Resident called police after man seen showing off illegal stun gun in Hamilton street
John Jardine later claimed he thought the item he'd bought on a website was simply a powerful torch.
A worried resident called the police after a man was seen showing off an illegal stun gun in a Hamilton street.
John Jardine later claimed he thought the item he'd bought on a website was simply a powerful torch.
Jardine, 58, of Fleming Way, Hamilton, admitted having a prohibited weapon in Argyle Drive on April 15 last year.
Hamilton Sheriff Court heard he and another man were seen standing outside a house around 9pm.
A witness heard them talking about a taser and Jardine was asked to operate it. A blue spark was seen coming from the device but it wasn't fired at anyone.
Jardine then left the area in a taxi.
Police officers were shown mobile phone footage of the incident and traced the accused to his home later that night.
He told them the stun gun was tucked behind the sofa in his living room. It looked like a torch and had that function as well as being a taser.
Jardine said he ordered the item online from the American online company Wish, thinking it was only a "strong" torch.
He added: "I just take it when I'm out walking the dog."
Defence solicitor Laura Kiernan told the court: "When it arrived at his home it was clear it was also a stun gun.
"It's accepted that he should have done something about it at that point, like hand it in to the police."
Sheriff John Speir called for background reports and an electronic tagging assessment and deferred sentence until next month.
*Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
‘Overwhelming' evidence ex-Barclays CEO was ‘close' to Epstein, tribunal rules
Mr Staley was fined £1.8 million and banned from holding senior roles in the financial sector by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2023, after it found that he misled the regulator over the nature of his relationship with the financier. The American challenged the ban and the fine at the Upper Tribunal in London, with his lawyers saying that he 'never attempted to conceal his relationship with Mr Epstein', which the banker described as 'professionally fairly close' but not 'personally close'. The FCA opposed the challenge, telling a hearing held in March and April that Mr Staley and Epstein had a 'friendship'. In a unanimous decision on Thursday, Upper Tribunal judge Tim Herrington and tribunal members Martin Fraenkel and Cathy Farquharson dismissed Mr Staley's challenge, but reduced the fine to £1,107,306.92. They said: 'We regard the distinction between a close relationship which arises out of personal friendship and one that arises out of a professional relationship as being fallacious.' They continued: 'In our view, the evidence that Mr Staley had a close relationship with Mr Epstein is overwhelming and there was no evidence before us to suggest that many others had a relationship which was similar in nature to that we have found existed between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein.' They added: 'In our view, there is no basis on which Mr Staley could have drawn the conclusion that inclusion of the 'no close relationship language' was accurate.' Mr Staley attended the hearing in London earlier this year (James Manning/PA) Mr Staley acted as a private banker to Epstein during his time at JP Morgan, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining Barclays in 2015. In 2019, Epstein was arrested again after being jailed for child sex offences in 2008. He died in prison later that year while awaiting trial for sex trafficking offences. Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, for the FCA, told the tribunal in written submissions that the watchdog contacted Barclays in August 2019 for an 'assurance' that the bank's board had 'informed itself of and was comfortable regarding any association of Mr Staley or Barclays with Mr Epstein'. In a letter written to the FCA, approved by Mr Staley, Barclays chairman Nigel Higgins said 'Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein' and that 'Jes' last contact with Mr Epstein was well before he joined Barclays' in 2015. The authority found that the letter was misleading and that Mr Staley acted 'recklessly and without integrity' by allowing it to be sent, with Ms Mulcahy telling the hearing that the pair maintained contact through Mr Staley's daughter up to at least February 2017. The barrister said emails showed Mr Staley describing Epstein as like 'family' and one of his 'deepest' and 'most cherished' friends, and that between March 2016 and February 2017, Mr Staley's daughter, Alexa Staley, was used as an intermediary. In a witness statement, Mr Staley told the tribunal that he would describe his relationship with Epstein as 'professionally fairly close' and that his reputation had been 'irretrievably damaged'. He said: 'It was a professional relationship which was predicated upon business. We were not personal friends, nor were we personally close.' Giving evidence in person at the tribunal, Mr Staley said he 'was not aware' of Epstein's abuse. He said: 'I think it was important to emphasise that it was a professional relationship because I think somebody with a very close personal relationship more than likely would have been aware.' In written submissions, Robert Smith KC, for Mr Staley, said that it would be 'entirely illogical' to conclude that Mr Staley would have approved the letter if he believed it was inaccurate or would mislead the regulator. But in their 93-page ruling, Judge Herrington, Mr Fraenkel and Ms Farquharson said it was 'not credible that Mr Staley did not think that the letter would mislead' the FCA. They continued that they 'would have expected Mr Staley to have been particularly careful' in ensuring the letter was accurate, and that his breaches of FCA rules were 'a serious failure of judgment'. The judges concluded that they saw 'no basis on which we should interfere' with the decision to ban Mr Staley, who they said had 'shown no remorse for his conduct'. But they reduced Mr Staley's fine to reflect the fact that, after the FCA published its decision in 2023, Barclays prevented him from deferring shares to which he could have been entitled. Following the ruling, Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Mr Staley chose to take a calculated risk that we would take his inaccurate account of his relationship with Mr Epstein at face value. 'He hoped that the truth would never come to light and that he would get away with it. Such a serious lack of integrity flies in the face of the requirements we place on those at the top. 'The tribunal's decision shows that we can and will act to protect the financial system by holding those in senior roles to the high standards required of them.' The FCA added that Mr Staley has 14 days in which to appeal against the ruling.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
‘Overwhelming' evidence ex-Barclays CEO was ‘close' to Epstein, tribunal rules
Mr Staley was fined £1.8 million and banned from holding senior roles in the financial sector by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2023, after it found that he misled the regulator over the nature of his relationship with the financier. The American challenged the ban and the fine at the Upper Tribunal in London, with his lawyers saying that he 'never attempted to conceal his relationship with Mr Epstein', which the banker described as 'professionally fairly close' but not 'personally close'. The FCA opposed the challenge, telling a hearing held in March and April that Mr Staley and Epstein had a 'friendship'. In a unanimous decision on Thursday, Upper Tribunal judge Tim Herrington and tribunal members Martin Fraenkel and Cathy Farquharson dismissed Mr Staley's challenge, but reduced the fine to £1,107,306.92. They said: 'We regard the distinction between a close relationship which arises out of personal friendship and one that arises out of a professional relationship as being fallacious.' They continued: 'In our view, the evidence that Mr Staley had a close relationship with Mr Epstein is overwhelming and there was no evidence before us to suggest that many others had a relationship which was similar in nature to that we have found existed between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein.' They added: 'In our view, there is no basis on which Mr Staley could have drawn the conclusion that inclusion of the 'no close relationship language' was accurate.' Mr Staley acted as a private banker to Epstein during his time at JP Morgan, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining Barclays in 2015. In 2019, Epstein was arrested again after being jailed for child sex offences in 2008. He died in prison later that year while awaiting trial for sex trafficking offences. Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, for the FCA, told the tribunal in written submissions that the watchdog contacted Barclays in August 2019 for an 'assurance' that the bank's board had 'informed itself of and was comfortable regarding any association of Mr Staley or Barclays with Mr Epstein'. In a letter written to the FCA, approved by Mr Staley, Barclays chairman Nigel Higgins said 'Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein' and that 'Jes' last contact with Mr Epstein was well before he joined Barclays' in 2015. The authority found that the letter was misleading and that Mr Staley acted 'recklessly and without integrity' by allowing it to be sent, with Ms Mulcahy telling the hearing that the pair maintained contact through Mr Staley's daughter up to at least February 2017. The barrister said emails showed Mr Staley describing Epstein as like 'family' and one of his 'deepest' and 'most cherished' friends, and that between March 2016 and February 2017, Mr Staley's daughter, Alexa Staley, was used as an intermediary. In a witness statement, Mr Staley told the tribunal that he would describe his relationship with Epstein as 'professionally fairly close' and that his reputation had been 'irretrievably damaged'. He said: 'It was a professional relationship which was predicated upon business. We were not personal friends, nor were we personally close.' Giving evidence in person at the tribunal, Mr Staley said he 'was not aware' of Epstein's abuse. He said: 'I think it was important to emphasise that it was a professional relationship because I think somebody with a very close personal relationship more than likely would have been aware.' In written submissions, Robert Smith KC, for Mr Staley, said that it would be 'entirely illogical' to conclude that Mr Staley would have approved the letter if he believed it was inaccurate or would mislead the regulator. But in their 93-page ruling, Judge Herrington, Mr Fraenkel and Ms Farquharson said it was 'not credible that Mr Staley did not think that the letter would mislead' the FCA. They continued that they 'would have expected Mr Staley to have been particularly careful' in ensuring the letter was accurate, and that his breaches of FCA rules were 'a serious failure of judgment'. The judges concluded that they saw 'no basis on which we should interfere' with the decision to ban Mr Staley, who they said had 'shown no remorse for his conduct'. But they reduced Mr Staley's fine to reflect the fact that, after the FCA published its decision in 2023, Barclays prevented him from deferring shares to which he could have been entitled. Following the ruling, Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Mr Staley chose to take a calculated risk that we would take his inaccurate account of his relationship with Mr Epstein at face value. 'He hoped that the truth would never come to light and that he would get away with it. Such a serious lack of integrity flies in the face of the requirements we place on those at the top. 'The tribunal's decision shows that we can and will act to protect the financial system by holding those in senior roles to the high standards required of them.' The FCA added that Mr Staley has 14 days in which to appeal against the ruling.
