S Lynn (robling_t) wrote in little_details,
S Lynn

followup Q: legal consequences of false statements RE handgun injury, UK

...Okay, I think I'm starting to get a handle on my initial question regarding the investigation triggered by an unexplained gunshot wound in the contemporary UK, but the discussion has raised another point that, again, I'm not sure how to start Googling:

To recap, the police constable character B, who is secretly a werewolf, has been brought to hospital with non-life-threatening gunshot wounds. Either B or the neighbour who gave him a ride there (character C) has explained to whomever would be taking down these details to begin an investigation (I imagine they'd be talking to the doctor whose task it would be to call the police in, so said doctor would have those details to relay to police? Or would B and C both be told not to say anything until the police actually got there?) that B was basically minding his own business on his night off when an unidentified party (yes, the infamous "some dude" defence ;) ) came into B's home and shot at B.

Now, the bullet was actually fired at B at another location, by character A, who is properly authorised to carry this weapon as it is his job to deal with threats that are not supposed to be known to the general public (such as werewolves). A and B are known to each other but do not actually work together under the same chain of command, and in fact A's special-ops unit is specifically enjoined by the classified nature of their targets from sharing much information with the regular police, although A's unit will be able to corroborate that A was on duty that night. A does not know that B is a werewolf, and B does not have recall of what happens while a werewolf, so initially neither has cause to suspect that there is a connection, beyond that B is aware of the existence of the special-ops unit in general terms as something that a werewolf would do well to avoid. (C, however, is not going to be thinking of this, which may be a reason to pin the initial false statement on C.)

When in the course of the investigation it comes to light that the bullet in B came from a weapon registered to A's unit, B is now in the position of having his "Some Dude" story called into question. A is B's friend, and B would prefer not to have to explain to the authorities about being a werewolf (because this is less likely to be believed than the "some dude" version), so B has few options for salvaging this situation besides backpedalling to a version of events that amounts to "I asked A to show me the gun before it went back into the locker and it went off, sorry to be a bother". And yes, B is probably going to be furious at C at this point if it was C who initially laid out the "Some Dude" scenario to whomever was taking the statement...

So, my problem here is basically who is in what degree of trouble for having done what, in this situation? A has shot someone in circumstances that he is constrained from being able to explain to the usual authorities, but B and C have both initially provided/gone along with a version of events that is provably false. Under the legal system of the UK, is anyone looking at charges here, for what, and how would they be handled in terms of possible detention? (And if there would likely be an arrest proper, how long would this take to be set into motion under these circumstances? B in particular would obviously prefer not to be in a cell somewhere at the next full moon...)

Thanks for your succulent brains vast stores of obscure data and your patience, I love being able to come to this comm when my Muse paints me into corners like these...
Tags: uk: government: law enforcement, ~weapons: firearms

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.