Paul Clarke carried a shotgun through the streets of a Surrey town.
It also seems he carried ammunition for the gun.
The shotgun was concealed in a black plastic bag.
During that walk he could have been mugged or had an accident.
He had possession of the shotgun during the length of that walk; and it is perhaps fortunate that he kept possession for all that time
In the event, he took the shotgun into a police station.
In a statement read to the court (but not it seems tested in cross-examination), he claims he found the shotgun in his garden and he claimed further that by taking the shotgun to the police station he was simply performing his civic duty.
This may or may not be correct.
In the event, it doesn't matter, as mere possession of a shotgun (without a licence) is a criminal offence.
The way this story was reported in a local newspaper - see here - has meant that a high number of people on Twitter and elsewhere are outraged.
I agree with that outrage to the extent that a minimum sentence of five years appears utterly disproportionate.
I also think that, if the facts are indeed as reported, the CPS should not have prosecuted Mr Clarke. The CPS should only prosecute when it is the public interest to do so.
(And one should always be skeptical of newspaper reports of any court case.)
But on the narrow point as to whether that possessing a shotgun - and taking that shotgun through the streets (even if to a police station) - should be unlawful, then I think it should be.
It was not his civic duty to take a shotgun and ammunition through the streets of a Surrey town.
Until that shotgun (and ammunition) was safely in the custody of the police, there was a real risk that it could be used to kill or badly maim other people. That is why possessing such shotguns is a criminal offence, unless there is a licence.
Whenever it appears the law is an ass, one should be critical.
The statutory minimum sentence may well be an ass; the decision to prosecute here may also be an ass; but prohibiting the possession of shotguns is, in my view, not an ass.
If the facts are as reported, then the prosecution should not have been brought; and, if brought, a conviction should only carry a mere discharge.
But prohibiting the possession of the shotgun and ammunition would appear to me to be what the criminal law should be doing.
________
16 November 2009: See thoughtful and thought-provoking blogpost at Bad Reason.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
75 comment(s):
Also, the sentence of 5 years, if he is truly just an honourable man, may not even come about. http://bit.ly/3vRJcF
Great article summing everything up.
The problem here is that it becomes illegal to stop doing something illegal. He was not arrested while in possession, but after he stopped being in possession by handing in the gun. That's insane.
But should it be strict liability? Isn't mens rea the issue here? That surely should be the question against which his story is properly tested.
It seems to me that the outrage is dependent upon the press report which seems partial, to say the least. I suspect further facts will emerge.
So if he had a licence then it would have been OK to carry the gun through the streets?
Does the licence prevent him from being mugged or having an accident?
Would him having a licence reduce the risk of that gun being used to kill or badly maim other people?
All having a licence implies is that some official has somehow deemed (probably financially rather than scientifically) that the person who has applied for the license does not represent a risk to the public, it doesn't stop the other things you mention from actually happening.
Thus, the lack of licence is not an issue and (subject to all the facts coming to light) this is a farce.
These are all very reasonable points. It's the decision to prosecute that really ires me. Paul Clarke's execution of his ultimate intent to do the right thing may leave a lot to be desired, but there is no way he deserves prosection, let alone jail time. How many other people would fail to realise that carrying someone else's shotgun to a police station constitutes legal possession, of the sort that could land you in prison? Plenty.
If I was on that jury I would have refused to convict him, regardless of how daft he may have been in handing the gun in.
All this is based on the assumption that the I have the facts roughly straight, of course. AS many have said, we don't have much to go on with regard to the details of the case.
Lennart that's absurd, your suggestion implies that if someone stops, for example, murdering, they shouldn't be prosecuted.
Possession of the weapon is a crime, whether or not he remains in possession, he has committed the crime.
So what was he supposed to do with it, if, as reported, he found it? Ring the police then just leave it on the street for anyone to find?
Very, very good points and well made.
Strict liability doesn't mean there isn't a defence. The firearms acts allow reasonable defence, ascorbic, yet he was still found guilty.
