Respected Gun Dealer Faces Prosecution Again

Laura Saunsbury has again been instructed by a well known London firearms dealer to defend him in his second Crown Court trial. Last year Mike Wells, a respected figure in the shooting community, was acquitted in a test prosecution for offences relating to the transfer of a modified Buckmark rifle, the issue being whether it was a “rifle” or “pistol”, and so whether it could be placed on a club firearm certificate. Mr Wells was very capably represented by Laura Saunsbury and Counsel. After a trial lasting 5 days at Kingston Crown Court, Mr Wells was acquitted of both counts on 26 November 2010, the jury having been satisfied the modified Buckmark firearm remained a rifle. As a result of the acquittal of Mr Wells, the Association of Chief Police Officers issued revised guidance to Police Firearms Licensing Managers.

A further test prosecution is now being brought by the same Metropolitan Police Licensing Department and once again Mr Wells has been singled out to be the subject of the test prosecution, despite there being many other gun dealers who adopt precisely the same practices as Mr Wells. In the current prosecution, it is alleged that Mr Wells has unlawfully supplied pistols to three firearms certificate holders by failing to properly restrict the pistols to two shots. Pistols are now generally classified as prohibited firearms, with the exception that a firearms certificate holder may be granted authority by the Police to possess a pistol for the purpose of humane dispatch of injured and sick animals. Such authority will normally be subject to a requirement that the pistol is restricted to two or three shots only. The difficulty is that there is no specification anywhere in the law or Home Office Guidance as to how a firearm is to be restricted to two or three shots to comply with such a requirement.

Mr Wells maintains he carried out the restriction of the pistols in accordance with the normal industry standards. He believes he has been made the target of a witch hunt by his firearms licensing department owing to his role as general secretary of the Sportsman’s Association of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, an organisation which campaigns for fair and effective firearms legislation. Mr Wells has pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial will take place at Kingston Crown Court in September.

Crackdown on Motorists who Drive Carelessly

The Government has announced plans to fine motorists who tailgate, undertake and undercut. These fines will be made on the spot (approximately £80.00 per time) and 3 points will be immediately attached to the driver’s licence.

This is all very well, but it means that the driver will be at the mercy of the police officers’ discretion and the definition of careless driving is a very subjective one, especially when the objectivity of the court process is removed from this situation.

It is very likely that more and more drivers will be disqualified as a result of the ‘totting procedure’.

The Government also has plans for disqualified drivers – they will be made to retake a training/refresher course and possibly their test again before their licence is returned.

All of this will affect drivers who depend on their licence for work and other responsibilities. Please contact Jeffrey Lewis if you find yourself in this situation.

Justice for Nick Wragg’s Client

Nicholas Wragg represented a client who, together with a co-defendant, was charged with affray within a pub and assaulting a police constable and causing actual bodily harm. The case against the client appeared strong at first blush. The officer was off duty on a night out with a number of colleagues. All officers provided witness statements incriminating our client and the co-defendant. There was also a substantial amount of CCTV footage from a number of angles. Needless to say, immensely detailed frame by frame instructions were required from the client.

As far as the affray was concerned, the defendant was seen to have punched a person in the pub but his instructions were clear – a man had approached them in a very threatening manner and had thrust his face into the co-defendant’s face. Whilst there was no contact, the defendant felt justified in punching the antagonist and represented convincingly to the jury that he had acted in self defence.

As for the ABH, the defendant agreed that he was thrown out of the pub and agreed that there was a mêlée nearby when plain clothes officers became involved. The CCTV did show a large gang of people fighting at one point but they were too far away to be seen clearly. Immediately prior to this, the defendant was seen trying to return to the pub. Officers gave evidence that he did so in a violent manner. The defendant stated this was nonsense – he was returning to get his trainer. This, and other inconsistencies from the officers, had a catastrophic effect on this prosecution. The CCTV footage showed the defendant putting his trainer back on.

Both defendants were found not guilty of both counts by a majority of 11-1.

The defendant had a long and nervous wait for the outcome of this prosecution which took over a year. He was thrilled with the result.