ignore what he has said, I am sorry, but you might well be doomed to failure.

 

I am on your side, but you are appear to be ignoring the evidence against you. Splitting hairs over a couple of dates may well score moral points, but it will not help you succeed.

[HDAV]

I have to say I had no idea what's going on,but http://jamesmarchington.blogspot.com/2009/06/i-just-want-to-clear-my-name.html seems to explain it quite well worth a read doesn't take longer and explains what happened.

 

While i agree with your principles Kevin i think you are being naive to expect the ECHR to reinstate your certificates (part of me hopes they do and part dont) There are plenty of people out there who shouldn't have certs who do. but it's not up to me to judge I would suggest you (if you haven't already) get in touch with Mick Sheppard http://micksguns.com/index.htm he has some experience in these matters.

 

I am sure this has all been a huge strain on your family and health,there is more to life, why let the stresss send you to an early grave? Life's too short IMO but best of luck to you.

[Justintime]

Gorden r The point is i was not there so the answer is no i have never discharged a gun when i have seen people on the land and i have never been close to anyone when shooting can you remember what you were doing 12 weeks ago All the way through the intervew i told them no can not remember if i had a gun or not or if i was working or not i will have to cheque my diary it was a good job i kept one as we kept horses on the land.

There were others who shot the land but were never intervewed and at the distance of the sighting it could have been anyone the witness stated the double barrelled shot gun was held in the right hand and discharged from the hip one handed i didnt own a double barreled shot gun my right hand is badley disfigured and lackes the strength to do such a thing.

The dates are important as i had a police coroberated alibi so they changed them how is this FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

You have to remember J Marchinton had to be carfull what he wrote as it was an on going case. Its like saying you killed Jill Dando and then change the date of the murder to fit your whereabouts if that makes sence .

The next thing is what leathel range has a shot gun so 197 yards from anyone is not thretening look up trespass law and the rights of the land owner and his agent .

Horses were beeing attacked in the area to boot look up horse attackes in warwickshire so signs were erected telling people that it was private property and to keep out and to keep their dogs under close control while on farm property .

I am not looking for sympathy just trying to let you all know the truth as documented andtry to prevent anyone else getting fit up. So perhaps you beleve that your guilty untill you prove youself innocent i though that burdon of proof was under english law for them to prove you guilty,.I might be wrong though

Edited June 24, 2011 by Justintime

[Evil Elvis]

Good luck dude.....

[Nial]

i have never been close to anyone when shooting

 

From the Marchington report it says you approached people and asked them to stop straying from the country park.

 

Did you have a gun with you when you did this (in a slip)?

 

 

 

> The next thing is what leathel range has a shot gun so 197 yards from anyone is not thretening

 

1) Where does 197 yards come into it?

 

2) If someone deliberately discharged a shotgun in my direction from ~200 yards I'd feel threatened (as would most people).

 

 

Kev, if you weren't involved you shouldn't be discussing this, it makes it sound like

you are trying to defend your actions.

 

 

 

Nial

[mad1]

good luck kev let me know how you get on

[Piebob]

Kev, if you weren't involved you shouldn't be discussing this, it makes it sound like

you are trying to defend your actions.

 

Nial has hot the nail on the head.

 

Kev, we are all (well, most of us I think) behind you.

 

But you MUST stop going off on tangents and talking about distances, horse attacks, trespassers etc etc etc. as it sounds like you were there, did take action, and feel justified in taking the actions complained about. This is why you find yourself in this predicament.

 

Just stick to the witness statement that said you were there, and what they saw. That's all you need to do. You can defend that by saying that you weren't there at the time, and further, you do not meet the description in the witness statement.

 

All the best with whatever action you are taking.

[Justintime]

I was trying to tell people the alligation there was NO VICTOMS made any statements these were people who said they saw a person and they drew maps of where they were and where the peratrator was hence the distances .One of the alligations was withdrawn as wrong full (the one that got me arrested) the second one came after a media reliece and is that far fetched it borders on april fool there again it was made on the 2nd of april lol.

With out any concreat evidance because our horses were kept on the farm i was the one lifted,

I was NOT THERE ON THE DAYS IN QUESTION so how could it be me i was driveing a 38ton refrigerated artic so this just shows how easy it is for someone to make false statement about a lawfull cert holder. As a cert holder you have to be vetted but any crack pot can make a statement against you then you have to prove yourself innocent and even then they dont beleve you . This goes against every sinue of law.The police then dont produce the witness for cross examination of his evidance denieing you the right to correct there evidance.

I wonder how meny other shooters have secum to this tactik.

[Ferret Master]

Somebody please explain something to simple little me...

 

Are there two people posting on Justintime's account?

