Airgun Universe Forums - View Single Post

jcf1 · 14th Jun 2007, 15:43

Following a 6 day trial at Lewes Crown Court Mr Eccleston was cleared of common assualt and actual bodily harm after it was heard that he had allegedly struck two female hunt protesters with a pheasant beating pole. He was found guilty of criminal damage, having smashed the window of the protesters landrover during the incident in 2005.

Taken from the BASC website:

"The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has helped one of its members win his court case against Sussex Police after they refused to renew his shotgun certificate.
In 2005, Martin Eccleston found himself involved in a fracas with violent hunt saboteurs. As a result he was convicted of a minor public order offence. When he came to renew his shotgun certificate - some 16 months later - Sussex Police refused on the grounds that this made him a danger to the public safety and to the peace.

After careful consideration, BASC decided that Mr Eccleston had been treated unfairly and funded his appeal to the crown court. The judge at Chichester County Court found that Mr Eccleston's action had been an isolated incident that was wholly out of character and although the police had to exercise preventative justice it was wrong and unfair for them to have done it in this manner.

BASC director of firearms, Bill Harriman, said: “BASC gave Sussex Police every opportunity to reconsider its decision which we believed to be unreasonable from the outset. It is reprehensible that the papers which confirmed that the recommendation of the firearms enquiry officer to grant the certificate were not included in the court bundle. Sussex Police should review its internal procedures in the light of this case.”

Although Mr. Eccleston was not in possesion of a firearm at the time of the incident, it was on the strength of this prior conviction that the police had decided not to renew his shotgun licence. BASC offered its financial support to Mr. Eccleston after it felt that he had been unfairly treated.

Obviously a proactive role was taken by BASC in assisting the case. I'd be even more interested in the opinion of other site members as to whether they were right or wrong to do so.

14th Jun 2007, 15:43	#1 (permalink)
jcf1 Full Member Join Date: 26th Apr 2007 Location: South-West Posts: 131	Sussex police loses shotgun renewal case Following a 6 day trial at Lewes Crown Court Mr Eccleston was cleared of common assualt and actual bodily harm after it was heard that he had allegedly struck two female hunt protesters with a pheasant beating pole. He was found guilty of criminal damage, having smashed the window of the protesters landrover during the incident in 2005. Taken from the BASC website: "The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has helped one of its members win his court case against Sussex Police after they refused to renew his shotgun certificate. In 2005, Martin Eccleston found himself involved in a fracas with violent hunt saboteurs. As a result he was convicted of a minor public order offence. When he came to renew his shotgun certificate - some 16 months later - Sussex Police refused on the grounds that this made him a danger to the public safety and to the peace. After careful consideration, BASC decided that Mr Eccleston had been treated unfairly and funded his appeal to the crown court. The judge at Chichester County Court found that Mr Eccleston's action had been an isolated incident that was wholly out of character and although the police had to exercise preventative justice it was wrong and unfair for them to have done it in this manner. BASC director of firearms, Bill Harriman, said: “BASC gave Sussex Police every opportunity to reconsider its decision which we believed to be unreasonable from the outset. It is reprehensible that the papers which confirmed that the recommendation of the firearms enquiry officer to grant the certificate were not included in the court bundle. Sussex Police should review its internal procedures in the light of this case.” Although Mr. Eccleston was not in possesion of a firearm at the time of the incident, it was on the strength of this prior conviction that the police had decided not to renew his shotgun licence. BASC offered its financial support to Mr. Eccleston after it felt that he had been unfairly treated. Obviously a proactive role was taken by BASC in assisting the case. I'd be even more interested in the opinion of other site members as to whether they were right or wrong to do so. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Bryan; 17th Jun 2007 at 23:16.