Police were called when a woman saw a man alleged to have been tasering others to their legs in the street.

Officers arrived and went to his Rhyl address and found a stun gun on a table.

Defendant Dylan Ingham, 21, agreed that he had tasered his own brother to the leg but said he was messing about, explained prosecuting barrister Simon Parry.

He told how he had just "bought it off a kid" in an alleyway and asked police if they would rather the youngster had it.

Ingham even asked police if they could carry tasers for their own protection, why he shouldn't.

Judge Rhys Rowlands, sitting at Mold Crown Court, told him that the reason for that was simple - it was illegal for the likes of him to possess such weapons.

Ingham, of East Parade in Rhyl, admitted possessing a stun gun in September of last year.

He received an eight month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months and he was placed on rehabilitation and ordered to carry out 150 hours unpaid work.

The judge said that at tea-time on a Sunday afternoon he was in the street with a charged and working tazer device.

"Not only that but you were seemingly showing off, discharging it towards others in a group," he said.

He accepted that he had struck his brother with the beam.

A concerned on-looker called the police and the defendant appeared at the door with a large sheath blade, although he was not charged with that.

He was arrested without incident and the tazer found on a table.

Interviewed, he admitted having the device and said he had bought it off a youth a short time earlier.

He posed the question of police could carry tazers for their own protection why he should not as well?

"The answer to that is quite plain. The law makes it illegal for the likes of you to carry such weapons,," the judge said.

He had no legitimate purpose to have it, out in the streets of Rhyl.

It was in working order and was capable of delivering a shock, although he had no detail about its strength.

He had pleaded guilty, he was young, he had a partner and a baby daughter a month old, and there were signs that he was growing up.

Not without some misgivings, the judge said that he was prepared to draw back from an immediate custodial sentence.

Defending barrister Simon Killeen said that while the device was said to have been based on a fly spray it was not a disguised weapon attracting a minimum five year sentence.

The defendant, who suffered ADHD and other issues, had only possessed it briefly.

The very essence of the condition was reckless and impulsive behaviour, and a lack of thinking.

He had been medicated since the age of 11 but when he became an adult he had not received medication.

The offence had been an act of "absolute stupidity" but he was now medicated again, was calmer and more mature and he had a job in order to support his family.

His client was growing up and had displayed a changed attitude, said Mr Killeen.