Jump to content

innocent until proven guilty


will_gleave
 Share

Recommended Posts

I may be wrong here but I think this an underlying difference between being found guilty/not guilty or even being charged over such offences, and the police revoking licences - there was that case a while ago on here of the lad and his mother shooting at a van on his farm.

 

The police grant a license based on what they perceive as suitability of the person applying - often it is commented on here about staying out of conflicts with members of the public. I think its irrelevant as to whether the person is found guilty or not - they have been involved in a dispute and therefore in the eyes of the police not a suitable person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here but I think this an underlying difference between being found guilty/not guilty or even being charged over such offences, and the police revoking licences - there was that case a while ago on here of the lad and his mother shooting at a van on his farm.

 

The police grant a license based on what they perceive as suitability of the person applying - often it is commented on here about staying out of conflicts with members of the public. I think its irrelevant as to whether the person is found guilty or not - they have been involved in a dispute and therefore in the eyes of the police not a suitable person.

This sums it up.

 

Back to the OP's question. He will have instructed a solicitor to act on his behalf, therefore, it is to this solicitor who these questions should be addressed. If that solicitor knows little about firearms law then he, the solicitor, should seek advice from one who is.

 

I'm afraid though, that in todays climate, police policy is, and many of us will say quite rightly, to take guns and certificates out of the equasion whilst investigations and court proceedings take place. Public safety is paramount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong here but I think this an underlying difference between being found guilty/not guilty or even being charged over such offences, and the police revoking licences - there was that case a while ago on here of the lad and his mother shooting at a van on his farm.

 

The police grant a license based on what they perceive as suitability of the person applying - often it is commented on here about staying out of conflicts with members of the public. I think its irrelevant as to whether the person is found guilty or not - they have been involved in a dispute and therefore in the eyes of the police not a suitable person.

 

 

This sums it up.

 

Back to the OP's question. He will have instructed a solicitor to act on his behalf, therefore, it is to this solicitor who these questions should be addressed. If that solicitor knows little about firearms law then he, the solicitor, should seek advice from one who is.

 

I'm afraid though, that in todays climate, police policy is, and many of us will say quite rightly, to take guns and certificates out of the equasion whilst investigations and court proceedings take place. Public safety is paramount.

 

Almost, it is not black and white about suitability or just that there is a dispute, it is a risk judgement which always favours pubic safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has already been pointed out, with little facts and a great deal of speculation, we can only generalise.

 

My take on your question would be that although in English law you have the right to a fair trial and the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the defendant to prove their innocence (Innocent until proven guilty as you termed it), the burden of proof only really kicks in at trial, up to that point the police and CPS can only do their best to prove guilt to the best of their ability and build a case.

 

Pre-Trial all kinds of restrictions can be placed on a defendant, such as bail conditions (e.g not being allowed to return to the marital home unescorted if accused of domestic violence), surrendering of passport, being forced to have medical tests for liver function and drugs, surrendering electronics for investigation ect. These are all things that one might argue go against the mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" (other than perhaps temporary confiscation for investigative purposes).

 

Obviously I'm not sighting law here and keeping to the speculative approach but I'd say that confiscating guns is well within the spectrum of police powers based on the other pre-trial powers they have. Indeed doesn't it say in the small print of our licences that we have our guns at the discretion of the chief of Police or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...