A dad’s gun licence bid has been thwarted after a judge branded him “unfit to be trusted with a deadly firearm”.
Hmmm, why?
... the 43-year-old misled the authorities on his application form after changing his name three times, to hide his criminal record and “intemperate” short fuse.
Judge Simon James told Barnes his “deliberate lack of frankness” was indicative of someone shrouded in “secrecy and privacy”.
Amongst other things!
Going by the name Rashid Farooq, Barnes in 2006 was convicted at trial of harassing his former partner and jailed for 24 weeks.
Having changed his name to Taff Morgan in 2013, Barnes successfully launched a shotgun licence bid after failing to disclose the conviction. Police in 2015 seized the weapon following further allegations of violence.
Barnes, who works with animals, soon changed his name to Solomon Barnes-Knight. He was then handed a community order for animal cruelty in 2018 after leaving a dog inside a car. Prosecutors told the court Barnes became threatening towards police officers assisting the RSPCA - claims he denied.
/facepalm
Under his fourth name Damion Barnes, and with the help of wife Sarah Knight, a Kent Police investigations officer (Ed: Wait, what..?!), he launched another firearms licence application.
You almost have to admire his persistance, don't you?
But Barnes’ GP surgery declared to police he had a history of depression, difficulties controlling his temper, a suspected personality disorder and was in treatment for ADHD at London’s Maudsley Hospital. Legally, applicants must declare their medical history under the Firearms Act.
Sarah Knight should be expecting an interview without coffee by AC12, shouldn't she? It certainly calls into question her judgement!
His barrister Graham Gilbert added Barnes’ learning difficulties had led to confusion over which box to tick when declaring previous convictions and he had never been formally diagnosed with a personality disorder.
Anyone think this man should have a shotgun? Anyone? Bueller?
Barnes, of The Elders in Littlebourne, near Canterbury, was ordered to pay £2,250 legal fees for the appeal heard at Canterbury Crown Court on Thursday, April 8.
Can't wait to see what his fifth name will be!
So he managed to get a shotgun licence after being in prison? You'd think the police would easily figure out he had previous names. It should be a five minute job for them to uncover something like that. Jeez!
ReplyDeleteUnless the law has changed since my day, unlike a firearms licence, where the applicant must prove there is a genuine need for the item, the Police have to prove, before a court if he very, that an applicant for a shotgun certificate is not a suitable person to own one. In the case mentioned above, it is reasonable to assume, with the previous convictions and name changes, this would mot be a problem. However, when have courts put reason before the letter of the legislation? "He's been in prison? He's done his time and is now a changed man". "He's changed his name several times? This was necessary to avoid anti-social behaviour by his neighbours". The excuses can go on and on. Given this man's original name, there is also the possible accusation of racism to cloud the matter. All of these, and more, have been used in arguments, during my Police service, against a Police decision to approve an application.
ReplyDeleteI fully accept and agree with Penseivats reasoning, but maybe I'm just a cynic (you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you).
ReplyDeleteLook to Dunblane, Hungerford and Whitehaven (then look at the ever growing list of similar incidents in The US). In every case the perpetrator was well known to the police (or FBI) beforehand. Criminal records, mental health issues, multiple warnings (often by the honest beat cops who know them overruled by 'superiors') yet every time they get access to firearm when you or I would be laughed out of the station (or be wearing a straight-jacket).
It's almost as if they want an incident to be used to further restrict everyone else. Millions of law-abiding gun owners, millions of law-abiding (pen) knife owners restricted and criminalised whilst the actual criminals get pandered to.
There's a meme knocking about. A picture showing an entry team at a womans door which says "Hello madam, due to a completely unrelated man in another city causing an accident whilst drunk driving, we are here to seize your vehicle". That's exactly the same rationale used.
Can you say 'false flag'?
(I'll just put my tin-foil beanie back on then shall I?)