surprise surprise......sgc revoked for farmer who was attacked.

[sandspider]

I haven't read the whole thread, but did BASC or any of our shooting organisations stick up for the chap? Good luck to him.

[Paul223]

Best of luck

[Magnum 3]

Good Luck

I hope you beat the vermin

[GHE]

I haven't read the whole thread, but did BASC or any of our shooting organisations stick up for the chap? Good luck to him.

No, no help at all from them, just promises of help that came to nothing.

 

Quick update: We lost.

I'll try to post details tomorrow, but right now I am so gutted at what happened that I don't trust myself to say anything.

Losing was always a possibility, even a probability, but I'm finding it hard to believe the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

[belly47]

Sorry to hear that

[Mentalmac]

No, no help at all from them, just promises of help that came to nothing.

 

Quick update: We lost.

I'll try to post details tomorrow, but right now I am so gutted at what happened that I don't trust myself to say anything.

Losing was always a possibility, even a probability, but I'm finding it hard to believe the reasoning behind the judge's decision.

Sorry to hear that - awful news.

[Gordon R]

GHE - genuinely sorry about the loss.

[David BASC]

I too am sorry to hear the news.

 

However i must correct you. For example BASC did stand up, publicly, in his defense in the media, indeed the link on the opening post to the mail Online is an example

 

We also gave the best advice when we were contacted, and said that the success of an appeal was very low indeed.

 

Like others I will be interested to hear the summing up that led to the final decision in court.

 

David

[deadeye18]

This absolutely SUCKS!

[Scully]

Great shame. Not good news at all.

[Rewulf]

I honestly don't know what to say ,I thought you had them bang to rights.

Gutted for you..

[Magnum 3]

Very sorry to hear your news. Not good at all.

The injustice system wins again.

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

Sorry to hear the outcome wasn't what we all wanted to hear. I'd be interested to hear the details and how the judge came to his conclusion. Will he ever be eligible to re apply years down the line from now ? Chin up and ATB 425

[notsosureshot]

This is terrible news for all of us. It could literally happen to any certificate holder because I doubt there is a single person on this board who, faced with such an immediate threat, would not use anything at his or her disposal to protect another human being from the risk of serious harm, let alone your own mother. In fact, are we not legally obliged to use any and all means to prevent another human being from serious injury or death? I'm sure I read that somewhere once. The problem may be, that the amount of threat toward Bills mother was never established in court, thus placing poor Bill in an impossible position.

 

I cannot wait to hear the summing up, because frankly, the judgement beggars belief to any of us with an ounce of common sense. However, I think the law is the problem here, rather than the Judge, who may have no choice when presented with the evidence. None of us know where we stand in relation to many aspects of firearms legislation. Arbitrary questions on application/renewal, draconian restrictions, negative attitudes towards firearms in general, the list is endless. It is all made possible by the ambiguity of the existing legislation.

 

It is absurd and as any first year law student would tell you, it must never be possible to consider a law as absurd.

 

In some bizarre way, I feel sorry for the Police also. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. The legislation is so poor that the Chief Constable, or whomever is named on the FAC's for a particular area, would undoubtedly lose his entire career should he make a single mistake in the granting of a certificate, probably others in the firearms licencing section also. They would simply become sacrificial lambs to appease the anti's. So, no wonder they bend the law as much as possible to restrict certificate grants. Placed in such a position, who wouldn't? Basically, they would feel their careers and reputations were far safer if there were no legally held firearms at all. The governments who implemented the law are at primary fault. We all know it was rushed legislation, knee jerk reactions to tragedy, and it has yet to be corrected.

 

GHE, is there anything further to be done or must young Bill simply accept it and move on? Can he ever reapply?

 

I am absolutely gutted for the lad. Genuinely.

[Gordon R]

I cannot wait to hear the summing up, because frankly, the judgement beggars belief to any of us with an ounce of common sense. However, I think the law is the problem here, rather than the Judge, who may have no choice when presented with the evidence.

 

 

That is the danger of passing an opinion, without knowledge of the full facts.

[notsosureshot]

 

That is the danger of passing an opinion, without knowledge of the full facts.

