16 months suspended sentence...

[Scythian]

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/gateshead-mcdonalds-worker-threatened-gun-22354409?utm_source=sharebar&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharebar

[Rogerborg]

 

Quote

 realistic looking imitation firearm

 

All credit to the dirty, dirty smear merchants for such a surprisingly accurate description.  They even clarify later that it's a plastic BB shooting airsoft gun rather than an air gun firearm.

 

Going by the comments from locals, it sounds like another soft touch judge got mugged off.  

[Tommikka]

23 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

 

All credit to the dirty, dirty smear merchants for such a surprisingly accurate description.  They even clarify later that it's a plastic BB shooting airsoft gun rather than an air gun firearm.

 

Going by the comments from locals, it sounds like another soft touch judge got mugged off.  

I got too annoyed by adverts to make sense of their BB/airgun/airsoft descriptions 

[Rogerborg]

38 minutes ago, Tommikka said:

I got too annoyed by adverts to make sense of their BB/airgun/airsoft descriptions 

 

Ad...verts?  Like, from the olden days?

 

It's unintirely not free from any non-trace of anti-contradictions, but it seems clear enough by the end that it's airsoft.

 

Quote

 

Arthur Walker had tried to leave the queue, causing issues for other motorists and when the worker told him what to do he produced a realistic looking imitation firearm at the car window and threatened him.

 

It turned out to be a BB air gun, for which police found ammunition at the dad's home.

 

"The defendant took exception to being told what to do and produced a BB gun, an air weapon, and placed it to the window and made threats to the complainant, causing him some concern."

 

Walker, 45, of Portobello Way, Birtley, Gateshead, was traced through his car registration and the weapon was found at his home along with plastic pellets for it.

 

 

Airsoft guns don't kill people, plastic pellets kill people?

[hitmanNo2]

Odd they say "pleaded guilty to possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear."  Not a realistic imitation firearm.

[Tommikka]

20 minutes ago, hitmanNo2 said:

Odd they say "pleaded guilty to possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear."  Not a realistic imitation firearm.

Because that was the offence. 

 

The distinction of a VCRA IF or RIF is irrelevant to the offence 

 

Section 16a of the firearms act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/16A

 

[F116A Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm with intent—
(a)by means thereof to cause, or

(b)to enable another person by means thereof to cause,

any person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person.]
 

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Tommikka

[Shamal]

1 hour ago, Tommikka said:

Because that was the offence. 

 

The distinction of a VCRA IF or RIF is irrelevant to the offence 

 

Section 16a of the firearms act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/16A

 

[F116A Possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

It is an offence for a person to have in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm with intent—
(a)by means thereof to cause, or

(b)to enable another person by means thereof to cause,

any person to believe that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person.]
 

 

I love it when you talk dirty 🤪 

 

Regards 

[hitmanNo2]

So differentiating between IF and RIF only exists within the VCRA.  Got it.

[Rogerborg]

27 minutes ago, hitmanNo2 said:

So differentiating between IF and RIF only exists within the VCRA.  Got it.

 

Yes, the case that springers to mind is of the drunken beggar (but I repeat myself) that was convicted for public possession of an orange "soft air" gun.  It's unclear from the reporting whether the prosecution was under 16a as above, or Firearms Act Section 19, simple public possession.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/man-toy-gun-outside-bank-2723276

 

Quote

Alistair Burleigh, defending, said that a major aspect was the colour of the plastic gun.

He added: “One of the officers at every opportunity tried to describe the article as an imitation firearm but even he had to concede it was essentially a toy.”

 

Still convicted though, Firearms Act doesn't distinguish.  I'm guessing one of these beauties.

 

 

 

Broken drum time, but public possession (IF or RIF) is the real risk for us as owners, purchasers, and even "modifiers", not any VCRA considerations, since the VCRA won't be an issue unless you've already been caught orange handed.

Note that Section 19 is a strict liability offence that requires an affirmative defence, and the prosecution doesn't have to show any intent or guilty mind.  I try to keep site details readily to hand on my phone when on the way to or from a game day.

[AirSniper]

" Birtley, Gateshead"... says it all. 

[Jaylordofwaargh]

I think you are correct on soft touch, given they have previous convictions and the shiny black tape on the grip. One must ask why it was in the car readily at hand if not to pull this bullshit. 

 

This kind of incident is where a national governing body could pull its weight and issue a national ban and resind any defence the defendant was holding.... 

[Rogerborg]

3 hours ago, Jaylordofwaargh said:

This kind of incident is where a national governing body could pull its weight and issue a national ban and resind any defence the defendant was holding.... 

 

Hmm.  The only thing I can think of would be to black-ball individuals from UKARA and the equivalent schemes.  Remember that it's sellers that need a defence, not purchasers.  It's perfectly legal to purchase a RIF and possess it (in private) without any defence or reason beyond "want one".

 

Public possession needs a reasonable excuse, the proof whereof lies with the possessor on a case-by-case basis.  There's no defence, or licence, or anything that can be issued and revoked.

