is this the end to my sgc

[denniswebb]

As someone that has gone through this a couple of times, firstly generally they take the guns and ammunition. David there are a few holes in the picture, if someone attacks you with there fists and you decided that you cannot defend yourself by using your fists and decide to pick up a length of wood to ward off the attacker and injure the attacker you will be charged, this happened to one of our drivers, he pulled into a scrap yard and the bosses son thought he was a thieving pikie, after e few words the other bloke attacked him, he was known as a violent person, the driver grabbed a hammer from the cab and defended himself . The driver was charged and convicted for assault. I have been in a simalar situation, if you are 18 stone and the other guy is 14 stone but he attacks you and you knock him out, but you only hit him twice, i was found not guilty after a 3 day crown court trial, it still cost me £8000 in costs ( because the laywer had not won many cases and in his excitment forgot to ask for costs) he said afterwards that they rarely win a case and in there excitment forgot. Amazingly the other person took me to civil court for damages, plastic surgery, bone grafts . It turned out that you can win a case in the Crown Court but still lose the civil actions because the level of proof is less, simply a jury will find you not guilty but a judge won't . In Essex they will take your guns away for whatever reason and make you technically reapply , that is what happened to me, the licencing officer will re examine your application .

 

 

Dennis

[David BASC]

True enough that criminal, common and civil law are all different and so a civil case can still be taken even if the case is won in Crown Court.

 

As with all cases each will be assessed / tried on the exact merits and details of the case, and also of course the arguments put by the defence and the prosecution and the attitude of the judge.

 

However, we have the right to defend ourselves, others or our property and as I said there are defences in common and criminal law of self defence. It’s a mater of fact and degree as to whether they would apply in each and every case and more importantly if your defence barrister runs them as a defence.

 

There have been many cases where at trial the defence of self defence has failed, but on appeal has been upheld.

 

However, back to the point – in cases involving violence the police will almost always remove your firearms and ammunition, and will hold them until the case is settled.

 

If convicted of a violent crime this would potentially jeopardise your future prospects of holding SGC or FAC.

 

David

[Gordon R]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, when you do find yourself in this situation, what you don't do is:-

 

Post a fraction of the full facts on a public forum - adding a little bit more as questions inevitably arise, when your case appears to be weakening.

 

Call people "####" - as it may add to your problems as well as making you look just a bit silly and limited.

 

You should - rather rapidly - get some legal advice rather than discussing the merits of your case in public. You will get a variety of answers on here - most well meaning, but few of which will assist your situation.

[denniswebb]

I have never had any faith in lawyers, they all seem to fanny around and just in it for the money, in my civil case after the Crown Court one, i met her in chambers and she advised me to settle it out of court. I sadi that i had been attacked and there was no way i would pay the other guy, she said as he was legally aided i could not win. She advised that i make an offer of £30,000 . I refused her advice and decided hey if he owns a taxi company and lives in a £1,000,000 house and gets legal aid, then i would give it a crack....I got legal aid, never disclosed it to the other side and went into court . At which the judge stated he would not hear a case where both parties were legally aided, case dismissed....I know its off the topic a tad, but as this is my last year in shooting so give and take a bit.

 

Dennis

[Thunderbird]

At which the judge stated he would not hear a case where both parties were legally aided

 

Do you know why that was or is it standard, just out of interest?

[guest1957]

True enough that criminal, common and civil law are all different and so a civil case can still be taken even if the case is won in Crown Court.

 

As with all cases each will be assessed / tried on the exact merits and details of the case, and also of course the arguments put by the defence and the prosecution and the attitude of the judge.

 

However, we have the right to defend ourselves, others or our property and as I said there are defences in common and criminal law of self defence. It’s a mater of fact and degree as to whether they would apply in each and every case and more importantly if your defence barrister runs them as a defence.

 

There have been many cases where at trial the defence of self defence has failed, but on appeal has been upheld.

 

However, back to the point – in cases involving violence the police will almost always remove your firearms and ammunition, and will hold them until the case is settled.

 

If convicted of a violent crime this would potentially jeopardise your future prospects of holding SGC or FAC.

 

David

 

Common law criminal law is part of the criminal law, I think what you are talking about is statute law.

 

The defences exist in both statute law and common law. The defence that exists in statute law in under s.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The common law defence appears in cases such as R v Palmer and R v Bird.

Edited August 30, 2012 by guest1957

[Mungler]

Do you know why that was or is it standard, just out of interest?

 

One of the requirements of getting legal aid is that notice of receipt of legal aid has to be filed at Court and served on the other side. That's to allow people to write to the legal aid board and make representations about whether or not someone should be entitled - broadly it used to be that if on benefit you'd get legal aid.

 

Under new rules the firm offering the legal aid that kept quiet and didn't disclose would lose their franchise.

[DaveK]

A caution is NOT equivalent to a conviction. You do NOT have to declare a caution.

 

J.

 

You SURE of that? Really sure?

[guest1957]

You SURE of that? Really sure?

 

This debate has been done before. Whatever the letter of the law is I would always suggest over-disclosure as the FEO and team will know of the existence of the caution and wonder why you don't mention it if you choose not to.