I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye. If I found a shotgun and ammunition, in a black bin bag, at the bottom of my garden, my first thought would be that it may have been used in the commission of an offence. I would, therefore, ring the police, tell them what I had found and ask them to collect it.
What I WOULDN'T do is ring the local Superintendent (who Clarke appears to have known by name) and ask if I could pop in to see him, without giving a reason why; it makes no sense, unless Clarke had an ulterior motive. There must be a back history, maybe even beyond that of his previous court appearance for assault.
I wait for further details to emerge, but, if I had to guess, Clarke is not as innocent as he's being painted.
Of course, you may want to compare it to http://bit.ly/4BSaLK - a case where the police advised the man to walk the streets with a loaded revolver... It seems that it's ok to bend the law when it suits, huh?
All possession laws are difficult - you are automatically committing an offence regardless of intent.
This seems to be more for the convenience of the authorities than for reasons of justice.
In this case the intent appears clear and lawful - is the crime then naivety?
I think Pam's getting close to the point here. It is possible to construct a number of putative scenarios involving my namesake's actions which would put an entirely different cast on the reported facts.
But it's not our job, nor Twitter's, to create such scenarios. They need to be tested through a legal process - not ambushed part way through by a thinly-written local news report, amplified by a potty-mouthed blogger who clearly has pre-existing issues with the English legal system.
I'll be keeping a very close eye on the follow-up story (not that difficult, as bizarrely I also live in the same small Surrey village) and will be doing what I can to amplify the additional facts as they emerge.
@paul_clarke
Do the court proceedings become public at some point?
To be fair to the journalist who wrote the report; "ex-soldier waves gun around in police station" is just a good a story as "many arrested for doing civic duty"
There's not much advantage twisting the facts either way. So I'm inclined to believe this is a fair report of what happened.
He rang the police beforehand.
what did the police ask him to do?
Or say he should do?
If I’d found a firearm in the street I probably would have done what Paul Clarke did: put it in a bag and walked round to the police station.
Why? Because as a military reservist I’ve handled a rifle a few hundred times, and I’ve used machine guns and pistols too. Paul Clarke, as a regular soldier, will have handled weapons even more often. Weapons are lethal but when you’ve been trained to use them you don’t panic around them.
Finding a weapon that isn’t yours and handling it safely is actually a mandatory part of the ‘Weapons Handling Test’ that every soldier must complete at least once a year. You apply the safety catch, inspect the weapon, and unload it; then you take it off to someone who can look after it securely. What might seem like a ‘normal’ reaction to people who haven't used guns, llike most police officers- ‘omigod a gun!’- isn’t how you behave if you’re trained not to freak out around firearms. There was surely zero public interest in prosecuting this man.
He should have just phoned the police, stated he had found a shotgun on his property and asked them to pick it up or something along those lines.
Mind you, there are some occasions where police forces hold a weapons amnesty every so often where people can come in and discard illegal weapons such as knifed and guns in special bins
All in all the bloke in question was just being naive and unfortunately suffererd the consequences.
@Mark "Lennart that's absurd, your suggestion implies that if someone stops, for example, murdering, they shouldn't be prosecuted."
No. This action implies that he should only be prosecuted if he stops, but *not* if he continues. Because that is what happened here. He would not have been prosecuted if he kept the gun in his possession.
If he's too stupid to phone the police and say 'I've just found a gun in my garden. I haven't touched it. Please come and get it." then he's an idiot and a suitable candidate for the Darwin Awards as far as I'm concerned.
For @Dan Hardie - I'm am more than comfortable with all forms of firearms; assault rifles, revolvers, pistols, mortars, LMGs, RPGs etc. I am intelligent enough to still do the right thing which is not to pick it up. Ever heard of fingerprint or DNA evidence?
R!
I disagree with the essential premise of you argument - that mere possession of something should be an offence under the criminal law. Assuming that there are legitimate reasons to have a shotgun then what the criminaal law is trying to achieve is to prevent the improper use of the shotgun rather than the possession of said instrument. I agree that our response should be proportionate - and we may not be in possession of all the facts - but the law seeks (through licensing in this case) to prevent the improper use of the shotgun.
