A Strange Legal Outcome

[retrocop]

Besides almost killing a police officer ( Acquitted) he is also charged with Possession of a handgun ( Min 10 years custody) possession of ammunition ( 10years min) No Firearms Certificate. As he was not a police officer or member of the armed forces he would not be entitled to have a handgun in any case. How on earth did he manage to escape all those charges? Must have an excellent brief, a p. poor prosecution councel or a nobbled jury methinks. Slippery as Teflon.










https://uk.yahoo.com/news/man-drove-police-officer-cctv-london-081259838.html

[Peter Pedant]

I am using Trump speak now - - clears throat:
Danny Darling ( trump wants to kiss the boys remember along with the girls)

The usual thing that confuses anyone is when they try to read your gibberish.

you seem to have no difficulty in 1) understanding what I write 2) being confused and enraged by it

just saying

[Peter Pedant]

\\ he is also charged with Possession of a handgun ( Min 10 years custody)//

if the car was found and he wasnt there - possession is a complete non-started innit? isnt there a lesser charge much easier to prove = "qoing equipped?" - less time in the slammer

I dont condone what he did
but the way it was handled

a case cannot proceed on:
" and he is a very naughty boy My Lord"
My Lord Melford Stevenson - for it is he " ten years - take him down"

[dannyk13]

PP//you seem to have no difficulty in 1) understanding what I write 2) being confused and enraged by it
1)Untrue
2)Untrue

[barry1010]

Such a shame this thread has been derailed

[retrocop]

My point is that the police do not appear to possess the evidence the accused was charged with. Why was he charged with possession if the police haven't recovered a hand gun? Likewise The ammunition! What difference does the No FAC charge make if the police are not in possession of the alleged 9mm handgun or it's ammunition ?

I have heard of keeping it in the family but the accused plus mum and sister all working undercover surveillance officers is stretching it a bit. May be Le Carre might be interested in that plot. Lol

[barry1010]

That wasn’t your point in your OP, retro. You suggested that he had an excellent brief or nobbled the jury, not that their was no evidence of a firearm

[retrocop]

Barry
There are numerous links I can provide on this case.All appear to be sloppy journalism as suggested previously. Would you not agree that in most firearms related cases the press will have photographs of the firearm in question or a library photo of a similar firearm.
Police do not bring charges of possession of a firearm unless they can produce it as evidence in court.What happened to the firearm that the defendant was accused of possessing and I would be interested, if he was actually in possession of an illegally held firearm, to know how he was acquitted of that charge?
The way this has been reported it appears that the police or CPS have implicated him in a previous shooting whereby a handgun was seen to be used and he has been charged. There must be more to this than meets the eye!

[Peter Pedant]

// The way this has been reported it appears that the police or CPS have implicated him in a previous shooting whereby a handgun was seen to be used and he has been charged. //

erm is that admissible and should the jury know that ?

( if you cant understand the script blame the original author who wrote 90% of it)

[Peter Pedant]

// The police do not appear to have the evidence to support the charges. Why was he charged with possession if the police haven't recovered a firearm//

this is my point innit ? see above
better entitled very strange legal process

[retrocop]

Well PP
As you seem to morph from an ex Porton Down Lab Rat, Q.C., Union Convener, Landlord,Hospital Guinea Pig and Adviser to the BMA, and Harry Unwin impersonator extrordinaire from one day to the next perhaps you may have a plausible explanation .(Without the flannel,bull shine and your usual obnoxious put-downs on fellow Abers)

[barry1010]

I agree, Retro. Sloppy journalism and not enough facts to make an informed comment. We do know that the officer that was pointing the gun at the stationary vehicle and ordering the defendant to get out was wearing a body cam that was on and filming. It showed him being mowed down and was used in evidence. If the defendant was waving a gun around surely that would have been on the recording, too.

[Ken4155]

The more i watch the video, the more i am convinced that the armed cop must have a death wish. Surely it's not standard procedure to jump in front of a moving car in order to try and stop it?

[woofgang]

yup, weird, he definitely moves in front of the car.

[gulliver1]

Oh dear P/P . I think you have upset the,
Chief Inspector.

[Peter Pedant]

nobel prize winner (3) and trapeze artest - oh author of course.

the Crown has to prove the charges - they clearly did nt