View Full Version : Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun in England
HowardCohodas
11-13-2009, 16:31
Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun in England (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html)
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.
He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".
Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"
To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.
He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.
"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.
"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"
Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."
Boy are they stupid.......
Just another reason not to live in England.
This shows you why we fought for independence from stupid acts like that.
mojaveman
11-13-2009, 18:14
That guy got punished for doing the community a favor. Talk about some ridiculous laws. I'm glad that I live in the good 'ol USA.
That guy got punished for doing the community a favor. Talk about some ridiculous laws. I'm glad that I live in the good 'ol USA.
Ah,, butt if you live in NEW YORK CITY.....:mad::mad::mad:
Fiercely Loyal
11-13-2009, 18:44
I guess the mentality there would be "oh no a gun, don't touch it, run away and tell someone."
I guess the mentality there would be "oh no a gun, don't touch it, run away and tell someone."FWIW, I spent some time tooling around on the Surrey police's website.
I could not find specific instructions on how a citizen should handle such a situation.
What would have happened had he called the police and "made an appointment" for them to come and get the weapon and the weapon was taken by a third party during the interval?
But citizens of Surrey can rest assured that their police department is doing all it can to rid the jurisdiction of BB guns.
HowardCohodas
11-13-2009, 20:47
What concerns me is that there are some who want the USA to emulate a lot of what Britain does. Health insurance, gun rights and gun-free zones comes to mind.
So based on the way the law is written and interpolated literally sans common sense by the judicial system - if he had found the weapon in his yard, left it alone, and notified the police - would he have been charged just the same because it was on his property (id est in his possession as it is on his property)? :confused:
I would imagine that this will become one for the Law Lords. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Chris Cram
11-14-2009, 23:46
So... what to do, what to do?
Strip it down for firewood and scrap metal?
You know this sounds like one of our grade school zero tolerance rules...
Funny how our 'absolutes' never seem to work out as intended.
greenberetTFS
11-15-2009, 00:53
Boy are they stupid.......
Just another reason not to live in England.
This shows you why we fought for independence from stupid acts like that.
Right on target Bryan,If memory servers me correctly we ended up giving guns to them in WW2 because they didn't have any to defend themselves against the Nazi's if invaded.........:rolleyes: They claim they are too civilized to need guns....:eek: Stupid shits......:p
Big Teddy :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
11-15-2009, 02:01
Ah,, butt if you live in NEW YORK CITY.....:mad::mad::mad:
If you have enough money to pay a lawyer who specializes in getting CCPs then you can probably afford to create the circumstances needed for them to justify you having one. :(
Ron Paul made a great argument that the areas with the most violence have the most stringent weapons laws and spend the most on LE. Where as the areas with the highest percentage of house holds owning guns have the least crime and spend the least on LE. He said it's due to the personal responsibility of the individuals and that is what our laws are based on and enforced with equality for all.
A lot of people in NY have the logic of more guns equals more danger for them. I say if your intention is to commit a crime with the gun you own, you would obtain it illegally and have more confidence in committing the crime knowing the victim is likely unarmed.
Then they often say that people would shoot one another over arguments - but I try to get them to understand that it would take the same type of mind set to run someone over or stab them for that to be the case.
The antihero
11-16-2009, 07:37
Completely kafkian.
Completely kafkian.
Kafkaesque?
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 03rd July 2009
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour. The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence. In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
•The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
•It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
•The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
•It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents. In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
'We're now on our fourth Home Secretary this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction.'
The figures, compiled by the Tories, are considered the most accurate and up-to-date available. But criminologists say crime figures can be affected by many factors, including different criminal justice systems and differences in how crime is reported and measured.
In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured. There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain's 921 in 2007.
Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.
But Police Minister David Hanson said: 'These figures are misleading.
Levels of police recorded crime statistics from different countries are simply not comparable since they are affected by many factors, for example the recording of violent crime in other countries may not include behaviour that we would categorise as violent crime.
'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'
The timing of the Europe-wide violence figures is a blow for Mr Johnson, who will today seek to reassert Labour's law and order credentials. In his first major speech on crime since becoming Home Secretary, Mr Johnson is expected to promise a concerted crack down on antisocial behaviour. He wants to set up a website to allow the public to see what is taking place in their neighbourhood, such as the number of louts who have been served with Asbos. Mr Johnson is also known to support early intervention to stop children going off the rails.
Thank God the Brits are so civilized and getting dangerous criminals like Paul Clarke off the streets. :rolleyes: Everybody knows there was no violence before the advent of gunpowder. :p
BaconAndLiver
11-16-2009, 10:31
And this is why I'm perfectly willing to give up my English citizenship for security clearance.
That man made the streets safer, and was rewarded with jail. Just goes to show that even trial by jury can have idiotic consequences.
Unreal..... Wonder if the US Embassy will get involved now.... But then again you can't fix stupid..
Wonder if the US Embassy will get involved now...
Why? It doesn't involve a US citizen. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
That guy got punished for doing the community a favor. Talk about some ridiculous laws. I'm glad that I live in the good 'ol USA.
That could all change in the blink of an eye with the deviants we have in office. Don't be surprised if you wake up some morning to find gun control and weapons bans added to a 2000 page bill.
Sorry misunderstood, Thought he was. Attention to detail... I'm pushing