 

Any change to the legality of sale, purchase or possession would require further legislation, and it's unlikely to be in our favour.

 

I expect we will move to a licensing scheme eventually for purchase and private possession, for all the good that will do.

[Tommikka]

3 hours ago, Jaylordofwaargh said:

I think you are correct on soft touch, given they have previous convictions and the shiny black tape on the grip. One must ask why it was in the car readily at hand if not to pull this bullshit. 

 

This kind of incident is where a national governing body could pull its weight and issue a national ban and resind any defence the defendant was holding.... 

Its within sentencing guidelines and higher than the minimum sentence, so not a soft touch.

 

He had previous convictions - but did they have any relevance? If not then they cannot be taken into account in this sentencing.

He plead guilty, and was therefore eligible for a reduction in sentence (but not less than minimum)

 

Firearms – Possession with intent to cause fear of violence – Sentencing (sentencingcouncil.org.uk)

From the sentencing guidelines, I would place 'culpability' in category c, and 'harm' in category 3.

 

 

 

A – High culpability:

• Intention falling just short of intent to endanger life
• Conduct intended to maximise fear or distress  (Intent to cause fear/distress, but not maximise)
• Sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning
• Leading role where offending is part of a group activity
• Firearm or imitation firearm discharged
• Prolonged incident06

B – Medium culpability:

• Firearm or imitation firearm loaded or held with compatible ammunition but not discharged (Pellets were found with the gun at home, but no confirmation of whether or not it was loaded during the inc0icent)
• Significant role where offending is part of a group activity
• Some degree of planning
• Other cases falling between culpability A and C because:
• Factors are present in A and C which balance each other out and/or
• The offender’s culpability falls between the factors as described in A and C

 

C – Lower culpability:

• No intention to cause injury to persons  ( I can believe that there was no intent to cause injury, just to threaten - produced a BB gun, an air weapon, and placed it to the window and made threats to the complainant, causing him some concern.")
• Lesser role where offending is part of group activity
• Little or no planning or unsophisticated offending (it was certainly unsophisticated)
• Firearm or imitation firearm not produced or visible
• Conduct limited in scope and duration (From the report I would assume this was short with Walker showing the pistol then continuing his manoeuvre to drive out of the jam)

Category 1

• Severe physical harm caused
• Severe psychological harm caused

Category 2

• Serious physical harm caused
• Serious psychological harm caused
• High risk of death or severe physical or psychological harm
• High risk of serious disorder

Category 3

• Alarm/distress caused made threats to the complainant, causing him some concern."
• All other cases not falling into 1 or 2

So with C3 and referencing table 2 for an imitation firearm I would be coming up with a 'medium community order' or between 6 months and 1 year.

Possibly increase it if previous convictions are relevant and reduce a percentage for the guilty plea.

The judge was more severe than me, perhaps treating it as loaded for B3, starting at 18 months and reducing to 16 months due to the guilty plea

[Tommikka]

4 hours ago, Jaylordofwaargh said:

I think you are correct on soft touch, given they have previous convictions and the shiny black tape on the grip. One must ask why it was in the car readily at hand if not to pull this bullshit. 

 

This kind of incident is where a national governing body could pull its weight and issue a national ban and resind any defence the defendant was holding.... 

I can think of a couple of reasons for why he taped the grip:

 

1. He's been watching too many gangsta films
2. Its previously been broken

He's no Ronnie Pickering

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Tommikka said:

He's no Ronnie Pickering

 

From the comments on the article, it seems that he may very well be the local Ronnie Pickwering, which is why I think the sentencing is lenient, and he should have done a stretch inside rather than being given yet another last, final, ultimate, really-mean-in-this-time chance.

 

The courts have to pretend ignorance of social media though.

 

Random aside, Shannon Elizabeth asked to have her character, Justice, in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back wear glasses because "Justice is blind".  Also, a gif.

 

[RostokMcSpoons]

That's a "careful now" for "unsettling" me with that GIF 

[Tommikka]

6 minutes ago, RostokMcSpoons said:

That's a "careful now" for "unsettling" me with that GIF 

‘Unsettled’ is a new one

[John_W]

Well, since the incident of an intruder at Windsor with a Crossbow, the press have a new hobby horse and Prity Awful has requested a review of the legislation.

[RostokMcSpoons]

1 hour ago, John_W said:

Well, since the incident of an intruder at Windsor with a Crossbow, the press have a new hobby horse and Prity Awful has requested a review of the legislation.

 

Oh ffs.  If he'd turned up with a hammer would she be closing down B&Q?

Hopefully the government are as inept as usual and decide that doing nothing is the only course of 'action' they can take without monumentally buggering it up.

[Rogerborg]

2 hours ago, John_W said:

Well, since the incident of an intruder at Windsor with a Crossbow, the press have a new hobby horse and Prity Awful has requested a review of the legislation.

 

I prefer "Priti Useless", but... urgh.  It's astonishing that crossbows have flown under the radar for so long.

 

Double-urgh, a Sikh.  That's really disappointing.  It does seem to be a subcontinental favourite though.