do you remember

[Justintime]

Lets make this clear for you all

1) Winchester was accused of an incident that involved a person alledgidly being agressive towards trespassers (read trespass law .so how is it an offence anyway)

2) Winchester was literaly miles away on the dates stated by the witness to the incident.

How dose the above post intamate that he was there the way i read the law it dose not say you can not say boo to a goose let alone trespassers if your a certificate holder.

You are missing the whole point its very clear from all the facts in this case that a certificate holder was punnished for a crime he could not have committed, on the days the whitness alledged the incident took place.Just one more small fact the witness was NOT a victom he was stood 300yards away and gave a statement of what he perceved happened then refused to attend court.

Alarm bells not ringing yet! You are picking one sentance out and makeing it sound a whole lot different when taken out of context.

[Justintime]

Ps its all our problem not just one persons this **** could happen to you next it needs stopping as it is not right.

[brian28]

Been here before with this last time Winchester ? justintime ? was not at the time a BASC member ?

 

Reading between lines from last time this was posted witness got dates wrong ?

[Piebob]

Been here before with this last time Winchester ? justintime ? was not at the time a BASC member ?

 

Reading between lines from last time this was posted witness got dates wrong ?

Nooooooooooooooooo. Witness got the dates right. Winchester wasn't anywhere near the incident and can prove it.

 

I hope he gets his guns back.

[cockercas]

My view. Basc who promote themselves as the voice/future of shooting should get their finger out and nip this in the bud. Its not just the fellas problem. Its everyone of our problem. If a group of kids eggs your house tonight and you go out and tell them to do one in the most politest way possible. One of them can get on the phone and tell plod you have been out with your gun and threatened them. Now its your word against a gang of ten. Bye bye guns for this season. Probably not get them back. The future of shooting is bleak when we carnt even stand united

[Gordon R]

The biggest problem is getting something done about it.

 

The proposed article would not convince all shooters, let alone non-shooters. The facts might well be beyond question, but the way they are presented makes hard reading. No ordinary person is going to fully read it or be convinced by it.

 

It needs the involvement of a professional journalist, with an objective style which might persuade the doubtful.

 

As it stands, this will run and run without ever coming to a satisfactory outcome(from the shooters point of view).

 

It would also carry more weight if we were told who exactly is who in all this.

[guest1957]

If anyone is interested I have put this in a more readable format:

 

The Shooter’s Journal

AUTUMN 2011 6

IN THE COURTS

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Do-goodery is rampant throughout the land, and in its wake comes an insidious kind of corruption and cruelty.

It’s surreal. Worse, it’s out of control

——————————————

Innocent of an accusation, and got an alibi to prove it?

That won’t bother law enforcement

——————————————

Something worse than a case of mistaken identity.

 

IN HIS 1984 BOOK Adventures In The Screen Trade, screenwriter William Goldman emphasizes that a screenwriter must create a ‘believable reality’. This may not have much to do with reality as we think we know it. Some real-life events are simply too bizarre to be believable, Goldman says, and cites the case of Michael Fagan. In July 1982, 31-year-old Fagan scaled a fence at Buckingham Palace in the early morning daylight, wandered around for a while in sight of guards, set off alarms that were sedulously ignored, found conveniently unlocked windows, and eventually ambled into HM the Queen’s bedroom as she slept. (The armed police officer who should have been outside the royal bedroom had gone off duty before his replacement, who was out walking the dogs, arrived on post.)

The Queen awoke, and kept Fagan chatting until she had the chance to ring for a footman.

 

Goldman’s point was that if you put all this in a movie, no one would believe it. But it happened. We feel rather like that in Kevin Hunter’s case. With such a concentration of things going wrong in the justice system and affecting one person; a distinct closing of ranks as various official bodies either pass the buck, duck, avoid, ignore, double-back or just stick their fingers in their ears, our problem is trying to present all this as something that really has happened. In 2008, Kevin Hunter was approaching fifty. A family man, he’d bought land for his wife and daughter to keep horses on, built them the stables and tack room from which to enjoy themselves.

 

He himself was working as an agency heavy goods driver. He was a firearm and shotgun certificate holder, member of BASC, of good character. The land on which Kevin’s family keep their horses in Warwickshire is bounded by a private lane and farmland. People wander onto the, some on a public footpath running through it, and some in a manner best described as overspill. Kevin had shooting permission on adjacent land, along with several other people, who might legitimately be there with a gun.