Let's speculate that Mr Clarke held a shotgun license. Your contention about mugging applies equally to someone who holds a licence as it does to someone without such licence.
So: #1 The law does not prevent possession #2 The law is concerned with misuse rather than ownership #3 I can see no way in which Mr Clarke (on the evidence presented) was seeking to misuse the shotgun
The desk sergeant was wrong - a sensible copper would have told him he was a fool, 'found the gun' on the police station doorstep and dealt with it... that the police arrested and got cps involved is mad...
Shows how the police, by making them into a 'non intelligent' organisation who 'merely follow the rules' will get into stupid situations
Assuming - and this is a big assumption - that the report is correct:
Clarke finds a black bin-bag in his garden. He opens it - and finds a shotgun. That's it; it's in his possession. Five years minimum mandatory.
So what does he do now? It doesn't matter. Walk down the street to the Police Station, ring them up, throw it over the fence into the next garden, send it by post to Jack of Kent? Guilty.
And why the slight sneer about "no cross examination"? The facts in this case do not appear to be contested. The trial was a "simple" argument between lawyers as to mitigation (or the few defences such as force majeur - to absolute offences)
Mortals chiefest enemy
"The desk sergeant was wrong - a sensible copper would have told him he was a fool, 'found the gun' on the police station doorstep and dealt with it... that the police arrested and got cps involved is mad..."
And what if the gun was then linked to a murder or another crime? Would the desk sergeant then come forward and admit that he'd lied or would he let the investigation go ahead having been massively compromised? What if they found evidence linking Paul Clarke to the gun (fingerprints perhaps, or something else), and he became a suspect? Are you really saying that a Police Sergeant should have been complicit in a lie like that?
"I also think that, if the facts are indeed as reported, the CPS should not have prosecuted Mr Clarke. The CPS should only prosecute when it is the public interest to do so."
Agreed: but, if we are to take Mr Clarke's testimony as being truthful, in what way was the law enhanced, or justice served, by the CPS's decision to prosecute here?
And whilst I can't see there being any question or argument over "... prohibiting the possession of the shotgun and ammunition would appear to me to be what the criminal law should be doing", the police now being reduced, on this evidence, to mere box-ticking filing clerks reflects poorly on the whole affair - especially their inability to use their discretion and deal with the 'find' accordingly.
The law may not be an ass: but the decision to prosecute here most definitely was.
He was entitled to put forward a defence that he had "reasonable excuse" for being in possession of the gun and ammunition in a public place. There is also a defence of "lawful authority" but that couldn't be relevant on the facts as stated.
Do you think he did have "reasonable excuse" for taking it down the nick in a plastic bag the day after he found it when he could have called the police as soon as he found it?
I suppose if he had called them and they had asked him to pop down to the station with it and what fun it will be to see the look on the guy's face on reception when you pull it out of the bag he might be said to have both "reasonable excuse" and "lawful authority"
forget it, i'll just let some kids find it!
Is that link to the right offence? s5 covers specific types of weapons which don't seem to cover "normal" shotguns.
(It could have been if the weapon was illegal as well as unlicensed)
Chris Brind wrote:
"All having a [shotgun] licence implies is that some official has somehow deemed (probably financially rather than scientifically) that the person who has applied for the license does not represent a risk to the public"
Not true, the licence also implies the person has somewhere SECURE where they will keep the gun locked up at all times when not in use. And that they will keep the ammo somewhere else. And presumably they are only expected to "transport" the gun to and from the place of their legitimate use (sporting or working) or for repair.
Even for someone WITH a shotgun licence I rather doubt strolling down the street with a loaded twelve-bore under your arm would be lawful. Perhaps our lawyers can clarify? You are being granted a "licence" to own, keep and use the gun under specific provisions and circumstances.
