2nd acquittal in gun case
(CNS): A man accused of possession of an unlicensed firearm after traces of DNA which could have included him were found on a handgun recovered from outside a nightclub has been acquitted. Frederick Booth was found not guilty by Justice Carol Beswick on Thursday after a judge alone trial that concluded this week. The judge said that in this case she could not be sure that the defendant had custody or control of the weapon at the time of the gun’s discovery as there was insufficient evidence. Earlier in the week the judge dismissed the crown’s case against Booth’s co-defendant in connection with the same weapon.
In handing down her verdict, the acting judge said she was “acutely aware” of the concerns in the community regarding the number of firearms in the hands of a few individuals who were “brazenly engaged in anti-social behaviour” and that the court had to serve as both a deterrent and a way of sending a message that this criminal behaviour would not be tolerated and such crimes carried consequences. But, justice Beswick said, the court could not succumb to the temptation of making decisions based on suspicions.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offender was guilty.
She said there was no direct evidence that the defendant was in possession of the gun on the night the weapon was discovered,
Booth had been charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm and was facing the possibility of a mandatory ten year jail sentence had the young man been found guilty. However, the only evidence against him was a mixed profile which the prosecution claimed included Booth’s DNA found on four places on the weapon and the fact that Booth was nearby when the .44 Ruger revolver was discovered in bushes near the LI nightclub car park in March 2010 by USG officers.
There was another DNA profile on the weapon that had a far greater match probability. That more significant profile belongs to another individual known to the police but because that man was not around when the officers recovered the handgun he was never charged in connection with the weapon.
Related article:
Category: Crime
The RCIPS has gotten away with these type situations for so long they started to believe its the law of land no proof is ever need mere suspicion is enough to convict.
Legal Dept. all I can say is SMH!
Where's all the so called CCTV then on Island that they could have used to back up any DNA samples on the weapon.
Why has it taken from March 2010 to finalise, I dread to think of the cost, why did it even get to trial in the first place if there was no nailed on evidence proving possession what a joke.
DNA is transferable and questionable unless it is from blood and bodily fluids of other types . sweat is usually the source of DNA found in such cases . if i shook someone hand then handled a firearm then it’s possible their DNA profile would be on that firearm so don’t be too quick judge it can happen to the most innocent person. if its blood , semen etc then it becomes a tougher case.
ewwww… you had a handful of someone else's DNA? That's disgusting!
Many arrest are unwarranted and are infact a feel good measure for the public who along with the law enforce hawks & cowboys jump up and down talking about how things are working and to justify this unusual an enormous amount of foreign officers and the outrageous police budget they need, only to have these matters come to the courts where it does not meet the simple test of the law and matters are dismissed. Also by that time the public has forgotten all about it or ignorant enough to blame to courts. Unlawful arrest is actually what it is and the RCIPS seldom faces the consequences in this little Police State. When the bill of rights is implimented some of these situations are going to cause many alot of problems.
uh oh spagehttios!
The Truth is the Legal Department ruled on the file (once again all blame placed on RCIP and sitting Judge) in hopes of getting a free B from the sitting judge, who clearly understands the responsibilities of her position. The Legal department seem to have a new law that "proximity" must mean "possesion". It was so incompetent that the judge had to inform them that there was not the slightess chance of a jury conviction. With that said one should ask yourself who's bright idea was it to waste the courts time (DPP). If i am standing on the side of the road and there is a gum wrapper on the ground, does that mean I own it? And that fact that the RCIP didn't investigate further just shows all, that they have no interest in the truth, someone, anyone must take the fall (disturbing thought process if you ask me). Good Job Judge as public opinion should not be allowed to fill the gap of lazy police work and a incompetent DPP's office. They are constantly committing the same scenario, same lack of evidence cases to court in hopes of getting different results (insanity). Putting a young man in jail for a decade is a serious decision and there should be NO DOUBT in a judges mind when that avenue of punishment is taken.
I love the CNS Amateur Detective Agency and their helpful suggestions which come with free hindsight and a CSI boxset.
The police found a ‘more significant’ DNA profile belonging to a known individual who was not around when the gun was found, and they chose the person who was nearby instead of going out and finding the person with the ‘more significant’ match. Did I read that right?
Apparently it is more convenient for the RCIPS if once one has committed a crime, he/she stick around for identification.
another ball the rcip dropped! nothing stragne is why we need more rcip to waste more govt $! i say they should keep those officers who gives results and do their jobs!
Wait they have DNA but can’t charge the man or other man with a crime? Huh, what hound of system do you have here???
That's right, what would you charge him of? Leaving his DNA on a gun? That could have happended for various reasons, someone shows him the gun, he grabs/tocuhes it but gives it back to the owner. He finds the gun in a bush, picks it up but puts it back.
As you can see, DNA on a gun doesn't warrant anything unless you can also prove the gun is in someone's possession.
However, finding someone's DNA on a gun should certainly warrant the RCIPS to investigate that person further, especially if he is a known figure. Might have even justified a search warrant?
DNA on a gun does prove they had possession of it. How is this a difficult concept?
It doesn't, it only proves that heir DNA is on the gun. DNA does not prove possession, control, intent or anything else – it only proves that the person in question would have touched it, but as I said, it should certainly have prompted the RCIPS to conduct further investigations which the article appears to say they didn't.
What a clever idea someone shows you a gun so you feel obligated to handle it aware of the 10 year penality. There is an instant escape from the law , simply say it wasn't my gun and the DNA does not mean possession.
No one ever need to be convicted of a gun charge again. Change the law to handling an illegal gun is a criminal offense, case closed.
So if I find a gun on the street or in the bush, according to you I should not touch it at all. If I pick it up to hand it to the police or a drop of my sweat falls on it and that gun has been used in a crime I am guilty? Best leave it where it is then.
How about you call the police?
Bullshit – if a glass used in a bar fight had your DNA on it because at some point you had moved it out of your way on the top of the counter – would you accept that you could be a suspect in any subsequent assault where that glass was used as a weapon ? – I don’t think so.