 

Are you sitting comfortably? Now suspend your disbelief In February 2008, someone was seen shouting abuse at a bunch of trespassers on the land over which Kevin shot, and possibly discharging a shotgun, but not at them. The person who claims he saw this event talked to a third party, who put a name to the likely individual—that being Kevin Hunter. The police, who were supposedly looking for someone who was attacking horses in that area, decide that a conviction under section 16 of the 1968 Firearms Act would look well on their CVs, and nip round to Mr Hunter’s house, put him in a cell for 11 hours, charge him accordingly, and remove his shotguns and rifles. During their investigation, the police recover tachograph charts proving that their ‘suspect’ was literally miles away at the time given by their witness. This was, quite rightly, sufficient cause for the CPS liaison to abandon any hope of a prosecution, and he dropped the charge. Kevin Hunter expected to receive his property back, but it did not appear. When he asked for an explanation, the police informed him that irrespective of the CPS opinion, they were convinced he was a danger to the public and the peace, and revoked his tickets.

 

When he told BASC what had occurred, they immediately went into action, and threw in the towel. He joined another outfit by the name of the Scottish Association of Country Sports (SACS), whose insurance cover did provide a solicitor for a Section 44 appeal. To say Section 44 courts resemble large Australian bipedal marsupials is uncomplimentary to the kangaroo, but that wasn’t the bad news. The bad news was that the solicitor given the comparatively easy task was one William Graham. The police had a problem. Their only semi-witness (he did not identify Kevin Hunter, only described him) provided a time line for which Kevin had an alibi, one that they themselves procured from his employer. The solution was brilliant in its simplicity: they assumed their witness made a mistake about the date. If their witness had got the date wrong, then Mr Hunter would have no alibi. Job done. This was all carefully discussed by Warwickshire police in an internal memorandum. Kevin Hunter looks suitably unimpressed.

 

To ensure their version of events was the one the court heed, they omitted the tachograph evidence from the police bundle presented to the court. For the technically minded, we now have three separate charges to lay against the Warwickshire police: conspiring to pervert the course of justice (the memo makes it a conspiracy), failing to place before the court any and all evidence

considered (Kavanagh v Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall [1974] QB 624), and suppression of

evidence (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).

 

The lawyer should have had an easy ride. Apart from destroying the police for failing to disclose the tachograph evidence, the witness’s account alleged:

 

• The person wore ‘Realtree’ camouflage from head to foot. Realtree is a brand name, and Mr Hunter does have a Realtree jacket, but not the trousers.

• According to the statement, the man had a double-barrelled shotgun. Mr Hunter did possess a side-by-side, but not at the time of the incident.

• The man held the shotgun in one hand, with the butt on his right hip, with his hand on the small of the stock. Mr Hunter has medical records to show if he were to attempt to hold a shotgun that way in his right hand, it would fall.

• The incident allegedly took place on a Sunday in early February, for which Mr Hunter had tachographs showing he was driving at the time. In other words, the man seen by the witness was someone other than Mr Kevin Hunter.

 

Somewhere along the line, something happened. The witness turned out to be ‘unwilling’ to appear in court. Instead of insisting on the appearance of this witness, the solicitor decided not to appear either. The barrister recommended by the solicitor performed as you might expect, given the integrity of her patron. She arrived at the court, and requested the considerably thick police bundle from the clerk. You read that correctly: she had no clue what the case was about until less than two hours to kick-off. Whether she didn’t know about the non appearance of the vital witness is unclear because, to date, despite several requests for information, she remains exceedingly discreet. For those unfamiliar with a Section 44 appeal, the usual form is that the appellant stands directly behind his brief, with his solicitor at his side. That way, if the appellant thinks of something, he whispers it to the solicitor, who translates it to the brief—simple, or what? In this court, however, Kevin Hunter was instructed to stand in the dock, effectively isolating him from his legal counsel. The result was a resounding defeat for the forces of light. The solicitor and barrister finished the job they started by failing to inform him that he was eligible to appeal by way of a judicial review, or that he was entitled to lodge formal complaints against them. As ineptitude goes this was a text book case in how easily the system collapses when those within it don’t do their jobs properly (or at all). The secretary of SACS did write a few letters of complaint to Mr Hunter’s lawyer, but it is clear that this particular solicitor’s real expertise is in avoiding responsibility. Kevin Hunter did try his best to get official bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission involved. The IPCC did produce a sizeable document, which managed to overlook all the ‘actionable’ aspects of the case:

officers lied under oath, attempted to ‘jog’ peoples memory by showing them photographs of Kevin when they were only supposed to ask questions, etc, etc.

