From: "trustu", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure of the legality of this offense. " Evasion of a prohibition"
implies that the accused actually evaded importation controls. The fact
that he was apprehended indicates that such an act of evasion was
unsuccessful.
Surely the charge should have been one of attempted evasion, or technical
possession ? Comments please..
Is the attempted importation of an electric stun device an absolute offense
under S5 of the 1968 Firearms Act ?
I also question if such a stun device can actually deliver 300,000 volts.
How was this measured ? On, or off "load" ? Incidently, "power" in an
electrical device is expressed in "watts" ( volts x amps), never in volts
alone. I suggest that here is a classic example of the prosecution trying
to mislead the court by quoting bogus science.
This case seems to verge on that old legal chestnut of getting the accused
to enter a guilty plea in order to cover up sloppy paperwork by the
prosecution, but I suspect that the hapless defendant was not a very bright
spark ! <G>..
Stuart.
--
Possession is an absolute offence, I don't know about importation through
the post, especially when physical possession didn't take place.
How many volts the thing puts out is not that important, it's the amps
as well, you are right. Hopefully the jury will recall O-level physics
where I had half a million volts put through my hands but at a very
low current.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
