A MAN who was found in possession of a stun gun – which he had fired only once into his own leg – has lost his appeal against being sentenced to five years in prison.

Allan Turnbull, 30, kept the stun gun – which was disguised as a torch – in a rucksack in his home in Dundee. He pleaded guilty to a charge under the Firearms Act and was sentenced to five years in jail at Dundee Sheriff Court in July.

Before sentencing Turnbull to the minimum automatic term, Sheriff Simon Collins QC heard that he bought the stun gun about two years earlier over the internet, partly out of curiosity. Turnbull tested it by giving himself an electric shock, but had not otherwise used it.

The sheriff was also told in a social work report that Turnbull had a very limited record of convictions and his mother was dependent on him.

However, in a written a judgment, Lord Turnbull refused Turnbull’s appeal against the length of his sentence, rejecting the defence plea that there were “exceptional circum- stances” to justify reducing it.

The judge wrote: “In his report to this court the sheriff informed us that the stun gun … was recovered by police from a rucksack in the accused’s bedroom in his mother’s house. It was found to be a dual function electronic stun gun and torch, in good working condition, with an audible and visible display of sparks occurring between the electrodes when activated.

“On the appellant’s behalf it was submitted to the sheriff that the stun gun had been purchased around two years earlier over the internet. On receipt he tested it on himself giving himself an electric shock. Thereafter he put in the rucksack, where it had remained until being seized by the police.”

Turnbull’s advocate, Simon Gilbride, emphasised to the Appeal Court that there was no suggestion that the stun gun had been used – other than by the accused on himself – and it had not been taken into a public place. He cited an earlier case in which the court had found, contrary to the sentencing sheriff’s opinion, that exceptional circumstances were present to justify a reduced sentence, and these were similar to the circumstances in Turnbull’s case.

Lord Turnbull recorded that Gilbride had sought to emphasise that there was no suggestion that the item had ever been taken into a public place.

However, the judge said Turnbull had moved house several times, which appeared to show that “the item had been in a public place on a number of occasions and there was a risk of the stun gun falling into the hands of another”.

Lord Turnbull concluded: “In our opinion, the circumstances of the present case were serious and fell within the type of offending behaviour which Parliament intended to prevent.”