 

The judgement is an opinion also, based on evidence presented and the judge's interpretation of the law, rather than strict facts. The full facts are never known, in any case before any court. It is always opinion, with some factual evidence.

 

The judgement does beggar belief, because technicalities are irrelevant to anyone other than the judge, who is bound by the law, however absurd it is. The circumstances of the theft and subsequent altercation are not in dispute and never were, as far as i can ascertain. Had they been, the young man would have been charged with an offence.

 

Edit: I am aware that you do not consider a lack of charge as proof of innocence but personally, I would say that is wrong, both morally and legally. It is entirely against the fabric of our society to suggest otherwise and even cases where the most heinous of crimes is suspected, I do not consider trial by police, or trial by the press, as acceptable. They both amount to the same thing. What the police think about a person should be entirely irrelevant, it is not their job, their area of expertise, or within their remit to make such judgements. They exist to enforce the law. We have a court system to interpret it and pass judgement. Take a look back into the history of police services around the world if you do not think this is a valid point! The amount of systematic abuse, by police services worldwide, that has taken place in the past, is astonishing, and is the entire reason the justice system was modelled the way it is today, yet clearly, we have a way to go. I still do not think the police were entirely at fault here though, I believe the law failed Bill Edwards in an astonishing manner.

Edited February 26, 2015 by notsosureshot

[Gordon R]

I rest my case. Some people never learn.

[Breastman]

 

 

 

In some bizarre way, I feel sorry for the Police also. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. The legislation is so poor that the Chief Constable, or whomever is named on the FAC's for a particular area, would undoubtedly lose his entire career should he make a single mistake in the granting of a certificate, probably others in the firearms licencing section also. They would simply become sacrificial lambs to appease the anti's. So, no wonder they bend the law as much as possible to restrict certificate grants. Placed in such a position, who wouldn't? Basically, they would feel their careers and reputations were far safer if there were no legally held firearms at all. The governments who implemented the law are at primary fault. We all know it was rushed legislation, knee jerk reactions to tragedy, and it has yet to be corrected.

 

 

Oh the naivety of youth

 

The police have been shown to completely **** up, costing multiple lives each time, and everytime they get away scott-free. Hungerford, Dunblane*, Horden? Any of these ring a bell? All incidents that were entirely avoidable had the "poor police" done their jobs properly.

 

And i think you'll find its you, I and everyone else who happens to have shooting as their hobby/job/profession who are the "sacrificial lambs"

 

*Following the Dunblane inquiry McMurdo took early retirement, there has never been any FLD staff held accountable.

[Gordon R]

Breastman - sadly, I have to agree.

[GHE]

I too am sorry to hear the news.

 

However i must correct you. For example BASC did stand up, publicly, in his defense in the media, indeed the link on the opening post to the mail Online is an example

 

We also gave the best advice when we were contacted, and said that the success of an appeal was very low indeed.

 

Like others I will be interested to hear the summing up that led to the final decision in court.

 

David

Sorry, but with the greatest possible respect, I can’t see how making a press statement that just gets BASC’s name into the paper amounts to any real help.

“The British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the national representative body for shooting sports, has shown support for Mr Edwards.

Senior Firearms Officer Matt Perring said: 'A gun is absolutely essential to a farmer. There is nothing like having your own gun to control the land.'

He said employers needed farm workers who were trusted to carry guns to stop pests and vermin attacking crops.

'Otherwise, it’s like asking someone to put up a fence with a broken arm,' Mr Perring added.”

 

If I really need to remind you, Bill asked you (BASC) repeatedly to contact the FLM and try to get his shotguns and firearms released to me – for various reasons including the fact that I needed his .243 to deal with the foxes. The police were holding them unlawfully, BASC agreed that they had no right to continue to hold them but BASC wouldn’t even make a simple phone call.

 

There were promises, excuses and apologies, but absolutely no action.

 

Later, he asked you to help with the appeal, which you refused to do. Later, it would really have helped if BASC had provided expert witness evidence at the hearing. Before you say that you weren’t asked to do that, that’s true – but by that time Bill was no longer a member and there was no point in asking you to appear in Court for a non-member when experience showed that you wouldn’t even make a simple phone call for a member.

