An explosive substance??

chem

Hi all,

I had a blasting machine taken off me by AGS. The blasting machine is the type you see in roadrunner cartoons. Push down the handle and it generates electricity to set off explosives. It is in effect a dynamo, same as on a bike to power a light! It was sent to the park and report came back saying it was an explosive substance!!!! I am a chemist and know what an explosive is. So under what law in this country can an 1800's dynamo be classed as an explosive substance?? I think 9volt battries are more the norm these days for terrorists!! So are 9volt battires against the law now too? By the way, I had it as an ornament beside my fire place.

krd

No, but it might be classed as bomb making equipment.


I don't know the specific law. But I do know they try to have a catch all - that is if you have the materials required for bomb making, it can be enough in itself.

People like the AGS are nervy about this kind of thing. They're afraid of it falling into the wrong hands. Though any terrorist worth his balaclava, should be able to assemble one from household items in a short space of time.

But they'd be a bit nervy as to why someone would want a blasting machine in the first place.


Where did you get it?......ACME?

chem

Found it on ebay! My god what kind of a Nanny state, do we live in??? And what do they teach the planks in the park if they see a dynamo as an explosive substance!!! I'm a collector thats why I added it to my collection! How backwards is this countries police force in there way of thinking!!!

MagicSean

Was it found to be an explosive substance or to have traces of explosives on it?

kippy

Where did the AGS confiscate it from?
Did they enter your house? How were they aware you had one in the first place?

ResearchWill

You can start your research here OP http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Guidance%20Note%20-%20Explosives%20Legislation%20-%20Rev%20Feb%202010.pdf/Files/Guidance%20Note%20-%20Explosives%20Legislation%20-%20Rev%20Feb%202010.pdf

Lots of Acts and SI's cover the area so maybe something in there.

Tom Young

Section 2, still being in force: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/46-47/3

Procrastastudy

chem wrote: »

Found it on ebay! My god what kind of a Nanny state, do we live in??? And what do they teach the planks in the park if they see a dynamo as an explosive substance!!! I'm a collector thats why I added it to my collection! How backwards is this countries police force in there way of thinking!!!

Yeah can't think of a single reason why legislation on this would be very strict in this country. None what so ever.

krd

MagicSean wrote: »

Was it found to be an explosive substance or to have traces of explosives on it?

You can find traces of explosives on playing cards. Never forget the Birmingham Six.


And before you get all CSI....Have you ever once, seen a chemistry apparatus set up in a Garda station.


A blasting machine is obviously a blasting machine. But I think the op is not telling us the full story. I think he may have been up to some Willie Coyote stuff, when the AGS happened upon his enterprise.

Procrastastudy

Beep Beep.

source

chem wrote: »

Found it on ebay! My god what kind of a Nanny state, do we live in??? And what do they teach the planks in the park if they see a dynamo as an explosive substance!!! I'm a collector thats why I added it to my collection! How backwards is this countries police force in there way of thinking!!!

There are people in this country who like to use explosives and firearms in order to get up to no good.

It is because of these people that we have very heavy legislation and restrictions around both firearms and explosives.

Also gardai don't make the laws, they just enforce them, your anger at AGS is misguided, it is the government, who responded to the actions of terrorists, that made the laws you're complaining about. If you want to rant, rant about the terrorists who caused this situation in the first place.

ynotonavillus

source wrote: »

Also gardai don't make the laws, they just enforce them, your anger at AGS is misguided, it is the government, who responded to the actions of terrorists, that made the laws you're complaining about. If you want to rant, rant about the terrorists who caused this situation in the first place.

To be fair he is questioning the implementation of the law by AGS rather than the drafting of the law, or the need for it.

His device is not an explosive substance, if it has been seized as being an explosive substance then that would appear to be unjustified.

If they have seized it under some law that prevents possession of articles likely to be used in setting off explosions then that is entirely different but then you must ask the question about 9v batteries, and old windup telephones (all of these are capable of setting off explosives)etc.

An obvious compromise would be for AGS to decommission its innards and return it as an ornament

kippy

ynotonavillus wrote: »

To be fair he is questioning the implementation of the law by AGS rather than the drafting of the law, or the need for it.

