For offences requiring possession, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant knew they had something in their possession; it is irrelevant what they knew or thought it was: R v Hussain (1981) 72 Cr. App. R. 143; R v Waller (1991) Crim. L.R. 381. Section 24(3): if is an offence to gift a shot gun or ammunition to a person under the age of fifteen, subject to the defendant proving that they reasonably believed the other person to be over that age. whether the defendant offers a plea that is in accordance with the evidence available to the prosecution No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Somerset Live team.

In Place of Fear by Aneurin Bevan | Waterstones In Place of Fear by Aneurin Bevan | Waterstones

Whether something is a “lethal barrelled weapon” is a question of fact e.g. see R v Singh (1989) Crim. L.R. 724, CA, which involved an evidential dispute as to whether a flare launcher was barrelled. Reported cases do not as a matter of law establish that certain types of weapons are “lethal barrelled weapons”, and it is accordingly necessary to call evidence proving that the definition in section 57(1B) is met: Grace v DPP (1989) Crim. L.R. 365, where the conviction was quashed as there was no evidence that the air rifle could have been fired. These cases pre-date the 2017 amendment of section 57 which introduced the definition of a “lethal barrelled weapon” by reference to the kinetic energy of the missile at the muzzle; it is now necessary to call evidence of this rather than of lethality. Shot Guns The court should adopt a cautious approach where a course of conduct is based upon a few incidents which are widely spaced in time. The issue for the court is whether the incidents, however many they may be, can properly be said to be so connected in type and in context as to justify the conclusion that they can amount to a course of conduct: Pratt v DPP [2001] EWHC Admin 483. The Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy provides an overarching framework for crimes identified as being primarily, but not exclusively, committed, by men against women within a context of power and control.the matters that must be taken into account include any differences between the size, shape and principal colour of the imitation firearm and the size, shape and colour in which the real firearm is manufactured; and Where the evidential stage has been met, but in circumstances where a victim is not willing to support a prosecution, prosecutors will need to carefully consider the interests and safety of the adult and child victim, other family members and other dependents when assessing whether a prosecution is in the public interest, whether to seek a witness summons and whether to pursue a prosecution without the support of the victim. More information about the approach to follow can be found in the Domestic Abuse prosecution guidance. Selecting the Most Appropriate Charge or Charges In any proceedings for offences under the 1968 Act brought by virtue of section 1 of the 1982 Act, it is a defence for the accused to show that “he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the imitation firearm was so constructed or adapted as to be readily convertible into a firearm to which section 1 of [the 1968 Act] applies”: section 1(5) Firearms Act 1982. The burden is on the defendant to prove this on the balance of probabilities: R v Williams [2012] EWCA Crim 2162.

In Place of Fear by Aneurin Bevan | Goodreads

Gathering evidence to build a robust prosecution case should focus on the wider pattern of behaviour and on the cumulative impact on a victim. The investigation may reveal evidence of substantive offences, such as physical or sexual assault, but even if the police investigation is not focused on stalking or harassment, prosecutors should be alive to whether a wider pattern of abuse should be investigated and prosecuted. Prosecutors should also be aware that a victim may not know the full extent of a suspect’s conduct, for instance if they were being monitored without their knowledge. Annex 1 of the Director's Guidance on Charging confirms that prosecutors, not the police, must make charging decisions in cases of stalking or harassment. section 4A(1)(b)(i) PHA 1997 (stalking), the wording must contain "at least on two occasions", as specified in the required elements of this offence In "Study of Stalkers" (1999) Mullen, Pathé, Purcell and Stuart provided a useful classification for stalking which is now generally accepted. It comprises five motivational types, that can be summarised as: The court must consider whether the incidents give rise to a nexus sufficient for there to be a "course of conduct": Patel [2004] EWCA Crim 3284. Under section 8A(4), a "defectively deactivated weapon" means a firearm which has been rendered incapable of discharging any missile (and has therefore ceased to be a firearm or is a firearm only by virtue of the Firearms Act 1982 (readily convertible imitation firearms)), but in a way that does not meet the relevant technical specifications published by the Secretary of State for this purpose.Whether the subject was in possession (constructive or otherwise) of relevant ammunition, whether loaded or not. Prosecutors should not accept guilty pleas unless there is formal evidence as to the nature of the firearm.