In the Clarke case, I can see that picking the thing up is read legally as "having it in one's possession" - but one obvious problem with this as applied is that picking the shotgun up and taking it straight to the cop-shop could arguably be the quickest way of getting it off the street (or out of the garden) - which is arguably the desired outcome and overriding priority. If an abandoned gun is reported, but it takes the police a while to come and collect it, it is perfectly possible whoever dumped it might pop back and pick it up in the meantime. Which would hardly be in the "greater public interest".
Anyway, I think Jack has described the case and the implications lucidly. The remaining questions mostly relate to whether we actually have the full facts. But as it has been reported the question is surely whether it was in the public interest to prosecute Clarke.
I;m glad that the police in the South-East have so cracked crime that they have arrested this chap.
However, is it not the case that the law on "possession" is so widely drafted that he would have been in possession had he kept the gun on his property whilst calling the police to collect it? Not that they would have collected it of course...
Of course, if the Human Rights Act gave us real rights, this would assist such a defendant. Of course, it does no such thing-it is simply a piece of paper full of platitudes interpreted by Frankfurt School Marxists.
TO those saying "If the facts are as reported"...
Please realise this, if the facts are as they are reported then there are TWO stories being presented as one.
If Paul Clarke is telling the truth then he was merely in possession of a firearm in public. He had a defence, he could have given a reasonable explanation. By contrast the Judge, the prosecution and the police must have all been conspiring to put Paul Clarke away by LYING about strict liability and lack of defence. Section 19, which is the most likely part of the Firearms act 1968 (as amended) allows for a defence.
The other story is one of a police force that arrested the man, a CPS that prosecuted him despite having the ability to not take the case to court, and a judge and CPS that made it clear to the Jury that there was no defence. This means Paul Clarke (in this scenario) was charged with a more serious offence such as using a firearm to resist arrest, possession of a firearm to cause fear or possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm. Or, perhaps this is a possibility...possession of a firearm by persons with a previous conviction.
In this story, as presented by THis is Surrey, who...let's face it...don't have the best journalistic integrity (in another story about Paul Clarke they reported he had two addresses), someone is lying. Either it is Paul Clarke, or it is the entire justice system in Guildford.
Oh, and the idea he is in prison for a minimum of 5 years if all he did was do his civic duty is not true either, the judge can go below the minimum sentence if he feels the circumstances warrant it.
Facts, facts, facts...Like Scarlet Johansen they're beautiful, yet not really something we're too privy to right now.
Jury nullification?
I don't think it's a satisfactory solution to have strict liability offences, with draconian mandatory minimum sentences, and rely on the police and/or CPS to interpret the public interest and selectively decide not to prosecute -- their deliberations are hardly open and transparent.
If I were someone who had no reason to expect fair treatment from the police, and discovered a firearm in a black plastic bag (in a public place or elsewhere), I think the only sensible action would be to touch nothing and leave the scene as rapidly as possible without attracting attention.
Was the accused not already technically in possession when the gun was found on his property?
"taking that shotgun through the streets (even if to a police station) should be unlawful"
In which case, the Police really shouldn't be handing out advice like this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760609-police-told-man-to-walk-two-miles-with-a-loaded-gun.do
@ Jamie & David (and a couple of others) he didn't find the gun in the street, he found it in his garden, so there was no need to remove it.
At the end of the day, calling the police is the sensible thing to do - there is presumably a reason someone chucked a gun, it would probably be worth investigating.
Even if he had found it in the street (this scenario strikes me as a little odd anyway, but whatever), he should call the police and stay with it until they arrive.
I think 'well meaning fool' probably covers it and a slap on the wrist would be proportionate to his actions, rather than a five year jail sentence, but the point remains that what he did was potentially dangerous and he has possibly destroyed a crime scene.
Whilst I am one of those who retain a firearms permit that includes the carriage of shotguns of any type, I am quite frankly puzzled at this chap's actions.
Were it I, I would have phone the rozzers, and stood guard over the offending weapon (without disturbing it further) until they sent someone to collect it.
I also have extensive military firearms training as a rifleman/sniper, and so know how to handle weapons blind-folded, but would not have further disturbed such a find for fear of forensic contamination at the very least.