His device is not an explosive substance, if it has been seized as being an explosive substance then that would appear to be unjustified.

If they have seized it under some law that prevents possession of articles likely to be used in setting off explosions then that is entirely different but then you must ask the question about 9v batteries etc.

An obvious compromise would be for AGS decommission its innards and return it as an ornament

I think the context is very relevant here. The OP has yet to confirm the context around this.

ynotonavillus

kippy wrote: »

I think the context is very relevant here. The OP has yet to confirm the context around this.

Not sure how the context could change the underlyng principle.

I agree a little more info would be welcome.

But if AGS considered that there was a sinister element to the affair presumably serious charges would have been brought.

source

ynotonavillus wrote: »

To be fair he is questioning the implementation of the law by AGS rather than the drafting of the law, or the need for it.

His device is not an explosive substance, if it has been seized as being an explosive substance then that would appear to be unjustified.

If they have seized it under some law that prevents possession of articles likely to be used in setting off explosions then that is entirely different but then you must ask the question about 9v batteries, and old windup telephones (all of these are capable of setting off explosives)etc.

An obvious compromise would be for AGS to decommission its innards and return it as an ornament

Gardai have the power to seize any thing, which they believe is evidence of an arrestable offence. All explosives or firearms charges are arrestable offences.

Section 7 Criminal Justice Act 2006

7.— (1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána who is in—

(a) a public place, or

(b) any other place under a power of entry authorised by law or to which or in which he or she was expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to be,

finds or comes into possession of any thing, and he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that it is evidence of, or relating to, the commission of an arrestable offence, he or she may seize and retain the thing for use as evidence in any criminal proceedings for such period from the date of seizure as is reasonable or, if proceedings are commenced in which the thing so seized is required for use in evidence, until the conclusion of the proceedings, and thereafter the Police (Property) Act 1897 shall apply to the thing so seized in the same manner as that Act applies to property which has come into the possession of the Garda Síochána in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.

(2) If it is represented or appears to a member of the Garda Síochána proposing to seize or retain a document under this section that the document was, or may have been, made for the purpose of obtaining, giving or communicating legal advice from or by a barrister or solicitor, the member shall not seize or retain the document unless he or she suspects with reasonable cause that the document was not made, or is not intended, solely for any of the purposes aforesaid.

(3) The power under this section to seize and retain evidence is without prejudice to any other power conferred by statute or otherwise exercisable by a member of the Garda Síochána to seize and retain evidence of, or relating to, the commission or attempted commission of an offence.

Our man in Havana

Was the OP charged?

juan.kerr

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Beep Beep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wile_E._Coyote_and_Road_Runner#Laws_and_rules

Beep Beep or Meep Meep?

krd

chem wrote: »

Found it on ebay!

If the Road Runner was being made for the first time today, then the Coyote would get all his devices from Ebay, instead of the ACME corporation.

ynotonavillus

There is no suggestion that an arrestable offence was committed, or even suspected to have been committed.

If possession of an 1800's blasting box as an ornament is an arrestable offence then fair enough, but I doubt that possession of one in a private home, without explosives or other incriminating articles, or suspicious circumstances is sufficient.

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

There is no suggestion that an arrestable offence was committed, or even suspected to have been committed.

If possession of an 1800's blasting box as an ornament is an arrestable offence then fair enough, but I doubt that possession of one in a private home, without explosives or other incriminating articles, or suspicious circumstances is sufficient.

I think people are asking questions based on this quote from the OP "It was sent to the park and report came back saying it was an explosive substance!!!!"

Now the question is can AGS stand over the assertion that it is an explosive substance. Also the original poster has if you look at his historic post previous interaction with AGS, where he at least once defended a prosecution.

But in any case there is a prima faciae case that there is a breach of the Explosive Acts.

krd

ResearchWill wrote: »

Now the question is can AGS stand over the assertion that it is an explosive substance.

A blaster box, if it has been used, will more likely than not have traces of explosives on it.

If your innocent excuse for having this kind of stuff is not believed. Then it's a long a prison sentence.

The burden is on the accused to convince the court that they did not have whatever items they've been caught with, for the intention of causing damage to people or property.

I'm pretty sure people used to be arrested and charged for as little as having a bag full of immersion heater timers. The timer of choice for traditional Irish terrorism.

The Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It makes it illegal to use -- or conspire or intend to use -- any explosive substance to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, whether or not any explosion actually takes place. A person guilty of an offence under this law is liable to imprisonment for life.



There are people who make explosives and fireworks for their own entertainment. It's risky to do this in Ireland. As the burden is on you to prove you're not a terrorist - and it's impossible to prove a negative. Or that you have no intention of doing something really stupid with the explosives.

ynotonavillus

ResearchWill wrote: »

the original poster has if you look at his historic post previous interaction with AGS, where he at least once defended a prosecution. .

Thats enough so, It must be an explosive substance.

Throw him in Jail.

ResearchWill

krd wrote: »

A blaster box, if it has been used, will more likely than not have traces of explosives on it.

If your innocent excuse for having this kind of stuff is not believed. Then it's a long a prison sentence.

The burden is on the accused to convince the court that they did not have whatever items they've been caught with, for the intention of causing damage to people or property.

I'm pretty sure people used to be arrested and charged for as little as having a bag full of immersion heater timers. The timer of choice for traditional Irish terrorism.

The Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It makes it illegal to use -- or conspire or intend to use -- any explosive substance to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, whether or not any explosion actually takes place. A person guilty of an offence under this law is liable to imprisonment for life.



There are people who make explosives and fireworks for their own entertainment. It's risky to do this in Ireland. As the burden is on you to prove you're not a terrorist - and it's impossible to prove a negative. Or that you have no intention of doing something really stupid with the explosives.

As I said there is a prima facie case. I have not studied or looked in detail at the explosive Act or regulations, can you show where any burden is past the the accused As you have stated "The burden is on the accused to convince the court that they did not have whatever items they've been caught with, for the intention of causing damage to people or property."

I just looked at section 4 of the 1883 Act it seems to pass the burden to the Accused. Wonder has that ever been challenged.

BornToKill

ResearchWill wrote: »

As I said there is a prima facie case. I have not studied or looked in detail at the explosive Act or regulations, can you show where any burden is past the the accused As you have stated "The burden is on the accused to convince the court that they did not have whatever items they've been caught with, for the intention of causing damage to people or property."

I just looked at section 4 of the 1883 Act it seems to pass the burden to the Accused. Wonder has that ever been challenged.

Hardy v Ireland [1994] 2 I.R. 550, per Hederman J:

"In my judgment, in a trial alleging an offence under the section the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt (I take the basic ingredients contained in the section and I leave aside alternate wording):—
(1) That the accused knowingly had in his possession a substance which it proves is an explosive substance;
(2) that he had it under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he did not have it in his possession for a lawful object and that, in turn, means that there is an onus on the prosecution to prove that the accused could not show that he had it in his possession for a lawful object.

Once those ingredients are in place, it is still open to the accused to demonstrate in any one of a number of ways, such as by cross-examination, submissions or by giving evidence, that a prima facie situation pointing to his guilt should not be allowed to prevail.

I believe that this analysis complies with our well-established criminal law jurisprudence in regard to having trials in due course of law. That constitutional requirement applies whether the offence is made an offence under a pre- or post-constitutional enactment.

It protects the presumption of innocence, it requires that the prosecution should prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt; but it does not prohibit that, in the course of the case, once certain facts are established, inferences may not be drawn from those facts and I include in that the entitlement to do this by way even of documentary evidence.

What is kept in place, however, is the essential requirement that at the end of the trial and before a verdict can be entered the prosecution must show that it has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt."

ResearchWill

BornToKill wrote: »

Hardy v Ireland [1994] 2 I.R. 550, per Hederman J:

"In my judgment, in a trial alleging an offence under the section the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt (I take the basic ingredients contained in the section and I leave aside alternate wording):—
(1) That the accused knowingly had in his possession a substance which it proves is an explosive substance;
(2) that he had it under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he did not have it in his possession for a lawful object and that, in turn, means that there is an onus on the prosecution to prove that the accused could not show that he had it in his possession for a lawful object.

Once those ingredients are in place, it is still open to the accused to demonstrate in any one of a number of ways, such as by cross-examination, submissions or by giving evidence, that a prima facie situation pointing to his guilt should not be allowed to prevail.

