No he was advised to plead guilty by his solicitor as he'd only get a slap on his wrist. Judge had something to say about his solicitor as well.

Kevscar1

Of course he pleaded guilty to possession. The gun, and a large amount of ammunition was found in his house.

The judge did not give him leave to appeal because he had doubts about his guilt - that's not how the appeal system works. If you plead guilty to an offence you cannot normally appeal the conviction. You can appeal your sentence, but again you will need to have grounds on which to base the appeal.

A judge may grant leave to appeal if in his/her opinion your grounds for appeal are valid, and may stand a reasonable chance of success in the appeal court. Appeals against conviction will not go forward if you pleaded guilty unless unless you can produce evidence to show that there were errors in the court procedures during your trial.

"He had the gun so it is hard to see how he could do anything other than plead guilty"

I assume you have a kitchen draw full of knives, or drive a lethal weapon called a motor vehicle, but does that make you a killer. The full facts of this case will only be found by seeing actual transcripts, not cherry picking media reports.

Regarding the drug situation, it might pay to find out how many people get 'warnings' or 'confiscations' before a possible court appearance.

How many verdicts have been overturned due to 'further evidence' coming to light after the offence, and we seem to see this becoming more often in the news. Solicitor's advice need not be the necessary correct advice, but the person seeking this advice might really on it, only to find later, acceptance 'for the easy way' was perhaps wrong. I wonder if that that is why America as 'plea bargaining' as part of their system of justice?.

How many people on this very forum 'tried, convicted and sentenced' Tony Martin for his actions, yet hadn't bothered to have read the transcripts or saw the actual court evidence before making judgement. Was it not the case there, that the verdict was overturned, and perhaps from that outcome the government's of the day,as had to have a premature rethink on how verdicts are being reached?.

I won't even think about discussing the 19 year old Derek Bentley case, when he was hung for something that is still a mystery today!.

fourm member

"It is not an offence to have a kitchen draw full of knives".

Very true, but you try taking one or more of those knives outside, and see what can be lawful or not, if someone wishes to complain.

Your remark about drugs seems rather bizarre, because small quantities can and usually do lead to possible major offences. Even today, some people regard having and using cannabis is legal, because the laws became very confusing.

I don't know how many times you have sat or participated in a court of law, and reach a personal opinion (possibly with the same views of others) that something was seriously wrong or right on how a verdict was reached. I have lost count the many times I have attended a court and seen these very issues arrive. I have even witnessed a person's legal team argue with a bench of magistrates and the clerk of court over a "wrongful interpretation". I have even witnessed a QC clearly state after a trial, that his client was totally guilty before and after the verdict, but he (QC) was there to defend his client, based on the law and not what the client had actually been accused of doing.

In the case of this particular military person, I agree that the circumstances might appear to be different to the lay-person, possibly more so on his military record and background being used in consideration.

As I stated earlier, the gun laws in this country are the result of a knee jerk reaction, which hasn't really resolved anything. In fact I would suspect on experience, the laws have made things more difficult for both the individual and the police.

spuds

I fail to see how you being the legal owner and user of guns has any relevance. An offence is an offence, regardless.

Ownership of a drawer-full of kitchen knives is not an offence, so referring to it is completely meaningless in this context, as is referring to knife crimes.

You can talk until the cows come home about your personal views on our gun laws, but again, that has zero relevance as far as this case is concerned, or indeed as far as any case of illegal ownership is concerned. A person's military record, however distinguished does not place him above the law; if he keeps a gun and ammunition without a proper license he is as guilty of an offence as anyone else.

I have yet to see you, or anyone else offer a single valid argument to the contrary. He is guilty as charged, and he admitted it. He appealed the sentence, and it was reduced, but as far as I'm aware we have no detailed information about the evidence he plans to offer the appeal judges with regard to the conviction, so it's difficult to comment. As things stand I fail to see how he will explain away the fact of the gun being at his home.