I feel that this story is missing some vital information which would resolve it from a conundrum into the commonplace.
There is surely more to this than meets the eye as the CPS will have taken a view. It's also unclear to me how the evidence is corroborated, and a more complete report of the trial and background would be in order.
Most of us would not be stupid enough to pick an abandoned gun up and carry it through the streets. I'm more concerned over the law regarding the carrying of knifes or other potentially offensive weapons, like screwdrivers. It's not a strict liability offense, like being in possession of a gun; there is a defense in being able to show a reasonable excuse, but it has much more potential for the unwary to be caught up in the legal system than this.
On an even more general point, I'm greatly concerned over the gradual encroachment of strict liability offenses into crimes where there are very serious penalties. It's very convenient for the legal authorities not to have to show intent, recklessness or negligence, but where there are mandatory and lengthy prison sentences associated with such offenses, we are surely crossing a line. This current government has shown an increasing appetite for such things.
'm greatly concerned over the gradual encroachment of strict liability offenses into crimes where there are very serious penalties.
On a less serious level, the handing over of traffic monitoring to local authorities has pushed them to apply strict liability for traffic gain.
For example, as a visitor to London, on occasion I accidentally drove into bus lanes which were not marked ahead. Even stopping immediately and trying to get back (if anyone will allow you to merge back) into the correct lane does not suffice to absolve you of the large fine the council gleefully imposes.
I agree with Dr Aust. The law requires that a condition of having a firearm that it must be stored and transported securely. There is extensive guidance here.
Chris Brind and others are incorrect. Someone with a gun license would definitely not be allowed to walk through a town with a shotgun and ammunition in a plastic bag. (The gun should be driven in a locked car and concealed inside it).
I agree with Jack, a prison sentence does seem to be an excessive punishment, but this man's actions did break the law and were irresponsible.
In the Republic of Ireland a DIY store was recently moving after 60 years or so. They had previously been allowed to stock an sell firearms and ammunition. Though not any more. When they went to move, they found the safe hidden away in a back room containing weapons and ammunition.
The Garda refused to come and collect them as a "waste of time, they probably don't work anymore anyway"
I'm not sure what happened to the weapons, but I doubt there was any legal disposal.
The law is an ass, and so are you.
When he spoke with police beforehand on the phone and asked them what to do, they told him "Bring it in, mate". He was following police instructions. WTF are you talking about??
So let me see if I understand this. Your position is:
(1) What Clarke was doing was dangerous and it is entirely right that it should be a criminal offence.
(2) The CPS should not have prosecuted because it is not in the public interest.
Right, that seems clear enough.
Er, what?
A friend of mine once had approximately the following conversation with a work colleague who had just come to Britain from South Africa. This took place before the latest change in the law which brought in such draconian penalties for possession.
(South African): "I hear on the grapevine you are quite a crack shot at clay pigeon. I wouldn't mind having a go at that."
(My Friend): "Of course. I'll introduce you at the club, and you can hire a gun and have a go."
"Well I could just bring my own. I've got a nice shotgun."
"You've got a gun? How did you get that? It took me ages to get a licence."
"I just put it in the container of furniture and other stuff I sent over from South Africa. How do I get a licence?"
"I think what you should do is take the shotgun around to the police station, explain the situation, and they'll probably look after it for you while you install a gunsafe, apply for a licence, and all that."
"Does that go for my handgun too?"
"No. You aren't allowed to keep a handgun at home, but you can keep one at a gun club. Change my first idea. Don't take them to the police station. Call the police, and ask them to come round to you."
"And my sub-machinegun?"
"Oh dear. Better idea. Don't call the police at all. I'd go out after dark and drop them all into the canal if I were you."
"Clarke finds a black bin-bag in his garden. He opens it - and finds a shotgun. That's it; it's in his possession. Five years minimum mandatory."
It's not at all obvious to me that finding an item means you come into possession of it. I would argue that to be in possession of something you have to have actively taken possession of it - by picking it up and walking off with it for example.
