A grandmother has been jailed for five years for possessing a "family heirloom" World War II pistol.
Gail Cochrane, 53, had kept the gun for 29 years following the death of her father, who had been in the Royal Navy.
Police found the weapon, a Browning self-loading pistol, during a search of her home in Dundee while looking for her son.
She admitted illegal possession of the firearm, an offence with a minimum five-year jail term under Scots law.
Cochrane told the High Court in Edinburgh that she had never contemplated she might be committing a crime by keeping the gun or that she might need to get a licence for the weapon.
Truly disgusting. That's the only comment I can sum this up with.
I do wonder what the people below would have to say about this.
Police chief accuses judges of 'going soft' on gun crime by failing to impose tough minimum sentences
Three in four people caught with guns avoid jail
Mother calls for 10 year sentence for firearm possession
16 comments:
From the BBC site as well
Cochrane admitted having the 7.65 millimetre Browning self-loading pistol at her home without a firearms certificate and possessing the prohibited weapon without the authority of the Secretary of State or Scottish ministers.
So sounds like she pleaded guilty, WTF were her legal defence doing, unless the Police bullied her into doing so.
If she had opted fopr a jury trial and had pleaded NOT Guilty, a clear case of Jury Nullification might have prevailed at trial ( unless of course as always happens the judge neglects to tell the jury that this is an option, even in so called Strict Liability where there apparently is no defence. ‘You had a gun, you’re guilty, no extenuating circumstances are any defence, 5 years , done, unless of course you opt for trial by jury and they know their stuff and tell the court to ‘feck off’
(I admit that the rules may different in Chilly Jocko Land and she may not even be allowed a jury trial, but they (The Jocks) have since 1997 have taken the worst of the laws imposed in England since 1997 and happily enfolded them in to theirs)
WV: joyirde
As always not quite
Such laws for possession without a crime in progress or conspiracy to commit are really appalling. Same for knives.
Maybe tough sentences for USING knives and guns to commit crime, but mere possession while going about your lawful business? Just having it in the house? You should see my kitchen - cleavers, carvers and my trusty fruit knife.
Well said, RT. These are truly appalling laws.
Pavlov's Cat, you're undoubtedly right that it was foolish of her to plead guilty. How sad that it has come to this.
The principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only works when laws are few and reasonable.
Even though I follow the news quite closely, there are probably thousands unreasonable laws of which I am ignorant.
" there are probably thousands unreasonable laws of which I am ignorant."
And some say that is the purpose of it all.
As a modern jet "flies by wire", basically unstable and needing microsecond by microsecond adjustments to keep it in the air, our lives are permanently illegal, needing moment by moment corrections by ourselves and moment by moment ignorance or tolerance by the authorities.
The moment they decide not to excuse us, we are toast.
This is all part of the "fencepost" concept, laws in place we do not notice until someone decides to slide in the fence panels and we are caught.
AS I have commented on DPs blog it is disgraceful that this woman should even have come to the attention of the courts. The handgun ban was bad enough, even just for its original intentions, but to jail someone for owning an ex WWII heirloom is unforgiveable. How many weapons made it back to the USA in the hands of the servicemen who had collected them?
We have only recently had the discussion about Ken Clarke wanting to cut sentances and reduce the prison population. Well here is the first candidate for release.
No victim, no crime.
I love the edited post though, good stuff.
"The case began after police arrived at the 53-year-old's home on 17 June 2009 with an arrest warrant for her son who had failed to turn up for a court appearance.
He was not at the flat, but the 80-year-old pistol was found underneath a mattress in her bedroom.
"
Under her bed? Who keeps a family hairloom under the bed?
The sentence is excessive, but I think you will find there is far more to this story as the Judge failed to find any exceptional circumstances about either her or the situation, which is weird. The Judge appeared to have an issue with the hiding under the mattress.
If you would care to research a bit more you might find the following:
"However, if she wanted something to remember him by [her father], a gun, particularly one she was not aware he possessed, does appear to have been an odd choice to make," said the judge.
"I do not accept the reason for moving it under the mattress was to keep it away from children who had been getting access to her walk-in wardrobe. That explanation simply does not make sense."
She ruled that access to the gun had been open to Cochrane's son, who had "significant previous convictions".
There is no proof she inherited the gun, no proof her dad ever had the gun and no proof of how long she had it. The fact her son was also on the run and a total scumbag appears to have passed you by.
As Rog said "Such laws for possession without a crime in progress or conspiracy to commit are really appalling"
Quite right. The view was that there was a crime in progress and there was a conspiracy to commit one, but all they could do her for was possession.
““Under her bed? Who keeps a family hairloom under the bed?””
Is the real question about weather the gun was under the matress or in a bag in the attic, or do we question the wisdom of jailing someone for 5 years because they own a 1922 antique pistol with no ammunition?
””If you would care to research a bit more you might find the following:
"However, if she wanted something to remember him by [her father], a gun, particularly one she was not aware he possessed, does appear to have been an odd choice to make," said the judge.””