 

Eventually, Kevin found the SRA, and the first thing we had to do was obtain documentation of what happened. Kevin was more than able to oblige, and produced literally hundreds of pages of material, including copies of witness statements, maps of the area, the IPCC review, and more besides. A genius for invisibility. The next step was to see what the other side had, and that was when the fun started. From the first letter to date, every organisation has gone out of its way to obstruct justice. No effort has been spared to ensure that Kevin Hunter was never to receive anything approaching a fair deal. Letters of enquiry routinely were ignored until at least one reminder, and often not even then. Right now, we are still trying to see information that should be in the public domain, as its legal advice and therefore impersonal. We discovered that Warwickshire’s firearms manager came across it in a ‘similar’ case, and grafted it into Kevin’s file. The police have refused not only a Freedom of Information but also a Data Protection Act request to release a copy. As far as the lawyers were concerned, the case was over a year old, which meant that their respective governing bodies would not entertain complaints made against them. In fact, the barrister actually invited us to make a formal complaint, no doubt confident that the time bar would protect her. The IPCC, after much persuasion, blithely informed us that as far as they were concerned the matter was concluded, and anyway the majority of their cases they merely pass to the police to investigate at a local level. If you are wondering how they have the gall to proclaim themselves as ‘independent’ you are not alone. Suffice to say, if a police officer is sufficiently incompetent or corrupt to warrant their attention, said individual is hardly the best choice to review his own work. Mr Hunter’s MP was as much use as you might expect: ‘Get a lawyer’ was the best this Parliamentary representative could manage.

Er—he tried that already? The Warwickshire Police Professional Standards department likewise seem incapable of recognizing that suppression of evidence is a criminal act, especially when the perpetrator is a highranking member of their own force.

 

The Deputy Crown Prosecutor refused to comment on whether he thought the police had committed an offence in this case. This was after he received a copy of the memo revealing the plan discussed by the manager and the ACC to withhold evidence, and the later admission by the ACC of having done so.

 

In a contest to see who could do the worst, the Warwickshire Police Authority probably just make it to the top of the heap. Technically they’re best placed to rein in a senior police officer, but to do so they would have to acknowledge that Kevin Hunter is entitled to examine information held against him, not simply information in a file bearing his name—although that too might be useful. Getting to grips with the seriousness of withholding evidence seems beyond their abilities too. The biggest problem, apart from the non-replies from all and sundry, is that so many of those involved

seem unable to distinguish between a reply and an answer. For example, if you ask me if it is raining, and I tell you what time it is, that is a reply, but not an answer. The police, the IPCC, the Professional Standards Office, the CPS, the Police Authority, and others, have all pulled this number. The case is currently working its way through the European Court of Human Rights, and we hope they will

answer Kevin’s appeal for justice .Before that happens, there is a chance that one or two other parties such as the Information Commission, and the Bar Standards Association, will help redress the balance. We will let you know.

[Gordon R]

Put it in whatever format you want - it's written in the style of an amateurish , one-sided, sniping, cheap points scoring rant, which is a shame.

[guest1957]

From my reading of this it looks like lack of clarity is the whole reason the case went the way it did. Far too much information presented as a single, long, stream of conciousness. If you are like that in a witness box, you won't get anywhere.

[Mungler]

I read the whole lot and thought it was quite well written.

[Paddy Galore!]

I read the whole lot and thought it was quite well written.

me too. there's a lot to take in, but perfectly understandable.

[HDAV]

Been here before with this last time Winchester ? justintime ? was not at the time a BASC member ?

 

Reading between lines from last time this was posted witness got dates wrong ?

So is "Winchester" also "Justintime" also Kevin?

 

The only person who can grant or remove a licence is the chief constable. IF he believes that the person in question should not have one then the only alternative is to get a judge to over rule them. Whether the incident happened or not is largely irrelevant.

 

Having read the previous posts on this case I really can't get my head round what was supposed to have happened, is this a simple case of persecution of one person by the police and legal system? OR a valid revocation? I dont know as i am not in a position to see the facts, nor make the decision.

 

I've re read it and the thing that sticks is this: It was after his dealings with the police for what ever reason, they came to the conclusion that Mr Hunter was not a suitable licence holder, by what ever means they came to the information to make this decision they did.

 

The farce of the section 44 appeal well that seems to be a separate issue (this is the one financed and arranged by SACS?)

 

Documents missing from a bundle? As far as i am aware both sides prepare a bundle (which should contain the same information) So what happened to the Bundle prepared by Mr Hunters legal team?

 

May well be a great article for the medium (good sticking the boot in to the BASC) and seems to focus on largely irrelevant details (as it did before).

Edited November 1, 2011 by HDAV

[Justintime]

Its all there written with fact not fiction how would you take being blamed with something you aint done Take it lying down !!! This is to bring to light what is happening to legit cert holders by what ever means the police can use.Devoid of innocent or guilt.That dont even come into it.