 

[GHE]

There was no complicated law issues here, in the sense that it wasn’t a technical appeal. Basically, it was just a fact finding exercise, with someone (the judge) looking at the facts for the first time and then making a decision based on what he found the facts to be.

 

We all felt that, morally Bill should win because he only did what he absolutely had to do to save his mum’s life, but we were also aware that there was a real risk that the judge, who presumably has never had to defend anyone in a life of death situation, and who probably knows nothing about the realities of guns, might think that Bill should have just fired a warning shot into the air and hoped for the best – that was our area of concern.

In these cases, the police advance a skeleton argument, well in advance of the trial. It includes all of the evidence on which they intend to rely, plus all their paperwork. It also included a statement from various police people, including of course from the FLM, and also a copy of the report that the FLM gave to the deputy chief constable who, in theory at least, made the actual decision.

 

What Bill and his mum says is this.

“I went to the land at lunchtime and found that thieves had been there. I told my mum what had happened and she decided that we would go there that night, and she would stay there in a caravan in case the thieves came back to take the stuff that they had got ready to steal. I was also going to have a walk round with my gun, looking for vermin, and then go home. Mum would phone the police if the thieves came back, if she could do so without being heard. If she couldn’t speak to me she would send a text and I would then call the police. This had happened before, it was an established procedure with us.

 

When we arrived I parked my car outside and we climbed over the wooden fence and walked along the farm track. After we rounded a bend we saw a thief, who then saw us and ran away. We then saw another thief, his transit van was parked out of sight as far into our yard as he could get it and I saw him putting something into the side door. When he saw us he came over to me, was very threatening. He then got into his van and started to reverse it out, we thought he was going. He then suddenly drove straight at us, without warning. Mum and I both jumped for it, I was OK but when I looked at her she was down. I went over to her to see if she was badly injured, the van had reversed away again by then and we thought it was all over. He then drove at us again, this time much faster. There was no time to drag mum clear so I took my shotgun off my shoulder, loaded and put a shot into the windscreen, well away from the driver. He didn’t stop so I put another one through the windscreen, this one was about in the middle of the screen but still well away from the driver. He stopped, then went into reverse again. I helped mum up and started walking along the track, I wanted to make sure that he had really gone this time. Then he attacked again. This time I wasn’t in danger as I could easily take shelter behind a tree, but he was heading straight for where mum was. I shot out his nearside mirror before the van reached me, I got another shot into the passenger door just after it passed me and a final shot hit the van further back, I later found that it had caught the nearside rear light cluster. He kept going, mum scrambled up a mound of earth, the van couldn’t get up it and just skidded, there must have been very clear skid marks.

 

He reversed away again, all the way to the gate. The gate was shut, I later found out that he cut through the padlock to get in. He rammed the gate several times and broke the hinges, he then had to get out and drag the gate out of the way to get out. He then got into his van and drove at me again, but I was in no danger so just moved out of the way. He then reversed out of the gate and drove away at speed.

 

Mum and I then got into my car and followed him. The police then stopped him about 6 miles away, he tried to ram a police car before he gave up.

 

Mum was on the phone to the police from the moment she saw him until just before the first shot, we didn’t know that the call had been lost. She then got back on the phone to the police just before we got into my car, and stayed on the phone until he had been stopped and we had been arrested.

 

The police version, based just on opinion and with no evidence whatever (except what the thief told them) was that there was no attack by the thief and that Bill simply shot up the van to punish the thief. They said that he fired 8 shots in all, and that the last two were as the van sped away making its escape.

 

There was virtually no useful forensic evidence to support either account. The police found 5 empty cartridges in the places where they should have been and they say that they found 3 extra empties outside the gate, “proving” that Bill had fired 2 more shots at the departing van. They photographed everything they found except for these extra empties, according to their evidence the officer who found them just put them in his pocket, then put them into his car and forgot to report their find. The various photos that they took were of no use as they didn’t measure where the various finds were. They also found 2 bits of broken tail lamp outside, somewhere, but they didn’t log where that was.