I believe that this analysis complies with our well-established criminal law jurisprudence in regard to having trials in due course of law. That constitutional requirement applies whether the offence is made an offence under a pre- or post-constitutional enactment.

It protects the presumption of innocence, it requires that the prosecution should prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt; but it does not prohibit that, in the course of the case, once certain facts are established, inferences may not be drawn from those facts and I include in that the entitlement to do this by way even of documentary evidence.

What is kept in place, however, is the essential requirement that at the end of the trial and before a verdict can be entered the prosecution must show that it has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt."

So it seems for a prosecution AGS must show that the accused knowingly had the explosive substance. Then must show in the circumstances raise a reasonable suspicion that the accused was up to no good. It is then open to the accused to rebute that suspicion, he can do that without going into evidence, in that he can do it by cross examination, submissions and/or going into evidence. My reading of that no burden has passed to the accused. Interesting how the court interpreted the section to read it as constitutional.

ResearchWill

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Thats enough so, It must be an explosive substance.

Throw him in Jail.

My point was that the OP knows a lot about explosives and guns. He has had a run in according to himself with AGS. He defended a charge in court. I am in fact supporting to OP, but pointing out that this case is more than a blasting box in a living room, it may only be more in the immagination of AGS, I do not know. But in any event they have claimed this box is explosive material, I would assume they can back that up.

krd

ResearchWill wrote: »

As I said there is a prima facie case. I have not studied or looked in detail at the explosive Act or regulations, can you show where any burden is past the the accused As you have stated "The burden is on the accused to convince the court that they did not have whatever items they've been caught with, for the intention of causing damage to people or property."

It was used against the Birmingham 6. And they don't need to find any devices. One of the first things they do when they arrest people under suspicion of having anything to do with explosives for terrorism (or general mayhem), is bag their hands (to stop them trying to rub them or clean them).

The hands are swabbed and tested - then if a residue is found it's enough for a charge and conviction. What they're looking for is a nitrate or nitrogen compound. And there are a lot of things you can touch that will leave a nitrate residue on your hands.

There was a case in England in the 90s, where they had caught an IRA dummy bomber. Dummy bombers have no connection with real explosives. Their job is disruption. They make fake bombs from things like flour and sugar. Warnings are called in, using recognised code words - the bomb disposal teams are called in - and there is major disruption - trains can be stopped for hours. A dummy bomb is nearly as good as real bomb in terms of disruption.

When he was arrested, they swabbed his hands and "found" explosives residue. In court he admitted to being a dummy bomber, and said the police had faked the hand swabs - he was still prosecuted. Because an Irish man can find no justice in England - unless he'e a failed developer trying to avail of their kinder bankruptcy law, and has rediscovered his Britishness.

I just looked at section 4 of the 1883 Act it seems to pass the burden to the Accused. Wonder has that ever been challenged.

It's interesting, in the law is a catch all. If you get caught with the stuff in Ireland or England you're screwed. They law is probably more political than strictly legal.

In the US they don't have the same luxury - so they have Guantanamo bay. Which is actually in the Cuban jurisdiction - not the US, but your lawyer would have a lot of trouble getting past the gate. The ultimate Catch-22.

James Nichols was able to avoid prosecution for the Oklahoma City bombing, although there was copious evidence found on his farm. He was able to argue, the bomb making material was for blasting tree roots. But, had he been an Armagh farmer - he would have just claimed the nitrates were fertilizer. And this is one reason the IRA used the particular bomb design they did.

ynotonavillus

ResearchWill wrote: »

My point was that the OP knows a lot about explosives and guns. He has had a run in according to himself with AGS. He defended a charge in court. I am in fact supporting to OP, but pointing out that this case is more than a blasting box in a living room, it may only be more in the immagination of AGS, I do not know. But in any event they have claimed this box is explosive material, I would assume they can back that up.

It seems, from the earlier cases, that the OP is a collector of antique weapons, that alone suggests an innocent explaination for the presence of the Blasting box, rather than an intent to cause explosions, without this intent the object is not an explosive substance.....

" I would assume they can back that up."

Why would would you assume that, as you have already said the OP was wrongly prosecuted in the past by the AGS.

Do not get me wrong I have great time for the AGS but not all members are happy to be seen to have been mistaken.....

