View Single Post
Old 23rd January 2015, 12:24 PM
rogb's Avatar
rogb rogb is offline
Seņor Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 610

Originally Posted by Brian.Samson View Post
I'm not explaining myself very well I know (and I don't have the time at the moment to type a long explanation)

But yes - the point I'm putting forward is that in some circumstances the fact you have AT fitted with the backing of the proof house, that you do have a good defence against the testing procedures of a Forensic testing company. (The defence being that the forensic test for the prosecution is flawed)

What I'm not saying is that if you have a gun putting out 12.1fpe then you've got a defence - you haven't.

But if you've got a gun doing 11.2fpe with reasonable tests (i.e. a selection of pellets) without making alterations to the gun, that a testing company found to be capable of over 12 (if they made alterations to the gun) then you would have a very good defence in court if you have AT fitted.

The defence being to cast doubt on the validity of the forensic companies testing procedure - backed up by an expert witness from the Proof house.
I don't think you would have a good defence at all, as long as they "followed their procedures", what ever they may be, but that's just my view. I hope we never have to test our views and as long as we are not being dodgy, I think we should be safe enough.
Reply With Quote