He was cleared of both charges by a jury after a five-day trial but was fined £500 after admitting unlawfully possessing 26 rounds of ammunition. The court heard that the ammunition was found in Rolph’s gun cabinet following his arrest in September.And how did it get there?
Steven Dyble for Rolph said his client had inherited the ammunition from his father and it had stopped being manufactured many years ago.And as a licensed shotgun owner - surely an ex-licensed shotgun holder now? - didn't he realise he couldn't possess it? Didn't anyone notice when they checked his gun cabinet?
Yes, far, far more questions than answers here.
4 comments:
Ted was subsequently taken to a local vets and was found to have a 20cm long and 5cm wide gaping neck wound which was bleeding profusely and a second smaller wound.
The 10-year-old had drains inserted in the wounds and was hospitalised for five days.
Assuming the vet issued a hefty bill (and when don't they?) that should have been enough to convince the CPS that they were on a hiding to nothing. But never fear, this is East Anglia and this one will run and run , the next instalment will be Rolfe sueing the Conway-Lusteds for the cost of that horrendous vet bill. One can only hope the CLs will have the good sense just to pay up....bitter as it will be, it will be nothing compared to the cost of defending a claim that they will probably loose.
A shotgun certificate and a firearms licence are two entirely different things, one allows you to shoot a shotgun only with an effective range of less than a hundred yards while the other allows the use of rifles, some of which can travel over a mile and as a result are subject to much more stringent vetting. Yes, if he owns a shotgun certificate he would certainly have known holding ammunition for firearms was illegal, but the only time the police check your gun cabinet is when issuing a first certificate to make sure it is securely fixed to a wall, or is in my experience anyway. It is perfectly legal for a farmer or landowner to shoot any dog which is worrying livestock, so I presume the same the same law applies to the guy who's terrier was being attacked.
Not wholly convinced it's as obvious as that. I've held a shotgun certificate for years, and I wasn't aware for some time that I couldn't possess firearm ammunition. Why would I know? It's a total irrelevance. I knew I could buy shotgun cartridges and store them, transport them; and that other people could transport and own / hold them for me without a certificate too. The law on firearm ammunition wasn't something I ever needed to know, and I didn't. Had I inherited or been given some firearm ammo I'd probably just have locked it in the shotgun cabinet on a simple assumption that the cabinet has been certified as secure, and if it's locked away - and I don't own a rifle that could fire it anyway - what harm can it to?
Once I was applying for a firearms certificate I became more acquainted with the difference, and how tightly firearm ammunition is controlled. I know the law now, but it really isn't surprising if someone in his situation wasn't aware.
"Assuming the vet issued a hefty bill (and when don't they?) that should have been enough to convince the CPS that they were on a hiding to nothing."
Not really. Who is to say how sand where it acquired the injury?
"...the next instalment will be Rolfe sueing the Conway-Lusteds for the cost of that horrendous vet bill. "
I would say no-one would be so crass, but after that Irish lass the other day, I'd probably be wrong!
"Yes, if he owns a shotgun certificate he would certainly have known holding ammunition for firearms was illegal.."
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you?
"It is perfectly legal for a farmer or landowner to shoot any dog which is worrying livestock, so I presume the same the same law applies to the guy who's terrier was being attacked."
The law is actually much stricter than that, it's not a free-for-all. The dog wasn't attacking at the time.
"...but it really isn't surprising if someone in his situation wasn't aware."
That seems to be what the jury has accepted, certainly.
Post a Comment