Victor

Tom Young wrote: »

Section 2, still being in force: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/46-47/3

And importantly (assuming it still applies):

9 Definitions, and application to Scotland.(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
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.

Also: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0014/sec0004.html

ynotonavillus

"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
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."

All this does is to make the Blasting box an explosive substance if it is.....
"intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion" (importantly the section does not say, manufactured for the purpose of, or generally used for the purposes of)

In the same way an alarm clock or a timer will become an " explosive substance" in the wrong circumstances.

It thus seems the apparatus is not an explosive substance in the absence of an intention to create an explosive.

ResearchWill

krd wrote: »

It was used against the Birmingham 6. And they don't need to find any devices. One of the first things they do when they arrest people under suspicion of having anything to do with explosives for terrorism (or general mayhem), is bag their hands (to stop them trying to rub them or clean them).

The hands are swabbed and tested - then if a residue is found it's enough for a charge and conviction. What they're looking for is a nitrate or nitrogen compound. And there are a lot of things you can touch that will leave a nitrate residue on your hands.

There was a case in England in the 90s, where they had caught an IRA dummy bomber. Dummy bombers have no connection with real explosives. Their job is disruption. They make fake bombs from things like flour and sugar. Warnings are called in, using recognised code words - the bomb disposal teams are called in - and there is major disruption - trains can be stopped for hours. A dummy bomb is nearly as good as real bomb in terms of disruption.

When he was arrested, they swabbed his hands and "found" explosives residue. In court he admitted to being a dummy bomber, and said the police had faked the hand swabs - he was still prosecuted. Because an Irish man can find no justice in England - unless he'e a failed developer trying to avail of their kinder bankruptcy law, and has rediscovered his Britishness.



It's interesting, in the law is a catch all. If you get caught with the stuff in Ireland or England you're screwed. They law is probably more political than strictly legal.

In the US they don't have the same luxury - so they have Guantanamo bay. Which is actually in the Cuban jurisdiction - not the US, but your lawyer would have a lot of trouble getting past the gate. The ultimate Catch-22.

James Nichols was able to avoid prosecution for the Oklahoma City bombing, although there was copious evidence found on his farm. He was able to argue, the bomb making material was for blasting tree roots. But, had he been an Armagh farmer - he would have just claimed the nitrates were fertilizer. And this is one reason the IRA used the particular bomb design they did.

The Hardy decision posted earlier by another poster sets out what would be required in Ireland to get a conviction. The Birmingham 6 did later have their convictions over turned as unsafe.

MagicSean

ynotonavillus wrote: »

It seems, from the earlier cases, that the OP is a collector of antique weapons, that alone suggests an innocent explaination for the presence of the Blasting box, rather than an intent to cause explosions, without this intent the object is not an explosive substance.....

" I would assume they can back that up."

Why would would you assume that, as you have already said the OP was wrongly prosecuted in the past by the AGS.

Do not get me wrong I have great time for the AGS but not all members are happy to be seen to have been mistaken.....

Where does it say he was wrongly prosecuted? Looks to me like it was a perfectly sound prosecution which was ruled on by a court.

ynotonavillus wrote: »

"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
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."

All this does is to make the Blasting box an explosive substance if it is.....
"intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion" (importantly the section does not say, manufactured for the purpose of, or generally used for the purposes of)

In the same way an alarm clock or a timer will become an " explosive substance" in the wrong circumstances.

It thus seems the apparatus is not an explosive substance in the absence of an intention to create an explosive.

The difference is that the primary purpose of an alarm clock is not for detonating explosives whereas the primary purpose of a blasting box is. In fact, it has little else going for it in the way of purpose.

Victor

ynotonavillus wrote: »

All this does is to make the Blasting box an explosive substance if it is.....
"intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion" (importantly the section does not say, manufactured for the purpose of, or generally used for the purposes of)

What is the intended use of a blasting box?

ynotonavillus

Victor wrote: »

What is the intended use of a blasting box?

Could be used for many things, educational use in demonstrating how they worked, use as a decorative object, or perhaps as part of a collection of antiquities.

In the 21st century, it is most unlikely that in the hands of a collector, the intended use,, of a 1800's blasting box is to cause an explosion.