 

FM

[al4x]

nope having denied it numerous times Justintime is Kev aka winchester

[bvemanta]

I take it the op did not get his cert back.

[Nial]

Kev, I'm nominally on 'your side'.....

 

With out any concreat evidance because our horses were kept on the farm i was the one lifted,

 

1) Did you ever approach people as ask them to get back on the path?

 

2) If so, did you ever have a gun with you?

 

3) Are you saying that someone else _did_ fire a shot at walkers and that you

were mistakenly fingered for it?

 

 

Nial.

[J@mes]

If this is an ongoing case and your are involved then I would not be posting ANYTHING on the internet about it, whatsoever. Not one jot of information.

 

The prosecution may be reading, copying all this and could twist it around to trip you up big time.

 

Seriously, just stop.

[Gordon R]

Nial - I share your view, but find it hard work. It is almost impossible to get a straight answer, without Kev saying he wasn't there, so it couldn't have been him. I can see why the Police were struggling.

 

Kev - straight opinion. Unless you get some very good advice, listen to it, stop going off at a tangent - you will not get what you seek. I too am on your side, but can't get a factual account from you. You don't answer questions - you go off on one.

 

In simple terms - have you ever spoken directly - not at 197 yards - but face to face with the walkers? If you have, please stop going on about being in another county. It just makes things worse. Have the walkers spoken to you whilst you were in possession of a gun?

 

Your problem is that you apparently say you can't remember, but the Police have witness statements from people who can. Their dates might be inaccurate, but you are doing nothing to refute that there was some kind of contact.

[Justintime]

Gordon r thats the point mate I WAS NOT THERE I WAS WORKING driveing a 38ton refrigerated lorry and i have never approched anyone with a gun.

The fight was to get a fair and impartial hearing which beleve me mine was not, I went to the high court to obtain a judicial revew but the judge refuse me telling me i was out of time. Which was a police tactic they use as getting the info off them is like pulling a wild lions teath while its awake.

I have never been face to face with anyone with or without a gun WHILE OUT SHOOTING

Edited June 24, 2011 by Justintime

[Gordon R]

Kev- this is straight from James Marchington's piece:-

 

Kevin wanted to discourage them, and the farmer had backed him up on this. If he was out on the farm and saw someone trespassing, he would ask them to get back on the footpath. Some of the dog walkers would get a bit bolshie about it. Kevin put up some 'Private Property' notices on the track; they were torn down.

At some point, after being confronted by Kevin, a couple of dog walkers talked to the country park's ranger, probably along the lines of 'that stroppy *** with a gun keeps telling us to get off the track, surely it's a public footpath. And is it safe for him to be shooting there anyway?'

 

The statement mentions their 'alarm' at a gun being fired, and the 'aggressive' way they were told to get off private land.

Anyone reading the statement could easily get the (false) impression that Kevin roared up to the walkers and fired his gun to scare them off.

Faced with a statement like that, the police couldn't do nothing. They arrest Kevin.

When he is questioned, the policeman is looking for an admission that Kevin fired his gun to scare the walkers. And here's the crucial point: Kevin fails to understand what the policeman is getting at. The idea of using a gun like that is so foreign to him that it never crosses his mind the policeman would think it of him. His solicitor also seems to miss the point. They talk for some time at cross purposes (I have re-read the interview transcript several times and this is quite clear).

By the end of the interview, the policeman feels that Kevin has admitted that he fired the gun when he confronted the walkers. Kevin still fails to see that's what the policeman thinks.

 

That piece indicates that you had spoken to some walkers. If you are saying that James Marchington got the tale completely wrong - please say so. Is what he is saying right - in any way shape or form - or complete rubbish?

 

If he is talking complete rubbish - I take your point.

 

If he is correct - I give up.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Gordon R

[Justintime]

Its a story mate with little fact

[al4x]

Kev he has the best advice going in that piece for you, you need to move on and stop letting it eat you up. Find a way forward rather than finally getting your defence straight this long after the event. Simple fact is it got thrown out of court leave it a while and re apply, technically you don't have a conviction on this just a load of hearsay etc that should let you fight it properly if they refuse your application.

[Gordon R]

Kev - which bits are true? It might help if we knew.

 

I have sympathy with you, but you came to a public forum. We can only judge on what is posted.

[NickP]

Kev he has the best advice going in that piece for you, you need to move on and stop letting it eat you up. Find a way forward rather than finally getting your defence straight this long after the event. Simple fact is it got thrown out of court leave it a while and re apply, technically you don't have a conviction on this just a load of hearsay etc that should let you fight it properly if they refuse your application.

