chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 No one has been prosecuted. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 No one has been prosecuted. Why? I have answered that queation at least twice. You must have missed it. Read back through the thread. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I have answered that queation at least twice. You must have missed it. Read back through the thread. J. No one will get prosecuted either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 No one will get prosecuted either. Perhaps, but you do not know that for a fact and it is irresponsible to say it. You still haven't answered my question; if the police were to tell you that it was ok to drive without a licence and that they would not prosecute you if you did would you do it? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 How many people really know their FLO's, licensing managers and Chief Constables? I do and I'm happy, 100% happy that given the circumstances quoted in this thread you nor I would get prosecuted. I am sure you think you know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 How many people really know their FLO's, licensing managers and Chief Constables? I do and I'm happy, 100% happy that given the circumstances quoted in this thread you nor I would get prosecuted. I am sure you think you know better. Yours may not. What happens if you get pulled by another force? J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Still 100% happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) If this has never been tested in a court of law, there is NO precedent. If there is one, please name names. The precedence I was referring to was about the states involvement in you breaking the law by telling you it was ok to keep the guns then prosecuting you for it.It’s here, there are quite a few different related judgments mentioned so please feel free to google them. http://www.publicati...025/loose-2.htm So, for the avoidance of doubt, you are saying that if the police were to give you a letter saying that you could go around randomly stabbing people you could not be prosecuted? J. Jonathan I do agree with a lot of what you say on this forum but on this you are taking my last short post out of context. My posts are written about this fictitious case of prosecution for firearms offences and not about stabbings or any other offences. Entrapment or variations of it cannot be used as a defence in court proceedings this is because it does not take away the fact you have committed a guilty act. It would however be taken into account if the actions of the police or other government agents acted contrary to the integrity of the criminal justice system, it is not for a defence lawyer to use but for a judge to ascertain and act accordingly. Meaning quite simply would you have broken the law if you had not received the letter… Answer no… Then the state is responsible for you breaking the law so you can get the prosecution stayed. Do I know this would happen for certain, no but I don’t know for certain that I will not be abducted by aliens whilst I sleep tonight either but on the balance of probabilities I am confident I am right on both counts and I know the precedent does exist. To go on to your point about random stabbings the courts deal with what is reasonable, would any rational person think a letter from the police saying you can randomly stab someone is reasonable? The judge is not going to buy that for one minute, and here is the point, the judge looks at the seriousness of the crime and the states involvement in you committing the crime and as I said in all my previous posts it’s not a defence but it is a precedence. If you received a letter from the police saying you can keep your guns why would you second guess it, it would be considered reasonable, a letter saying you could stab someone would raise mine and any reasonable persons eyebrows slightly. The law is not all black and white, no one including the government can give you cart blanch to break the law. However due to the precedent they are not going to punish you for breaking it when they are complicit in you doing so as long as it is considered reasonable and you would not have broken the law without the states involvement. But my original point was it’s an actual precedence, it is taken into account and if the judge agrees with you will get the prosecution stayed, if someone other than a representative of the sate told you then you have no defence at all. Edited December 11, 2012 by timps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timps Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) This is absolute nonsense. The police do not have any authority to allow you to break the law, so by holding firearms without a certificate you are breaking the law. You would have to be found guilty in court, and the best you could hope for would be to be let off without a punishment - which may happen. That's putting your future in the hands of a judge, and especially when you know full well your breaking the law yet take a chance that you'll get off because the police would be in trouble, this would be utter stupidity. It’s not absolute nonsense, well the house of Lords and other court judgements don’t think it is. http://www.publicati...025/loose-2.htm It’s nothing to do with the police having the authority to say its ok, it’s about the fact the sate cannot say its ok and then punish you for doing it. (within reason) You would also not have to be found guilty, the Judge can stay the proceedings, he/she can do that even if you knew you were breaking the law (there is case history to back this up) if the Judge feels the only reason you broke the law was because of the states involvement the prosecution is stayed before it ever gets to hear the case. It is reasonable to assume the letter caused you to break the law, it is also reasonable to assume you believed the letter was correct, the court would not expect you to seek further legal advice or clarification so could not then assume you knew you were breaking the law. The precedent is “Secondly, the court has jurisdiction in a case of entrapment to stay the prosecution on the ground that the integrity of the criminal justice system would be compromised by allowing the state to punish someone whom the state itself has caused to transgress.” The Judge has the legal jurisdiction to stay the prosecution because of the above and the letter proves the states involvement in your transgressing. My point to your post was there is a difference between a letter from the police and a letter from you. Edited December 11, 2012 by timps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Perhaps, but you do not know that for a fact and it is irresponsible to say it. You still haven't answered my question; if the police were to tell you that it was ok to drive without a licence and that they would not prosecute you if you did would you do it? J. Its a completely irrelevant question, as the police have no involvement with vehicle licencing, that's the dvla,s job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 It all comes down to whether you have a paranoid fear of the police or not. Some on here think they are out to get you and corruption is rife others don't. Purely on the numbers game it would suggest they are acting with common sense based on their own failure to renew on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiLisCer Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 There is simply no point to this thread any longer, the barrack room lawyer will never admit to being wrong - period! As for the other "person" in this thread making all sorts of assumptions and allegations against people - a quick look back at his posts will show that he knows squat about anything. Bottom line for all those who do not have a clue - the police have "discretion" in whom to prosecute - it is not "allowing someone to break the law" - it is called discretion. Don't like it then, stand for election as the PCC for your force area - otherwise get real and shut up -you are ruining a good forum with childish outbursts that make you both look stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 We are moving off topic and this subject seems to have been flogged almost to death, so its time to close it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts