Man cleared of Bulwell gun threat charge
A MAN has walked free after a court found him not guilty of aiming a loaded gun at a family in their Bulwell home.
Declan Madigan, 22, always denied being the gunman who allegedly threatened the family in Irwin Drive on the night of May 18.
-
Nottingham Crown Court
Yesterday, a jury at Nottingham Crown Court cleared him of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life.
He was also found not guilty of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, having a prohibited firearm and possessing ammunition.
Mr Madigan was arrested by a police dog handler in Lodgewood Close, Bulwell, within an hour of the incident in Irwin Drive. PC Mark Johnson stopped a Citroen Zara carrying Mr Madigan and three others because he thought it was "worth a stop-and-search".
All four men were arrested and a .22 calibre revolver was later found close to where the car had stopped, jurors were told. But Mr Madigan denied knowing anything about the gun or the incident in Irwin Drive.
In interviews with police after his arrest, he said he was savaged by a police dog and had not tried to run from the officer. Mr Madigan was treated by a nurse during police interviews for bites sustained at his arrest.
He told police: "I've got out of the passenger side, I've walked around the car and the dog's bit me. I never tried to run from no one. I never made off nowhere. I've done nothing wrong. He's let the dog savage me."
Not guilty verdicts were also entered yesterday for two charges against another defendant. James Savage, 22, of Abercarn Close, Bulwell, was cleared of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and possessing a prohibited firearm.
A third defendant, Shane Bell, 23, of Norbreck Close, earlier pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence in connection with the incident.
He will be sentenced on a date to be fixed.
kate.skelton@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
3 Comments
by Romeo, Where Four art thou, A long way from Nottingham
Thursday, November 06 2008, 7:09AM
“Having worked with the officer mentioned during the 1990's I can say a number of things. He will be devastated that this offender has 'got away' with this. Secondly, for the accused to suggest in his own illiterate way that 'he was savaged' by the officers partner is a joke. I know the dog concerned and he is far better behaved, better trained and probably far more intelligent than the accused - if his words and actions alone are a guide. As they say, if you play with fire you get burned.
Nottingham, rest easy in your beds tonight, with this officer on patrol you can sleep soundly. You are very lucky. If I were to form a Police Dream Team he would be my Number One choice. His integrity, passion for protecting his community and above all dedication to duty are second to none.
As for the acquitted accused - I was always taught that an officer should not worry if a known offender 'gets off at court' in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of a conviction..a long serving Sergeant once told me "worry not youth, they will come again".
I'm disappointed for you Victor Man - Take care out on those streets - Romeo Man.”
by David Davies, Nottingham
Wednesday, November 05 2008, 12:55PM
“"some poor sod"? Google the defendant Declan Madigan and you'll find that he was described as a "one boy crimewave". So, hardly a "poor sod" is he?”
by Henry, Nottingham
Sunday, October 26 2008, 11:07PM
“So it wasn't the gunman that got bitten it was just some poor sod that was in the wrong place at the wrong time? Don't we have laws about dangerous dogs? or maybe they don't apply to the police. Just a few days ago a photo journalist was bitten by a police dog in Brighton. Well the police don't like cameras being pointed at them!”