Western Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Western Telegraph
‘Overwhelming' evidence ex-Barclays CEO was ‘close' to Epstein, tribunal rules
Mr Staley was fined £1.8 million and banned from holding senior roles in the financial sector by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in 2023, after it found that he misled the regulator over the nature of his relationship with the financier. The American challenged the ban and the fine at the Upper Tribunal in London, with his lawyers saying that he 'never attempted to conceal his relationship with Mr Epstein', which the banker described as 'professionally fairly close' but not 'personally close'. The FCA opposed the challenge, telling a hearing held in March and April that Mr Staley and Epstein had a 'friendship'. In our view, the evidence that Mr Staley had a close relationship with Mr Epstein is overwhelming Upper Tribunal Judge Tim Herrington In a unanimous decision on Thursday, Upper Tribunal judge Tim Herrington and tribunal members Martin Fraenkel and Cathy Farquharson dismissed Mr Staley's challenge, but reduced the fine to £1,107,306.92. They said: 'We regard the distinction between a close relationship which arises out of personal friendship and one that arises out of a professional relationship as being fallacious.' They continued: 'In our view, the evidence that Mr Staley had a close relationship with Mr Epstein is overwhelming and there was no evidence before us to suggest that many others had a relationship which was similar in nature to that we have found existed between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein.' They added: 'In our view, there is no basis on which Mr Staley could have drawn the conclusion that inclusion of the 'no close relationship language' was accurate.' Mr Staley attended the hearing in London earlier this year (James Manning/PA) Mr Staley acted as a private banker to Epstein during his time at JP Morgan, where he worked for more than 30 years before joining Barclays in 2015. In 2019, Epstein was arrested again after being jailed for child sex offences in 2008. He died in prison later that year while awaiting trial for sex trafficking offences. Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, for the FCA, told the tribunal in written submissions that the watchdog contacted Barclays in August 2019 for an 'assurance' that the bank's board had 'informed itself of and was comfortable regarding any association of Mr Staley or Barclays with Mr Epstein'. In a letter written to the FCA, approved by Mr Staley, Barclays chairman Nigel Higgins said 'Jes has confirmed to us that he did not have a close relationship with Mr Epstein' and that 'Jes' last contact with Mr Epstein was well before he joined Barclays' in 2015. It was a professional relationship which was predicated upon business. We were not personal friends, nor were we personally close Jes Staley The authority found that the letter was misleading and that Mr Staley acted 'recklessly and without integrity' by allowing it to be sent, with Ms Mulcahy telling the hearing that the pair maintained contact through Mr Staley's daughter up to at least February 2017. The barrister said emails showed Mr Staley describing Epstein as like 'family' and one of his 'deepest' and 'most cherished' friends, and that between March 2016 and February 2017, Mr Staley's daughter, Alexa Staley, was used as an intermediary. In a witness statement, Mr Staley told the tribunal that he would describe his relationship with Epstein as 'professionally fairly close' and that his reputation had been 'irretrievably damaged'. He said: 'It was a professional relationship which was predicated upon business. We were not personal friends, nor were we personally close.' Giving evidence in person at the tribunal, Mr Staley said he 'was not aware' of Epstein's abuse. He said: 'I think it was important to emphasise that it was a professional relationship because I think somebody with a very close personal relationship more than likely would have been aware.' In written submissions, Robert Smith KC, for Mr Staley, said that it would be 'entirely illogical' to conclude that Mr Staley would have approved the letter if he believed it was inaccurate or would mislead the regulator. But in their 93-page ruling, Judge Herrington, Mr Fraenkel and Ms Farquharson said it was 'not credible that Mr Staley did not think that the letter would mislead' the FCA. The tribunal's decision shows that we can and will act to protect the financial system by holding those in senior roles to the high standards required of them Therese Chambers, FCA They continued that they 'would have expected Mr Staley to have been particularly careful' in ensuring the letter was accurate, and that his breaches of FCA rules were 'a serious failure of judgment'. The judges concluded that they saw 'no basis on which we should interfere' with the decision to ban Mr Staley, who they said had 'shown no remorse for his conduct'. But they reduced Mr Staley's fine to reflect the fact that, after the FCA published its decision in 2023, Barclays prevented him from deferring shares to which he could have been entitled. Following the ruling, Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: 'Mr Staley chose to take a calculated risk that we would take his inaccurate account of his relationship with Mr Epstein at face value. 'He hoped that the truth would never come to light and that he would get away with it. Such a serious lack of integrity flies in the face of the requirements we place on those at the top. 'The tribunal's decision shows that we can and will act to protect the financial system by holding those in senior roles to the high standards required of them.' The FCA added that Mr Staley has 14 days in which to appeal against the ruling.