 

 

he speaks a lot of sense, your wasting so much time and effort going to every court in the land and it will grind you down in doing so, sometimes you have to call it a day

[Justintime]

Kev he has the best advice going in that piece for you, you need to move on and stop letting it eat you up. Find a way forward rather than finally getting your defence straight this long after the event. Simple fact is it got thrown out of court leave it a while and re apply, technic.ally you don't have a conviction on this just a load of hearsay etc that should let you fight it properly if they refuse your application.

Spot on mate thats exactly the plan i was simply trying to show others the ease at which people can make things up about you and how the police accept it without question.

There aut to be a law against people makeing wrongfull aligation recanting it when its too late and theres nowt you can do about it dispite how much it costs you.

There are some dangerous vindictive people out there its someting you read about and dont beleve but when it happens to you god help you it drives you to dispair trying to get the truth.

[Gordon R]

There is a law - Wasting Police time.

[Justintime]

he speaks a lot of sense, your wasting so much time and effort going to every court in the land and it will grind you down in doing so, sometimes you have to call it a day

There is due process that you have to do to get to the position i am at now, you are right it dose grind you down but sometimes a corse is worth fighting for,to protect it for future generations and at the end of the day the TRUTH has to win, as for giveing up well that aint an option its not in my nature If i have done someting wrong then i will admit it but if i aint i will fight to the last

The whole system of firearms legislation revocation hearsay is wrong pure and simple.

[Justintime]

There is a law - Wasting Police time.

O ****** ME well why have the people that have accused me of a alligation then withdrew it as wrongfull NOT BEEN PROSECUTED THEN fair and impartial i think not The case should have been dropped there and then but no they had to carry on and pile more lies in to bulk up their case oops ment to say hearsay lol.

SO in essence what the police are saying is this if you are a certificate holder :- 1)You can NOT protect your livestock verbally from trespassers with or without a gun present.

2)You are not allowed to ask people politely to leave private property where they have no lawful right of access and ignor signs telling them so.

3) Any old hearsay evidance will do.

4)they can twist whatever evidance they want leave out vital evidance from the court and not produce any witness. wise up boys you may be next

reserch the law on trespass and livestock. o but this dont apply to cert holders NEWS FLASH YES IT DOSE.

And it dont matter eather if you aint done it.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Justintime

[HDAV]

I'm still lost...

 

If someone makes a false accusation it's very hard for the Police to investigate fully without it becoming a snowball. As far as i can see, you were questioned about the incident and no charges were made? But after that the police revoked your SGC/FAC?

 

If following this contact with the police they felt you were unsuitable to hold an FAC/SGC regardless of why the police were so involved in your life for that time they must act on their information.

 

Look at it another way if Derick Bird/ Thomas Hamilton/ Micheal Ryan had been picked up 3 months before they went nuts in a case of mistaken identiy and the police had thought them unsuitable to hold FAC/SGC due to there behaviour during interview etc they would have revoked his Certificates and possibly saved many lives. (This is the Duty of the Chief Constable)

 

The FAC/SGC refusal/revokation process is not transparent but i thought it could be challenged in court: http://www.durham.police.uk/info/firearms/appeal.php

Or did you not appeal within 21 days?

Firearms legislation allows an appeal against certain police decisions as:

 

The refusal to grant a firearm or shotgun certificate

The revocation of a firearm or shotgun certificate

The refusal to approve an application for variation of a firearm certificate

There is no statutory right of appeal against firearm certificate conditions imposed by the Chief Constable, although additions which may be considered unreasonable by the certificate holder may be challenged by way of Judicial review at the High Court.

 

An appellant must give notice of their appeal in writing to the Administrator of the Crown Court and the Chief Constable within 21 days of receipt of the refusal or revocation notice.

 

I personally cannot say if you should or should hold a certificate, thats not my job. HAve you read the article here? http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shootinglaw.co.uk%2Farticles%2Fthe_shooting_law_solicitor.doc&ei=KAoGTqjACIHPhAer1Y3GDQ&usg=AFQjCNH_o5-JOlB1HufEkIYpD18bK43oeA

 

EDIT: http://jamesmarchington.blogspot.com/2009/05/miscarriage-of-justice.html Seems far more to the back story than we are seeing. So i am going to refrain from furtehr comment.

 

Justintime is the photo here of you? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KbgMYD9qY5k/SieISw82xrI/AAAAAAAABAU/DYphBCOnxSE/s1600-h/IMG_9731.JPG

 

 

There were others who shot the land but were never intervewed and at the distance of the sighting it could have been anyone the witness stated the double barrelled shot gun was held in the right hand and discharged from the hip one handed i didnt own a double barreled shot gun my right hand is badley disfigured and lackes the strength to do such a thing.

 

Edited June 25, 2011 by HDAV