40 replies to this topic

[Karl Mitchell-Shead]

http://local.stv.tv/...king-fireworks/

[Creepin_pyro]

"pleaded guilty to possessing potassium nitrate, potassium permanganate, sulphur, carbon, charcoal magnesium, zinc..."

I must've missed this, it's now illegal to possess carbon?

[Sparky]

This was in the UK not US?

This is a big concern to a newbie like me to be honest. I thought small amounts were ok if used for experimentation?

[maxman]

I think he means us not US

Maxman

[digger]

Yes it looks to have been in Scotland

It would appear that the legislation review that the UKPS are involved with is becoming even more important than ever.

What a shame that a full legal framework does not exist for the hobbiest yet.

[exat808]

i hate bad reporting, one minute they make out like he’s a terrorist next minute they are saying he was no threat to the public and was all in small quantities.

its sounds like the police went over the top and the explosive specialist put them right saying it wasn’t as bad as they thought.




i really hope HSE see common sense and allow this hobbie in small quantities.

has anyonebeen known to have used the mser 100g rule in court as their defence.

I believe that this prosecution was under Section 4 of the 1883 Explosive Substances Act -
Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be guilty of felony, and, on conviction, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years . and the explosive substance shall be forfeited.

This is a sometimes inappropriately used piece of legislation that is favoured by prosecutors because of the"catch all" nature of this particular section. As can be seen it has severe penalties.

So not really a question of going over the top - more a case that other than a prosecution under MSER for unlicensed manufacture the procurator fiscal ( the police dont decide to prosecute - dont blame them) decided to opt for this.



Creepin Pyro - It is the possession of all the substances together that forms the offence - there is no suggestion that possesssion of carbon alone is an offence and never has been.

[Sparky]

How do they define explosive.

I can make hydrogen/oxygen very easily and this is explosive.

I can also make petrol bombs.

Isn't there a definition between high order explosives and things like BP etc? The term explosive is ridiculous when used like this.

[Creepin_pyro]

Creepin Pyro - It is the possession of all the substances together that forms the offence - there is no suggestion that possesssion of carbon alone is an offence and never has been.

I was being a bit of a snark, although the wording "possession of Potassium Nitrate..." did seem very odd to me.

Does this mean that anyone who possesses chemicals which could cause an explosion would be open to prosecution? Regardless of whether any device was made?

[exat808]

How do they define explosive.

I can make hydrogen/oxygen very easily and this is explosive.

I can also make petrol bombs.

Isn't there a definition between high order explosives and things like BP etc? The term explosive is ridiculous when used like this.

The definition of explosive for the 1883 Act is that which is used in the 1875 Explosives Act - The term "explosive" in this Act”

(1)Means gunpowder, nitroglycerine, dynamite, guncotton, blasting powders, fulminate of mercury or of other metals, coloured fires, and every other substance, whether similar to those above mentioned or not, used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion or a pyrotechnic effect; and

(2)Includes fogsignals, fireworks, fuzes, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges, ammunition of all descriptions, and every adaptation or preparation of an explosive as above defined.






The definition will not include petroleum or gaseous mixtures but it is more broader in terms than the definition found in H&S leislation which relies on an article or substance being classified in the UN system. A big subject to unravel in a few lines.




Creepin Pyro - The Act defines "explosive substance" as - The expression "explosive substance" shall be deemed to include any materials for making any explosive substance; also any apparatus, machine, implement, or materials used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion in or with any explosive substance; also any part of any such apparatus, machine, or implement.

A very broad catch all definition. The Section 4 offence however relies on the prosecution to prove that there is "a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object". So if there was existing evidence of the mans misuse of an explosive substance ( causing distress to neighbours, anti-social behaviour, unlicensed manufacture etc etc) then the offence stands a good chance of being proven.

[Richard H]

Thanks for clearing up the definitions Danny. For me, stories like this always come down to a large amount of context. This context is not always reported but is sometimes implied. I would have thought that someone who had taken all reasonable steps to conduct themselves in a 'professional', responsible, H&S diligent manner would be dealt with differently to someone making fireworks in a built-up area / house or testing them in a public place with no regard for other people or property. In a lot of the stories that have come to press, like this one - the persons finding themselves in court have done themselves no favours whatsoever through their conduct and actions.

[exat808]

Thanks for clearing up the definitions Danny. For me, stories like this always come down to a large amount of context. This context is not always reported but is sometimes implied. I would have thought that someone who had taken all reasonable steps to conduct themselves in a 'professional', responsible, H&S diligent manner would be dealt with differently to someone making fireworks in a built-up area / house or testing them in a public place with no regard for other people or property. In a lot of the stories that have come to press, like this one - the persons finding themselves in court have done themselves no favours whatsoever through their conduct and actions.

An excellent view Richard. It is all too easy to make hasty ill informed comment when first presented with what in many cases is a badly researched and presented media report. The enthusiasm of forum members for small scale lawful manufacture can easily be swayed and their views affected by such inaccurate reporting. I would urge caution at all times before commenting as there is always at least 2 sides to each story.

[Creepin_pyro]

Thanks for the clarification Danny that makes total sense. And Richard - very well put indeed. At face value it looks like he was 'experimenting' in a built-up area which we all know is a recipe for disaster, but without all the facts there's not much point commenting.

[whoof]

Looking at google maps it appears he lives in a 4 storey block of flats and kept materials in the attic .
No mention of where he was making items ?