From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Much to everyone's surprise (most certainly mine)
they ruled in favour of the police, because the court
felt that the Act required the court to take a
"personal view" of the aesthetic quality of the guns,
and as I could not produce the guns they had to give
the police the benefit of the doubt. This was despite
my having introduced high-quality photos into evidence.
The judge stated that they were two-dimensional
and given that he was not a firearms expert he could not
possibly form a view based only on a photograph. This
was also despite Bill Harriman submitting a 20-page report
giving reasons as to why they did qualify.
[...]
Imagine the cost savings to the people if their
government operated the under the same constraints
concerning the idea of pictures, diagrams, drawings, etc.
And too, imagine the implications to subsequent
cases in law, where photographic evidence is presented.
That a member of the Judiciary can equivocate
so easily, bothers me to no end.
Are you intending to appeal this?
ET
--
Not unless someone wants to donate a very large sum of money!
The police asked for L1,638 in costs, but I talked the judge
down to L750. For a three hour court appearance!
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
