Sentences passed for ammunition and firearms charges


HOME PAGE | Short Journalistic Court Reports.

Crown Court at Bradford (UK), 11 July 2018

His Honour Judge Durham Hall QC today sentenced Mr Jamal Ali Barrat (45) and Mr Nassir Mohammed (35) to 15 years each for possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate, for possessing a firearm in prohibited circumstances, and for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. The sentences for possession of the ammunition and of the firearm were concurrent and for five years each. The sentences for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence were 10 years for each man, and consecutive to the five-year sentences.

The jury reached their unanimous guilty verdicts yesterday on charges mentioning firearms and one of damage [see]. However on charge one for possession of ammunition (9mm) the charge the jury gave a verdict about was possession of a firearm, not of ammunition. His Honour and Counsel were present. Proceedings are taped.

Immediately the Court rose Science, People & Politics raised this matter with the Crown Prosecution Service for North East, where the indictment arose. Press do not always have an accurate and final version of the indictment before the Court. CPS North East said they would raise the issue with the Reviewing Lawyer.

The matter was raised again by Science, People & Politics this morning pre sentencing and the question raised whether the concern should be presented to the judge pre sentencing with: CPS North East, West Yorkshire Police Communications Manager, the General Secretary of the writer's trade union and the writer's Member of Parliament.

Present in Court when the charges were read to the jury for their verdict yesterday were junior counsel as well as Mr Tahir Khan QC (For Mr Barrat) and solicitors. As of yesterday, according to police, the Gun had not been recovered.

Miss Abigail Langford, junior prosecutor, represented the prosecution at today's sentencing, and she spoke of Charge One as being possession of ammunition. Miss Langford was present in Court yesterday when that charge was not put before the jury for their verdict. Science, People & Politics has heard similar errors quickly corrected in the past by judge or Counsel.

His Honour Judge Durham Hall QC also spoke in his sentencing remarks of Charge one on the indictment being possession of ammunition, not as the charge to which the jury responded yesterday in his Court with a guilty verdict.

Science, People & Politics sought before posting this news report to reach Mr Peter Moulson QC leading Counsel for Mr Nassir Mohammed, but was able only to reach someone who said he was Mr Moulson's clerk, and that there was no point speaking to him.

During the trial a judge-directed not guilty verdict was reached on one set of charges. His honour further reached an important ruling on a matter which led Mr Jamal Ali Barrat to withdraw from the trial after a discourteous outburst by Mr Barrat against the integrity of the Court.

In Mr Barrat's absence the past events ruled admissable by His Honour were placed before the jury. By choosing to be absent Mr Barrat could not be cross-examined such that he could present to the jury his current position. Both Mr Jamal Ali Barrat and Mr Nassir Mohammed maintained their not guilty plea throughout the trial.

During the trial Ms Michelle Colborne QC and, during sentencing, His Honour Judge Durham Hall QC, spoke of the part Mr Barrat's paranoia had played in what the judge called Mr Barrat's unscrupulous behaviour.

His honour praised police in the case for magnificent work, which His Honour wanted to be brought to the attention of the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Helen Gavaghan.
Published online at 17.15 pm British Summer Time, July 7th [11th, not 7th -- erroneous date online less for than a minute], 2018.