 

They then accidentally destroyed the evidence by driving at least 4 police vehicles along the bridleway, over whatever evidence may have been there, and of course there were various police officers, plus at least 1 dog, walking over it too. One police vehicle had parked in our gateway and did a 5 or 7 point turn to drive away again, and in case that wasn’t enough, they drove one vehicle down our track so that they could use the headlights to take photos!

 

They didn’t do any tyre mark comparisons, so they didn’t know which vehicles made which tyre tracks. They didn’t do any DNA or fingerprint analysis, the FLM said on oath that it’s impossible to get either DNA or fingerprints from shotgun cartridges. They didn’t find the pellets that they say hit the back of the van.

 

The police say that the final 2 shots, which didn’t happen, were on the 2^nd 999 recording. There are in fact 2 very faint and very unclear noises which were far too quiet to be shotgun sounds, but they called TWO experts who said that they were shotgun sounds.

 

There was an independent witness, who was shooting about ½ - ¾ mile away, he said that he heard 5 shots.

 

The police say that Bill and his mum cooked up a story between them, this was clearly nonsense because there was a gap of only 71 seconds between the loss of the first 999 call and the beginning of the second one, so no time for that.

 

The judge, to our huge surprise and disappointment, found that it had happened exactly as the police said, despite the evidence. He said that Bill and his mum had colluded with a false story between the time that the second 999 call had ended and when they were arrested – even though the recording clearly shows that a police officer was with them before the call ended, and they were then separated – unbelievable!

 

And this was after an 8 day trial, by far the longest and most expensive firearms appeal ever.

 

Obviously the police had much better resources than we did, and they spent much more on their experts than we could.

We found an expert in sound analysis who argued that there was nothing on the second 999 call to indicate that the two faint sounds were gunshots, but the police preferred the 2 police experts. We really struggled to find our expert, he was the only one prepared to go against the police.

 

We wanted an expert on shotguns, but there were none available. We wanted an expert to say whether the sounds on that recording could possibly be shotgun blasts, but we couldn’t do it.

 

They also had an expert report on the shotgun damage to the van. Most of it was right, and totally supported Bill's version, but it said that the second shot (which the police say was the first shot) was fired at a distance of less than 2 metres, which was important because, if true, the van couldn’t have stopped in time if it was attacking. We needed an expert to confirm that a shotgun with half choke would not have ANY pellet spread at less than 5m, so there was no way of saying that the distance was less than 2 metres, but we couldn’t get one.

 

I think it’s all over now. Bill can apply for new certificates any time he likes, but with zero chance of success.

 

We don’t know the final costs yet, but we are expecting £27,000 on our costs and £44,000 on the police costs, leaving us with £71,000 to pay.

If anyone else wants to help, you can make a donation, of any size, just click here please http://www.gofundme.com/mivt00

[David BASC]

As you have made the above statement, I will check our own records and respond with the detail of what we were asked to do, what we did do in relation to Bill reacquiring his firearms prior to his revocation.

 

However, you are correct that the request to run the appeal was refused, after formal review, due the clear evidence that an appeal would be very unlikely to succeed.

 

Yes Bill chose to lapse his BASC membership so further assistance as an expert witness etc. were no longer available to him

[David BASC]

We spoke to Bill twice at the end of Dec 2012 giving him advice

We gave further advice in May 2013 regarding the delay of the firearms after acquittal

We spoke to the FLM

We spoke again to Bill in June 2013, and confirmed by email the reasons for delay

 

I will check if there is evidence of further correspondence during the last half of 2013, before Bill lapsed if you wish

[neutron619]

However, you are correct that the request to run the appeal was refused, after formal review, due the clear evidence that an appeal would be very unlikely to succeed.

 

One wonders whether these things really ought to be fought on behalf of members on principle.

 

I can't comment on the specific case itself - I don't know any more than I've read here.

[CharlieT]

Just to be a little provocative, am I the only one who thinks that a member of the public, who goes out purposely "tooled up" on a stakeout, is likely to have his suitability to possess a firearm brought into question.