You don’t choose heirlooms. You are given them. And this was apparently given to her long before the current gun laws were even thought of.
”"I do not accept the reason for moving it under the mattress was to keep it away from children who had been getting access to her walk-in wardrobe. That explanation simply does not make sense."”
Why not?
””She ruled that access to the gun had been open to Cochrane's son, who had "significant previous convictions". “”
1920s gun with no ammunition.
””There is no proof she inherited the gun, no proof her dad ever had the gun and no proof of how long she had it. The fact her son was also on the run and a total scumbag appears to have passed you by.””
There is no proof she didn’t inherit the gun, no proof her dad didn’t have it and no proof she didn’t have it for 20 years. Who does the burdon of proof lie with?
And her sons character has nothing to do with this. She was the one convicted for the guns possession, not him.
””As Rog said "Such laws for possession without a crime in progress or conspiracy to commit are really appalling"
Quite right. The view was that there was a crime in progress and there was a conspiracy to commit one, but all they could do her for was possession.””
I see no reason to believe she was planning to commit a crime with this weapon.
This is another example of why we should fear the Scottish State. Almost daily we read of weak and ill advised people making mistakes and finding themselves at the wrong end of an unprincipled and savage police force and judiciary. Many lifes and families have been ruined in the interest of no one.
I was so sickened by this story that I googled Lady Smith and before long I read a letter of complaint against her. She does not sound like someone who can be trusted.
Kicking people when they are down is an all to common occurence.
"Who does the burdon of proof lie with?"
Unfortunately firearms possession is a strict liability offence. The burden of proof is on the accused.
Think of having to prove your actions innocent if someone decides they aren't. Prove your intentions honorable - about ANYTHING.
P.S. It really sucks that she came up before court after Cumbria. Perhaps the judge didn't dare let it slide.
This country makes me sick sometimes.
This appalling 5 year sentence on Gail Cochrane is part and parcel of the establishment's grisly effort to bully, cower and whip everybody into conformity. It's also a knee-jerk reaction to the 12 murders carried out by Derrick Bird in Cumbria the previous week. The establishment needs everybody to think that it's tough on gun possession right now. Poor Gail just happened to appear in court on a gun charge at the wrong time. As seriously what the hell is Liberty doing about this attack upon our …. Er … Liberty or indeed Human Rights Watch? 5 years in a stinking prison for possession of a World War ll handgun for which Gail had no bullets is draconian, unjust and grossly disproportionate. It’s also seriously provocative. Am I alone in feeling the return of the sprit of the storming of the Bastille?
Looking at the lady's photograph I think I can discern a cigarette in her right hand. Is this the real rason she was sentenced to five years?
Very funny. Her son is a known criminal and is on the run and when they find a gun in his house you all simply swallow the line 'My Pa gave it me, honest guv' from his dear ol' mum.
Kevin, your statement has disturbingly authoritarian undertones.
I share your contempt for the underclass. They are a threat, but they are less of a threat than an over-mighty state. It is also important to know when to treat the underclass as a class (e.g. when considering the removal of welfare pregnancy incentives), and when to treat them as individuals (any personal interaction, but especially in the courts).
This woman doesn't deserve our sympathy because she's a grandmother (that's irrelevant) or because she's a good person (we don't know one way or the other). People are sympathetic because she's fallen victim to "draconian, unjust and grossly disproportionate" punishment. Whatever her sins, and however deserving she may be of a few years in jail, the grounds on which she was actually convicted were weak.
I'm all for cracking down on criminals (more crimes should be punished by life in prison, life should mean life, and I'd like to see greater use of solitary confinement), but victimless crime is a very dangerous concept.
"It is also important to know when to treat the underclass as a class (e.g. when considering the removal of welfare pregnancy incentives)"
Sorry ... that sounds like a bit of purely utilitarian reasoning.
Of course we can dismiss the notion of welfare pregnancy incentives without regard to either individuals or classes of individuals, on the grounds of universal principles (pregnancy never justifies confiscation of another man's wealth).
I suspect the underclass will be in the back of our minds as we think about the issue, though. Some issues excite our sense of outrage more than others. And in the real world, we can't avoid utilitarian arguments.
NEVERTHELESS, THE CIVIL LAW is and must be neutral about who has a more noble or rewarding faith. The breakaway parishes ought to win every Office 2010facet of the lawsuit not becauseMicrosoft Office 2010 their beliefs or their politics are better, Microsoft wordbut because both lawOffice 2007and equity, along with common sense, are on Microsoft Officetheir side.Microsoft Office 2007 Not only does Virginia state law (the Division Statute)Office 2007 keyexplicitly apply to just such a Office 2007 downloadsituation as now exists, but the history Office 2007 Professionalespecially of The Falls Church argues against the claims of Outlook 2010the Virginia Diocese with which theyMicrosoft outlookhave disassociated.Microsoft outlook 2010First, The Falls Church wasWindows 7 founded, formed, and developed long before the diocese, or the national Episcopal Church, even existed.
Post a Comment