Richard Keen wrote: "Of course, if the Human Rights Act gave us real rights, this would assist such a defendant. Of course, it does no such thing-it is simply a piece of paper full of platitudes interpreted by Frankfurt School Marxists."
"Frankfurt School Marxists" is a rather odd way to describe the British judiciary.
All the HRA does is to allow the European Convention on Human Rights to be considered by UK courts. The people who want it repealed presumably either want to hand power back to Strasbourg, or object to the convention itself.
Call me crazy, but if I found a gun and ammo, I think I'd call the police and stand at the spot until they showed up.
Would you touch it? I wouldn't dream of it.
There is something about this story which doesn't stack up.
Interesting discussion. It's especially interesting because it seems to revolve around questions of possession, intent and 'what if' scenarios but not the core question.
But on the narrow point as to whether that possessing a shotgun ... should be unlawful, then I think it should be.
I think it shouldn't be, and nothing discussed here says anything that convinces me otherwise.
Kris wrote: "Call me crazy, but if I found a gun and ammo, I think I'd call the police and stand at the spot until they showed up.
Would you touch it? I wouldn't dream of it.
There is something about this story which doesn't stack up."
I agree wholeheartedly with the first two paragraphs - and, even after my initial comment earlier above, the 'something doesn't stack up' comment I'm now more inclined to agree with; or, to quote John Maynard Keynes:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
The law isn't an altar unto itself. It is not a work of art. It is a tool to serve the interests of *our* society.
This man was a soldier. He has harmed nobody, intended no harm and has indeed performed a somewhat good act (removal of a firearm from the streets - even if it would have been better to have left it in situ until police arrived). His prosecution results in no public benefit and massive public cost.
All this is assuming that the facts are as stated. If the police suspect otherwise they should do some actual work and find evidence of wrongdoing rather than relying purely on the strict liability nature of the "offense".
This ruling flies in the face of common man's understanding of justice. You can talk technicalities till your wig falls off - but that won't convince most reasonably people that this man committed a crime.
The resources that have been pumped into his prosecution could have been better spent identifying the origin of the firearm and possibly bringing a criminal to justice.
Absolute liability laws are idiotic and regularly lead to gross injustices - mandatory custodial sentences doubly so.
All this in the name of "public protection"?
Who really wants this protection? I certainly don't.
The great lesson here isn't about the law, strict liability or public safety - it is that once again the police, the government and the judicial system have shown themselves to be unworthy of the powers entrusted to them.
The trouble is, "sensible", that the three main bits of the puzzle aren't yet here. 1) Why did CPS prosecute, 2) Why did the police arrest and 3) What will the actual sentence be?
Without knowing 1 and 2 we can't judge this case, and without 3 we can't tell how the system is working to appropriately punish for his carrying of the weapon around in public, even if 1 and 2 are not adequate answers.
An interesting and thoughtful conversation which I've linked to from here: http://bit.ly/PaulClarkeShotgun
Lee Griffin wrote: "The trouble is, "sensible", that the three main bits of the puzzle aren't yet here. 1) Why did CPS prosecute, 2) Why did the police arrest and 3) What will the actual sentence be?
Without knowing 1 and 2 we can't judge this case, and without 3 we can't tell how the system is working to appropriately punish for his carrying of the weapon around in public, even if 1 and 2 are not adequate answers."
If truth be told, Lee's illustrated the rub: there is an inescapable feeling, here, of the dogs barking before the hare's away.
@Elephant:
Yes, it should be a crime, and yes, the CPS should not have prosecuted. How shall I reconcile these apparently contradictory statements? By noting that whilst it should be a crime to wander about with a loaded shotgun, it shouldn't be a 5-year offence precisely because of these sorts of cases. The CPS shouldn't have prosecuted *because* it would carry 5 years.
Ordinarily we might expect the police response to be a thank-you garnished with a stern bollocking for recklessness.
The fact that the CPS chose to prosecute in the full knowledge this would carry a 5-year penalty suggests they or someone advising them had something else against Clarke, either in the legal or personal sense. What that is remains to be seen.
