Originally Posted by rogb
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.
Simply following their own procedures isn't sufficient to secure a conviction. It depends on what their procedures are so they aren't free to do whatever the hell they want.
For example.. suppose you have a gun doing 11.2fpe max with any pellet you can find. But a testing house proves that if they fit a longer barrel to the gun it's capable of doing 12.1fpe (fitting a new barrel is part of their procedure in this example)
The defence in law to that situation would be :
If you applied the same test to any PCP currently in circulation today including all the guns on the shelves of gun shops, it would also take them over 12fpe.
Since the intention of the Firearms act wasn't to make all PCP's illegal, their procedure for fitting a new longer barrel isn't a reasonable one.
In short, if the test procedure includes a step that would mean that all guns in the country would be illegal, then it isn't a reasonable test and could be contested on that point.
The same for putting 3 in 1 oil in a springer - it would make all springers illegal if that was a reasonable test, and since it's clear from the legislation that making all springers illegal wasn't the intention - the test procedure isn't reasonable.