[bedwards1966]

You SURE of that? Really sure?

 

When this came up before I think it seemed that you only have to declare a conviction, and that a caution is not a conviction.

However, while it may not be a requirement to declare a caution, I'd have thought it better to do so as the firearms dept should know about it, and think your hiding something by not telling them. It's certainly not a desirable thing to have.

[JonathanL]

Looking at slightly more facts obviously the scroat must have sustained some injuries in the fight, thats where the ABH charge comes from. However with the history to it and your contact with the police there should be enough substance to a claim that it was self defence on an act against you. Its not going to be fast though I'm guessing you'll have to let it run for the moment and wait for your moment in court, then with luck it will be thrown out. The slight issue is these scroats usually have no end of witnesses turn up after the event.

 

He hasn't been charged with anything from the sound of it.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

The police are not our enemy.

The reason they arrest/charge people is because the law tells them to.

Even in a clear cut case of self defence the charge needs to be made, so it can be investigated.

 

Did the gentleman with the brick get charged?

I would suspect that everyone in the fight was arrested.

I would suspect everyone was cautioned and/or charged.

Then the police would investigate and report to the CPS who would decide what to do next.

 

Even in the recent cases of self defence where the intruder was killed the homeowner was arrested for murder, the charges were then dropped after investigation.

 

 

As for the SGC, it’s sensible to suspend it and confiscate the guns until everything in resolved.

However, I do agree with the comments about having a friend take hold of the guns rather than leave them in police custody.

 

No one has been charged (unless I've missed something). The OP was arrested on suspicion of ABH. That is an entirely different matter.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, when you do find yourself in this situation, what you don't do is:-

 

Post a fraction of the full facts on a public forum - adding a little bit more as questions inevitably arise, when your case appears to be weakening.

 

Call people "####" - as it may add to your problems as well as making you look just a bit silly and limited.

 

You should - rather rapidly - get some legal advice rather than discussing the merits of your case in public. You will get a variety of answers on here - most well meaning, but few of which will assist your situation.

 

Agreed in regards all of the above.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

You SURE of that? Really sure?

 

Yes, really, really, really sure. The form asks you to disclose convictions. A caution is not a conviction. Hence, you do not need to declare a caution.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

This debate has been done before. Whatever the letter of the law is I would always suggest over-disclosure as the FEO and team will know of the existence of the caution and wonder why you don't mention it if you choose not to.

 

Whether you do that is up to you, However, as previously, the issue is that someone has claimed that you must declare it. That is not true. The police would get no where in very big hurry by trying to make your life dificult because you had failed to declare something they have never asked you to declare.

 

J.

[guest1957]

Whether you do that is up to you, However, as previously, the issue is that someone has claimed that you must declare it. That is not true. The police would get no where in very big hurry by trying to make your life difficult because you had failed to declare something they have never asked you to declare.

 

J.

 

I am in no doubt that some FEOs will be of the opinion that cautions should be declared in the box that asks you to declare previous convictions. I would consider it good practice to be open with such information to avoid delays and potential problems further down the line that could arise as a result of the department feeling you have not been entirely open with them.

 

The only time it is generally worth getting down to the letter of the law as opposed to standard practice is either when it stands to benefit you enough to take the steps to prove the point, or where you have already carried out actions that you must then defend. To me neither would apply in this situation and as such I would suggest erring on the side of openness is the correct path to take.

[JonathanL]

I am in no doubt that some FEOs will be of the opinion that cautions should be declared in the box that asks you to declare previous convictions.

 

Then whichever police force they work for needs to send them to the re-education camps for a damn good thrashing! You need to declare convictions. A caution is not a conviction. You do not need to declare cautions and no inference can be drawn from not doing something you were never askd to do in the first place.

 

I would consider it good practice to be open with such information to avoid delays and potential problems further down the line that could arise as a result of the department feeling you have not been entirely open with them.

 

And I think you are wrong. There is absolutely no reason why any licensing department would ever/could ever feel that you had not been entirely open with them because you hadn't disclosed something you had never been asked to disclose.

 

The only time it is generally worth getting down to the letter of the law as opposed to standard practice is either when it stands to benefit you enough to take the steps to prove the point, or where you have already carried out actions that you must then defend. To me neither would apply in this situation and as such I would suggest erring on the side of openness is the correct path to take.

 

No, that's rubbish. They ask you declare convictions. If they want you to declare anything else they can ask. It is utterly unreasonable, and utterly indefensible, for a failure to declare something that you have not been asked to declare to be held against you.

 

You talk about 'the path of openness'. What does that actually mean? Do you mean that you have to declare every parking ticket you've ever had? Every time you were spoken to as a kid 40 years ago for knocking on doors and running off?

 

I'm prepared to believe that some licensing staff will whinge to you verbally to such effect but no one has ever had a cert refused for failing to declare a caution. I would venture to suggest that no one has even had a snotty letter accoumpany their grant mentioning the fact that they hadn't declered a caution as they would never put something like that in writing.

 

J.

Edited August 30, 2012 by JonathanL

[DaveK]

Yes, really, really, really sure. The form asks you to disclose convictions. A caution is not a conviction. Hence, you do not need to declare a caution.