If he found the gun in a garden it was probably un-usable due to corrosion and lack of proper lubrication. if the weapon was obviously beyond use, then it may have been one of the reasons why he decided to just drop in and drop it off....
honestly, I'm an american, and i must say that more and more your government disturbs me. whether it was the law to or not, why the hell would you put a man in jail just for doing what he should have, however "careless" his method of doing so may have been? what's the purpose? what does it serve to put this man in jail? it just destroys his life and wastes thousands of your pounds on his incarceration... and for NO REASON!
When you've already had run-ins with the authorities, how does inviting them to your house to pick up the interesting item in your garden not give them license to ransack the place on a whim of finding some evidence of other "illegal" activity, product, or substance.
@Chris Smowton
There's no evidence that the shotgun was loaded, and it is legally irrelevant anyway. Mere possession of the firearm is enough.
The logical consequence of what you are saying is that there should not be a minimum 5 year sentence. If conduct isn't serious enough to merit a sentence, it shouldn't get the sentence. Leaving it to the CPS to decide whether they will invoke draconian powers is a really, really bad idea.
But I disagree with you anyway. By any reasonable standard, Clarke was trying to prevent crime, not to commit it. Handing in the weapon is what a responsible citizen would do, and that is what he was attempting. He went about it in a foolish manner, but if we start prosecuting people for serious offences just for being foolish, we're going to need an awful lot of prisons.
"He might have had an accident along the way" is just about as compelling as prosecuting for dangerous driving on the basis that the driver "might" have a heart attack en route.
@Lee Griffin
"By contrast the Judge, the prosecution and the police must have all been conspiring to put Paul Clarke away by LYING about strict liability and lack of defence. Section 19, which is the most likely part of the Firearms act 1968 (as amended) allows for a defence."
Actually, Section 5(ac) - unauthorised possession of a sawn-off shotgun is the most likely, and does not allow for a defence.
I hope that Paul Clarke is put away for good and they throw away the key!
ALL GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED and let this be a lesson to the NRA and gun nuts of the UK: they are unacceptable in society.
@blentham
Sorry, I probably should have come back on here. On twitter and elsewhere I've said the same about section 5. The confusing thing from this, if there are no other circumstances to CPS's charge, is why Paul Clarke's legal team even attempted to fight on a not-guilty basis. Very strange case, still without all the facts.
@ Lee Griffin and @ bentham,
If memory serves, the law on sawn-off shotguns has been in place for donkeys' years - and rightly so, and as all the blaggers out there appreciate, there being only one possible purpose for sawing the end off a perfectly serviceable shotgun, and it's nefarious.
Until that shotgun (and ammunition) was safely in the custody of the police, there was a real risk that it could be used to kill or badly maim other people. That is why possessing such shotguns is a criminal offence, unless there is a licence.
When the law determines that inanimate objects encourage evil, the law is not rational.
If there is a crime, his tampering with possible evidence of a crime is probably all that should be criminal.
The concern about some unarmed person taking the shotgun away from Mr. Clarke and using it in a crime is silly. This just plays into the belief that things have magical properties.
M'Lud:
Where the learned counsel proposes that "When the law determines that inanimate objects encourage evil, the law is not rational", I suggest as a devastating counter-example that I present Exhibit A: The Bible.
The defense rests.
Michael Kingsford Gray,
Where the learned counsel proposes that "When the law determines that inanimate objects encourage evil, the law is not rational", I suggest as a devastating counter-example that I present Exhibit A: The Bible.
The defense rests.
I disagree. The Bible is not the problem. The interpretation of the Bible is the problem.
While there are plenty of instances in the Bible that may be categorized as inciting to violence - stoning disobedient children (I would be childless - assuming I had survived my childhood). The problem is not so much the document, as it is the people who interpret it as an excuse to harm others.
There are plenty of regular Bible readers, who do not act on the incitement to violence that is supposed to be The Word of God. Unfortunately, there are many who do use passages that support their prejudices. We end up with a lot of bad laws that are only the legislation of biases included in the Bible.
