BoxRec

Coco wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 18:25 And he stuffed himself full of eggs at the buffet breakfast

Loynesy wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:32

Monzon83 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:13 He’s rich enough to afford a good lawyer. Plead innocence based on something like somebody else packed my bag and by some accident a gun was left in there and I had no idea it was even there. Plus some strings get pulled based on his community work.

I’ll bet money he doesn’t get sentenced to any UK prison time. Might not make bail though I guess he’s a flight risk. What a mess

I will take that bet. Taking an unlicensed firearm ( and by definition he can't be licensed in the U.K.) on an aircraft carries a 3-5 year prison sentence if found guilty.

A couple of other responses:

1. It's a strict liability offence which is precisely why you need to state when you check in that no one have you anything to carry and you packed your own bag.

2. You can't be legally deported instead of being tried under English law. You can be sentenced and then sent back to your home country to serve your prison time.

Teddy's Toupee wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:18 The British police are such politically correct pussies. American cops would have shot BoMac.

MasterG wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 15:44

CaptainSpacerod wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 10:31 No chance at all of him going to jail for this.

His first rate lawyer will argue that Bomax (as the daft Sky girl kept calling him) was unaware of uk gun laws. He’ll tell us what a pivotal role Bomac’s charity work plays in rescuing underprivileged kids from a life of crime in his own community etc etc and he’ll end up getting a gentle slap on the wrist

This.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 03:58

Loynesy wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:32

Monzon83 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:13 He’s rich enough to afford a good lawyer. Plead innocence based on something like somebody else packed my bag and by some accident a gun was left in there and I had no idea it was even there. Plus some strings get pulled based on his community work.

I’ll bet money he doesn’t get sentenced to any UK prison time. Might not make bail though I guess he’s a flight risk. What a mess

I will take that bet. Taking an unlicensed firearm ( and by definition he can't be licensed in the U.K.) on an aircraft carries a 3-5 year prison sentence if found guilty.

A couple of other responses:

1. It's a strict liability offence which is precisely why you need to state when you check in that no one have you anything to carry and you packed your own bag.

2. You can't be legally deported instead of being tried under English law. You can be sentenced and then sent back to your home country to serve your prison time.

ah now get away with you, with your professional experience, legal knowledge and measured views based on evidence and legal precedents.

My T Sharp wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 18:41 I don’t know the facts of the case but he could escape with perhaps a fine at most for the importing.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms

Possession and “have with him”
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.

Possession is not limited to having physical custody, but includes where a defendant has something under their control: Sullivan v Earl of Caithness [1976] 62 Cr. App. R. 105. In this way, possession can be distinguished from the requirement that a defendant “had with him” a firearm; for discussion of the circumstances in which a defendant can be said to “have with him” a firearm, see R v Bradish & Hall [2004] EWCA Crim 1340.

Public Interest Considerations
Prosecution will generally be in the public interest given the seriousness of firearms offences and the risk to public safety.

However, a prosecution may not be required where the contravention is technical and there has been no risk to public safety, and/or where the offence resulted from an oversight or misunderstanding. Guidance issued to the police in connection with certain aspects of firearms legislation can be found on the Gov.UK website. Factors relating to the physical or mental health of the defendant may also mean that prosecution is not in the public interest

handsofstone wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 02:28 He deserves the jail for being such a div, hope it was worth it, he'll have to get used to set meals, mans gonna struggle big time

chinarich wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:19

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 03:58

Loynesy wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:32

I will take that bet. Taking an unlicensed firearm ( and by definition he can't be licensed in the U.K.) on an aircraft carries a 3-5 year prison sentence if found guilty.

A couple of other responses:

1. It's a strict liability offence which is precisely why you need to state when you check in that no one have you anything to carry and you packed your own bag.

2. You can't be legally deported instead of being tried under English law. You can be sentenced and then sent back to your home country to serve your prison time.

ah now get away with you, with your professional experience, legal knowledge and measured views based on evidence and legal precedents.

How can you compare all that to someone who once saw an episode of Perry Mason?

coneye wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:31 Then theres Britain , its all gonna depend on what example someones gonna want to set ....

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:37

chinarich wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:19

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 03:58

ah now get away with you, with your professional experience, legal knowledge and measured views based on evidence and legal precedents.

How can you compare all that to someone who once saw an episode of Perry Mason?

indeed, I will listen to the real experts in future

TheLeprechaun wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:31

My T Sharp wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 18:41 I don’t know the facts of the case but he could escape with perhaps a fine at most for the importing.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms

Possession and “have with him”
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.

Possession is not limited to having physical custody, but includes where a defendant has something under their control: Sullivan v Earl of Caithness [1976] 62 Cr. App. R. 105. In this way, possession can be distinguished from the requirement that a defendant “had with him” a firearm; for discussion of the circumstances in which a defendant can be said to “have with him” a firearm, see R v Bradish & Hall [2004] EWCA Crim 1340.

Public Interest Considerations
Prosecution will generally be in the public interest given the seriousness of firearms offences and the risk to public safety.

However, a prosecution may not be required where the contravention is technical and there has been no risk to public safety, and/or where the offence resulted from an oversight or misunderstanding. Guidance issued to the police in connection with certain aspects of firearms legislation can be found on the Gov.UK website. Factors relating to the physical or mental health of the defendant may also mean that prosecution is not in the public interest

He might have done himself by talking to the police. Hopefully he knows that you should never talk to the police in those situations.

dookus wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:04

Teddy's Toupee wrote: ↑04 Sep 2023, 17:18 The British police are such politically correct pussies. American cops would have shot BoMac.

Teddy's Toupee wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 06:02

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:37

chinarich wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:19

How can you compare all that to someone who once saw an episode of Perry Mason?

indeed, I will listen to the real experts in future

He should have took the 5th.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 06:16

Teddy's Toupee wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 06:02

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 05:37

indeed, I will listen to the real experts in future

He should have took the 5th.

i heard someone on twitter saying he couldn't have been properly Mirandized and he's likely to get off on a technicality, also because he is from the inner city and the UK Gov't is demonstrably averse to locking up ethnic minority men from the inner city, especially over gun crimes where virtually no black men from inner cities are ever jailed, all they have to do is give them a bit of a sob story and they get off with a smack on the wrist, so in all likelihood he's going to get a free ride on this one

Glass Joe wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 08:19 Whats the odds he will be out this week?

SAPFO wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 08:24 An old mate got 200 hours community service for taking a loaded gun into a nightclub 20 years ago. We were feckin flabbergasted! Especially as it was not long after 2 girls were shot dead in a club.

Airports are a different game though. Our firearms officers are definitely more controlled than the yanks.


He either accidentally came in with it, and didn’t realise, which begs the question who the fvck missed it on the way in?

And in the remote possibility he’s been set up. DNA on the gun & case will prove no contact with it surely?

Glass Joe wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 08:19 Whats the odds he will be out this week?

Nightmare Roy wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 08:31

Glass Joe wrote: ↑05 Sep 2023, 08:19 Whats the odds he will be out this week?

Slimmer than he is