‘Is that your stun gun making that noise?’ - man in court over ‘fierce’ weapon
PUBLISHED: 17:42 03 March 2020 | UPDATED: 17:42 03 March 2020
Jamie Honeywood Archant Norwich Norfolk
A stun gun belonging to a man went off and “crackled” after he handed his keys into a security officer in a court building.
Daniel Hill, 34, was found to be in possession of a hand held electrical stun device when he attended the Tribunal Service at Queens Road, Norwich.
Norwich Crown Court heard the device, which was about the size of a cigarette lighter, was attached to keys Hill handed into security as he entered the building.
Martin Ivory, prosecuting, said the stun gun was accidentally activated by a security guard at the court after he handed in his keys and it had been making a "crackling" noise.
Mr Ivory described how Hill's mother, who he had accompanied to the tribunal, said "is that your stun gun making that noise?"
Hill had not warned staff he had it.
Police were alerted and the defendant, who had the item for "peace of mind", was arrested following the incident on September 4 last year.
Hill told officers he had been "surprised" the device went off.
You may also want to watch:
Mr Ivory said police were not able to say how powerful the stun gun was although he said it was an item which would "cause some discomfort and pain" and be an "unpleasant experience were it to be deployed".
He also said the item sounded "fierce", with people likely to think they "wouldn't want to get too close".
A blade was also found on the key ring but the crown offered no evidence in relation to that matter.
Hill, of Suffolk Square, Norwich, appeared in court for sentence on Tuesday (March 3) after he pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon.
Sentencing Hill to two months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, Judge Katharine Moore said: "It's concerning that you felt to do it and it's particularly concerning that you took it to a court."
Judge Moore said that while she acknowledged he had not intended to use it, the item went off without the defendant having warned court staff.
The judge said that made the offence "rather serious" as court staff could have been "momentarily disabled by it".
Hill was also ordered to undertake a six-month drug rehabilitation requirement as well as 12 days rehabilitation requirement days.
Russell Butcher, mitigating, said Hill simply "forgot it was there" and had "no intention of using it".