 

J.

 

Can you evidence that please as it flies in the face of all I've been told by people who deal with this sort of stuff all the time..

[guest1957]

 

No, that's rubbish. They ask you declare convictions. If they want you to declare anything else they can ask. It is utterly unreasonable, and utterly indefensible, for a failure to declare something that you have not been asked to declare to be held against you.

 

You talk about 'the path of openness'. What does that actually mean? Do you mean that you have to declare every parking ticket you've ever had? Every time you were spoken to as a kid 40 years ago for knocking on doors and running off?

 

 

You are purposefully failing to see the wood for the trees.

 

Given that the existence of a caution can reasonably be taken into account when deciding fitness for grant of an SGC/FC I still maintain it would be sensible to include it.

 

I personally feel it would make sense to disclose all legally binding admissions of guilt or convictions e.g. cautions included.

 

I genuinely cannot understand why you are so against the idea of disclosing a piece of information they will have to hand anyway where nothing positive could be gained by failing to do so. To use the law efficiently it makes sense to pick your battles, and the only battles worth picking exist where either you have something to gain or to prevent a loss.

 

Edited August 30, 2012 by guest1957

[JonathanL]

Can you evidence that please as it flies in the face of all I've been told by people who deal with this sort of stuff all the time..

 

I tought that I'd put it as plainly as I could. I really don't see how much further I could dumb it down.

 

You are asked to declare 'convictions'. A caution is not a conviction. If it were a conviction then it wouldn't be called a caution - it would be called a conviction! A caution is an entirely different legal concept to a conviction and you sare not being asked about cautions.

 

The form asks you to declare convictions and convictions alone. Nothing else.

 

By logical deduction then it follows that cautions do not need to be declared.

 

J.

Edited August 30, 2012 by JonathanL

[DaveK]

 

 

By logical deduction then it follows that cautions do not need to be declared.

 

J.

 

Now that really does depend on who's logic you follow. Excuse me if I don't follow yours.

[JonathanL]

 

Given that the existence of a caution can reasonably be taken into account when deciding fitness for grant of an SGC/FC I still maintain it would be sensible to include it.

 

That's not what we are discussing though. It may be a hugely and massively sensible thing to do and, yes, it is obviously someting that the police take into acount.

 

The point is though that is that the issue at hand is whether you are required to decalere it, ie; whether you have a legal obligation to declare it. Someone said that you must do so. That simply is not the case and it is not at all right to give the impression that it is a requirement.

 

It is an important distinction to make because someone who doesn't declare a caution because they have taken the form on it's actual wording and hasn't read into it more than what is there like so many people in here cannot be hounded by the police because of it.

 

It is a basic principle in law that you cannot have held against you something that you are legally entitled to do. If something isn't prohibited then it's legal, Similarly, if the law doesn't make you do something then you cannot have your failure to do it held against you.

 

I personally feel it would make sense to disclose all legally binding admissions of guilt or convictions e.g. cautions included.

 

And that is your opinion. However, that is not what the form asks you for. It quite specifically aks you to decalere convictions and nothing else. Would you also declare the fact that a traffic cop 20 years ago told you to watch your speed 'or else' because you had admitted to doing 3mph over the limit? That's an admission of guilt too, surely?

 

I genuinely cannot understand why you are so against the idea of disclosing a piece of information they will have to hand anyway where nothing positive could be gained by failing to do so. To use the law efficiently it makes sense to pick your battles, and the only battles worth picking exist where either you have something to gain or to prevent a loss.

 

I's not particularly against the idea. If you want to then do it. The point I am making, the only point I have ever made on this subject, is that a lot of people are going about telling everyone else that you MUST do it and to not do it will have repercussions for you. You do NOT have to do it and not doing so will never ever be seen in a negative light as far as your application goes. It simply cannot be seen negatively as a simpl point of law as you cannot be held in a bad light for not doing something which you have not been asked to do. That simply is the fact of the matter, whether you like it or not.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Now that really does depend on who's logic you follow. Excuse me if I don't follow yours.

 

What? You can't follow the English language? Since when did the words 'caution' and 'conviction' mean the same?

 

Please tell me how many people you know or even have heard of who have had certs refused for not declaring a caution. In fact I can tell you ho many - zero, that's how many. I can tell you that without even seeing the official figures because it is a legal impossibility to be refused a cert for not declaring a caution. No police force would be brainless enough to do so.

 

J.

[guest1957]

Experience tells me that if it came to it the outcome may not be as clear cut.

 

To be honest it isn't really relevant to me as i'd never accept a caution (nor do anything that could potentially attract one) because my professional body would have me out on my ear before the ink was dry.

[DaveK]

What? You can't follow the English language? Since when did the words 'caution' and 'conviction' mean the same?

 

Please tell me how many people you know or even have heard of who have had certs refused for not declaring a caution. In fact I can tell you ho many - zero, that's how many. I can tell you that without even seeing the official figures because it is a legal impossibility to be refused a cert for not declaring a caution. No police force would be brainless enough to do so.

 

J.

 

Seems to me that everyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong. I'll call it a draw at this stage.