A Dundee man whose home was raided after his stun gun delivery was intercepted at Heathrow Airport has been given an alternative to imprisonment.
Last month, Barry Lynch, 46, pled guilty to possessing a stun gun disguised as a torch at his Downfield home on August 8 in 2020.
A previous hearing at Forfar Sheriff Court heard Lynch had been given a broken stun gun for free after expressing fears for his daughter’s safety while she was out dog-walking.
The Dundee dad ordered a new one online to use the new weapon’s charger but his package was discovered upon arrival in London.
Lynch was sentenced to unpaid work and told by a sheriff it was clear his offending was “an error of judgement as opposed to an intention to cause harm.”
Worried dad
A package with Lynch’s Livingstone Place address was intercepted at the airport in July 2020 and found to contain the prohibited weapon.
When police executed a search warrant a month later, he led officers to his own dysfunctional stun gun.
He told officers he had been given it by a friend after raising concerns about his daughter going on solo dog walks at night.
The stun gun had been passed over to him for free due to having a charging issue.
The court previously heard Lynch told police he had bought the intercepted device to use its charger.
Police firearms specialists found even when charged, the weapon seized from Lynch’s home still did not work.
‘Error of judgement’ was exceptional circumstance
Sentencing had been deferred for the preparation of background reports.
Breaches of Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 carries carries a minimum mandatory custodial sentence of five years unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Sheriff Jillian Martin-Brown imposed 120 hours of unpaid work, to be completed within two years.
Forfeiture of the stun gun had already been granted by the court.
Sheriff Martin-Brown said: “I note that you have previous convictions but these are primarily road traffic matters and there’s a long gap since your offending.
“It’s clear from the report that this is an error of judgement as opposed to an intention to cause harm to anybody.
“In light of that, I’m satisfied that an alternative to custody is appropriate.”
For more local court content visit our page or join us on Facebook.
