From: "Innocent", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In which case Steve I am somewhat surprised your lawyer did not
appeal against clearly displayed prejudice. All magistrates
(can't comment for Judges) are told not to display any emotions
or reactions in case it is misinterpreted as prejudicial and
result in an appeal - seems you need a better lawyer!!
Chris
ps - I assume you were facing a judge and two magistrates? if so
then it is a majority vote so presumably at least two out of the
three ruled against you.
--
It was a Section 44 appeal and I was representing myself and I did
a pretty good job of it, I doubt seriously a lawyer could have
done any better (and the judge said that). Yes I could appeal and
I suspect have a reasonable chance of winning the problem is the
cost of doing it.
The reality is that a Crown Court in a place like Birmingham generally
only sees anything to do with guns when someone gets shot, so the
judicial process is heavily biased against appellants.
Even if you win you don't get costs and that is tricky if you work
a typical job and have to take a couple of days off work. You can
only get costs if you can demonstrate that the police acted blatantly
against the law or in bad faith.
It's totally absurd that to appeal a trivial licensing decision like
a variation of your FAC that you have to go to Crown Court to do it.
The police know they have the upper hand in court because courts
generally take the police at their word unless you have iron clad
evidence against them, whereas the appellant is treated with more
suspicion because he is an unknown quantity. Add to that the general
anti-gun bias among people in this country anyway, and add to that
the fact that most judges only see firearms being used in a negative
way, and you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Very few Section 44 appeals are successful. I can't remember the
figures for England & Wales off hand but it's less than 15% and
in Scotland it's 5%.
The police know all this which is why the Police Federation submitted
evidence to the HAC saying that the courts should be left to decide
what the law means rather than the FCC.
Anyone who believes justice is blind lives in a dream world, you
are at the mercy of whatever prejudice the judge and the magistrates
have, and the lawyers play up prejudices of the jury if it helps their
case, I have seen it too many times.
That case in South Shields is the perfect example. I have monitored
sentences for Section 5 convictions for some time now, and if a person
is only in possession of two or three guns they usually get 3-6 months.
For a magistrate to sit there and say to some guy who had two handguns
with no criminal intent that a year in prison is not sufficient is
totally outrageous. If there is any justice in this world the judge
in the Crown Court will give the magistrate a serious ear-bending for
making such a daft judgement and sentence him to six months. I won't
hold my breath.
Steve.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
