Originally Posted by verminator
Yet in the aforementioned case, the lab openly stated that they were asked to "see what it would take to make the rifle go over power". They managed to confuse the Jury enough to get a wrongful conviction regarding one of the rifles.
I agree with this, if the defending barrister points out that the lab removed the "anti-tamper", it should be clear to the Jury, that the lab tampered with the evidence.
I don't know any of the details of the case, and it would all depend on whether "see what it would take to make the rifle go over power" was considered to be reasonable and how good the barrister was really.
This would be my defence... if "see what it would take to make the rifle go over power" included doing something that you could do to any gun available to buy in a shop at this moment in time - so for example, swapping the spring in a springer.
Then my defence would be that the test procedure employed would mean that all springers were 'capable' and that clearly wasn't the intention of the Firearms Act. When considering a case where there's an ambiguity in the statute law as is the case with 'Capable' the Judge must consider the spirit and intention of the statute law and make a ruling.