[guest1957]

I'm wondering whether a private prosecution has been considered against the alleged wrongdoers in the police force?

[brian28]

You have missed this out the reason my husband was asking people what they were doing in a private lane/on private land.

Where our horses were kept or in close proximity.

The people that made these stements were not the people my husband was surposed to have asked to go back to the foot path but people who were looking on some distance away.

Paranoid! I think you would be the same way if a policeman falsely listed items as comeing from your home that could get you 5 years in prison namely 1 x shotgun that my husband sold in 2006 to the farmer and it was taken from the farm yet listed as comeing from our home theres a lot of other thing as well that the policeman has done to try and get my husband convicted so please if you are going to wright the story dont miss out the importent bits also the same police man who was investigating the horse attacks was also the policeman in charge of my husbands case thank Mrs T Hunter

 

7 June 2009 18:12 paste

[Gordon R]

I've lost it. The poster is in Leicester, his wife appears to be from the Wirrall.

 

Mungler - I am astonished.

[HDAV]

Its all there written with fact not fiction how would you take being blamed with something you aint done Take it lying down !!! This is to bring to light what is happening to legit cert holders by what ever means the police can use.Devoid of innocent or guilt.That dont even come into it.

So Justintime are you "winchester" and Kevin Hunter? If you are all of the aforementioned have you contacted MP? A specialist firearms solicitor? How about the Chap Mick from "Mick's guns2 had?

 

I've lost it. The poster is in Leicester, his wife appears to be from the Wirrall.

 

Mungler - I am astonished.

Brian28 i believe copied and pasted a letter from MR Hunters Wife not that he is Mr Hunters Wife.

[Justintime]

I'm wondering whether a private prosecution has been considered against the alleged wrongdoers in the police force?

That is the next step but first we have to deal with the cards that are on the table and the wrong that has been done and the way it was done to stop it being done again to anyone else even those who think they are perfect the law is surposed to be fair,just and for all.

 

Documents missing from a bundle? As far as i am aware both sides prepare a bundle (which should contain the same information) So what happened to the Bundle prepared by Mr Hunters legal team?

Thats just one of the things we are trying to find out.Along with the left out tacos,disclaimers and time sheets from the bundle presented to the court by the police and the NEW dates introduced by the Chief constable because the afore said tacos covered the dates given by their witness.I might be good but i can Not drive a 38ton artic to timbucto and be on land at the same time.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Justintime

[DaveK]

 

Brian28 i believe copied and pasted a letter from MR Hunters Wife not that he is Mr Hunters Wife.

 

Well that's a relief. I was thinking that Brian had a husband. ;)

[Tam]

Who is Brian please welease Bwian

[DaveK]

Who is Brian please welease Bwian

 

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.

[al4x]

Indeed kevin, winchester and justintime are one and the same. Look up an article by james marchington it has a lot of the facts there. Fundamental is its taken years to get his story straight and that is the problem. As well as focussing on the wrong things all this piece shows is he got another journalist to listen to his ramblings

[Imperfection]

I've read the whole lot and am appalled with the legal system for allowing such glaring corruption to go on.I do hope this gets resolved Winchester.

[Justintime]

For your infamation the reporter heard about the case,Contacted the SRA they suppled all the evidence,Winchester didnt even know about it,Untill he was sent a proof copy so your statement like someothers on here is ill informed and without knowlage of the facts.The trouble with people is they beleve what is written in the press. With only the knowlage of what they have read or heard in the media.Funny how so meny are quick to condem a person only on the wrightings of a reporter whos story is usually as far from the truth as you can get.Winchester stands to gain NOTHING from this fight but the satisfaction that it may prevent it occouring to ANYONE OF YOU as you can be restasured it will. Place yourself in the shoes of a person Wrongley punnished for a crime they did NOT commit see how you would feel. Anyway the facts are their with back up evidence beleve what you will

[Blunderbuss]

For your infamation the reporter heard about the case,Contacted the SRA they suppled all the evidence,Winchester didnt even know about it,Untill he was sent a proof copy so your statement like someothers on here is ill informed and without knowlage of the facts.The trouble with people is they beleve what is written in the press. With only the knowlage of what they have read or heard in the media.Funny how so meny are quick to condem a person only on the wrightings of a reporter whos story is usually as far from the truth as you can get.Winchester stands to gain NOTHING from this fight but the satisfaction that it may prevent it occouring to ANYONE OF YOU as you can be restasured it will. Place yourself in the shoes of a person Wrongley punnished for a crime they did NOT commit see how you would feel. Anyway the facts are their with back up evidence beleve what you will

Just for the record, as it is very confusing. Are you Winchester?