Anyone who cares can join the group on Facebook who are working to keep him out of prison at http://apps.facebook.com/causes/397594 ("Stop this man going to prison"). The idea is to turn up on 11 December at Guilford Crown Court when he is sentenced.
Rogue Medic:
So it is completely without basis the idea that the person that dumped it in his garden might have worked out he'd taken it, been able to follow him, mug him, get it back and use it in a (further) crime?
Lee Griffin,
Rogue Medic:
So it is completely without basis the idea that the person that dumped it in his garden might have worked out he'd taken it, been able to follow him, mug him, get it back and use it in a (further) crime?
Not completely impossible, but what would be the reason?
How many people will try to mug someone who is carrying a shotgun?
This criminal may be auditioning for the Darwin Awards. Even if the shotgun is not fired at him, it makes for a nice club. Maybe the criminal wanted the challenge of waiting for the police to come pick up the gun, so it wouldn't be so easy for him to retrieve the gun. He/she may be living for the thrill of the crime, rather than anything else. You may be onto something. This may be the next crime wave to hit England. Criminals dumping guns, just so the criminal can attack an armed person to get the gun back, later on.
If only criminals behaved that way more often, there would be far fewer of them out committing crimes.
Jack of Kent,
You're a buffoon.
It's people like you who help the government establish a stronger police state every day.
Is the court willfully blind to the multiple definitions of the word "possess"? Must it pick only one definition that makes the application of this law irrational in this case?
Is mere delivery possession? Are all instances of carrying possession as well?
The statement, "The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant" must be false if the definition of the word possession requires some understanding of intent before it can be known to apply.
Would a postman delivering an anonymously mailed firearm to the police station be arrested?
If "carrying" is legally equivalent to "possession", then is a fireman carrying a grateful victim from a fire guilty of enslavement?
Was this judge so entranced by the issue of "strict liability" that he failed to consider the rational application of the English language? Or is a judge an automaton, unable to choose a reasonable reading of the law?
He's an ex soldier who has been working with the local police to form communication with troublesome gangs. Soldiers get a lot of training with weapons, in fact most of their training is weapons. They're comfortable with them, more than most police officers.
This should not have gone to court. Maybe you don't think that handing in weapons is a 'civic duty' but I suspect that you haven't had military service which makes people think differently from those who just like to stay out of things.
More rapists and murderers need to have firearms pointed at them by their victims.
How is one expected to do to defend one's self in this country? Foul language? Even pepperspray is considered 'evil' and banned by Nanny.
As is evident from this case, criminals are still able to obtain firearms, despite them being illegal, just like drugs.
Gun Control = enslavement of the masses
It seems obvious that what this man needed to do was, pick up the phone and call 999, advise them that he had found a shot gun and wait a few minutes for it to be picked up, likely by firearms offices trained to make it safe.
The gun may have been used in a murder or other crime and should have been left as undisturbed as possible. This to allow police to check for evidence that could be crucial to solve a case - now contaminated and four days late!
There is no licence that this man or any civilian could have had to carry this gun as I belive it was a sawn off shot gun which is illegal for anyone to own.
This man also shouldn't have waited 4 days to take in the weapon. During his initial phone call he should have made the police aware of what he had found so that they could make arrangements for the safe retrieval and give him advice on how to proceed.
You have to ask what he was doing with the gun for 4 days?
I don't think he should get 5 years, bit much but this man obiously has no common sense.
http://securityscene.wordpress.com
I think the judge got it about right. It would have been a gross injustice to have imposed the minimum sentence (5 years) which was never intended for an unusual case like this.
However, what was not widely reported was that the Clarke held onto the weapon for 4 days, during which it was in danger of being taken by burglars. As an ex-soldier, Clarke should have known better than this. In the event though, all was well as the gun reached police hands without incident.
So for what was (in effect) a nominal crime, the judge rightly imposed a nominal sentence, which will not involve Clarke serving time in jail.
Having said that, the police should have made it clearer what the correct course of action should be for a person who finds an illegal firearm, rather than just prosecuting people who act incorrectly after the event.
Post a Comment