Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

[ForeverNight]

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."

 

Source

 

I found this on a forum I regularly ghost on and originally thought it was a satire piece. After reading the article I'm slightly confused about this situation, maybe a resident Englander could explain this? I think the guy was slightly crazy for just taking it out, but still! 5 years?!

 

Otherwise, discuss.

[Darth InSidious]

... Nope, sorry. There's no adequate explanation for the sheer stupidity of this.

[ForeverNight]

Damn, I was afraid of that.

[jonathan7]

... Nope, sorry. There's no adequate explanation for the sheer stupidity of this.

 

The judicial system is run by a bunch of egotistical, mindless bureaucrats? Apparently abusing baby P - results in the same number of years in prison as handing in a gun you found.

 

The law is moronic and stupid, it with no sense of irony I say whoever came up with the law should be shot.

[JediAthos]

Wow...that's pretty asinine. I can't guarantee it, but I'm relatively certain there's no case of anything like that happening here in the U.S. so I don't really have any comparison to draw from, there certainly are plenty of other idiotic laws here though IMHO I think it's ridiculous that he was arrested and somewhere beyond insane that he could spend five years in prison.

 

Remind me not to try to be a good Samaritan if I ever find myself in the U.K.

[Samuel Dravis]

Crazy. Although I certainly wouldn't walk into a police station with a gun, unless I had called and made certain it was ok first. Government buildings are a big no-no for gun toting even in Texas. It doesn't sound like the man warned the police what he had, just asked to see the Chief while carrying a friggan shotgun. I mean, seriously.

[Ping]

Arrested for turning in a gun? Geez. I'm all for gun restrictions, but this is ridiculous. Who was the idiot who made that law?

[Q]

I'm all for gun restrictions, but this is ridiculous.

And I'm not, because they allow for precisely this type of stupidity.

 

Way to go, Airstrip One.

 

What's next, cameras all over, watching your every move? Oh, wait...

[jonathan7]

And I'm not, because they allow for precisely this type of stupidity.

 

Way to go, Airstrip One.

 

What's next, cameras all over, watching your every move? Oh, wait...

 

Since the UK banned Hand guns, and made most fire-arm ownership illegal, with the exception of rifles and shotguns which are highly licensed there have been no repeats of Dunblane (the shooting which caused the anti-gun legislation). In the period since 1996 the U.S. has had 51 School shootings, with at my count at least 47 of those shootings involving at least 1 fatality. In the same period the U.K had 0 school shooting incidents....

[Darth InSidious]

The US has had 9,236 reported gun homicides in 2004 alone. See table 2.9, page 11.

 

By comparison, 50 gun homicides were reported in the UK in 2005/6.

[Q]

So you're both in favor of oppressive gun control, just not the inevitable stupidity, such as this incident, that accompanies it.

 

Got it.

[jonathan7]

So you're both in favor of oppressive gun control, just not the inevitable stupidity, such as this incident, that accompanies it.

 

Got it.

 

Yes, I'm in favour of Gun control, I don't see why it's oppressive? I imagine the students shot by those armed with guns might find that oppressive. I don't see how the above stupidity is an inevitability that accompanies the legislation; I think this was just laziness on the part of law makers; but I think that incompetence is an accurate description of the Labour government generally.

 

If the U.S. wants guns, and given how powerful the NRA is, I don't see any gun control legislation coming in to force in the U.S. so you needn't be concerned, but frankly the majority of the U.K. populace is more than happy with our "oppressive" gun control.

 

I dare say though, I'd rather have "oppressive" gun control than a lot of people dead, who would for the sake of people's right to bear arms be alive.

[Q]

This type of stupidity is inevitable because laziness and incompetence in government is inevitable.

 

But, if you are correct and the majority of your population actually wants that type of legislation, then it should have it. I'm just glad that I don't live in the UK.

[Totenkopf]

Reminds me of the addage "no good deed goes unpunished". If "oppressive gun control" actually could prevent a bunch of dead people and was carried out by a truly benign power.......maybe. Problem is a little thing called borders and human ingenuity. Don't think someone won't kill you just b/c they don't have a gun. Just look how many people get killed by suicide bombers.........(as well as stabbings, beatings, hit-n-run-n -run over-and then run over again, ad nauseam...)

[ForeverNight]

Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

 

I can understand some gun restriction, I don't exactly want .50 caliber Sniper Rifles in just anybody's hands, but I've always thought more of a permit system than a blanket ban...

 

Oh well, I'm still in shock after reading/posting that article, if simply handling a gun is a crime...... well, I'm just amazed that my lack of faith in humanity's intelligence has been confirmed.

[Darth Avlectus]

^^^Yeah but we have RINO douche-nozzles like Mike Bloomberg and Ahnuld Schwarzzenazi who cop an attitude and call current laws "unenforceable".

 

Since in America we're not a mertiocracy, we are no longer hiring and electing on a basis of best qualified. Seeing as how we are right next to cartel land I don't see how making handguns illegal is going to stop people from hopping the border and buying them, only to come back the USA and stick people up. I only see that the criminal would be further enabled to do more damage in that case.

 

Having worked alongside law enforcement at one point, I've learned that the criminal mindset is that of a predatory one, less likely to prey upon those who can fight back. They don't *want* a fight or a shootout, they want "easy pickin'zzz". They want to dominate their lack of competition.

 

All the laws in the world ain't going to stop a determined criminal--or bring their victims back to life. So that in mind I am with you on this.

 

 

@ suject: Ok, What the ****? This sounds like an extreme version of playing the blame game. Obviously, the gun had an owner at one point. So, since he didn't know he got pinned with the blame.

 

That's all it is. Got to have someone to blame, and hell, let's just make everyone potentially and/or circumstantially involved just absolutely guilty. Even if they can prove innocence of any actual crime. Boom, possession is just as bad because even with undeniable proof "we don't *know* that you're innocent". That's just total BS. It's the letter of the law and not the intent behind it.

 

I have $50 that says an officer, or a senator, governor, etc. would get off scott free if not a slap on the wrists for the SAME.

 

The judicial system is run by a bunch of egotistical, mindless bureaucrats? Apparently abusing baby P - results in the same number of years in prison as handing in a gun you found.

 

The law is moronic and stupid, it with no sense of irony I say whoever came up with the law should be shot.

Multiple times. If not impaled, Vlad Tepes Dracul style.

[vanir]

Fellers you're missing the agenda here. What we're talking is district regulation (local government) and the way the parliamentary legal process works. In the county of Surrey obviously local council administration related to firearms is hopelessly outdated, but this is not going to reflect regional or national legislation. It is most likely this case is being used as a proxy by the county to secure greater legislative freedom, the constant argument of local government under the parliamentary system.

 

The defendant isn't going to go to jail for five years, what's going to happen is it gets bumped to the district court (surrey, is that in wales?) and they're going to rule he acted in good faith and is of good character, performing a duty to benefit of the community. If need be, which is unlikely the lower house will convene to pass minutes of parliament enshrining the new legislation nationally.

 

This is simply how the legal system in parliamentary democracies remains contemporary. It's bureacratic and full of red tape, but it beats US jury trial and constitutional law any day of the week, being there will be a higher authority to adjudicate on this, presided over by reasonable minds. The very premise of parliamentary democracy lay in the ultimate authority of the legislative council, they can wipe anything and everything with a wave of their hand and there is simply no higher authority, not juries, not local courts, not a national constitution.

 

It's just a matter of playing the game.

[Astor]

I agree that the police have been astronomically stupid in this instance, but I think Mr. Clarke really should have thought about the situation a little more before walking into his local Police Station with a shotgun. Pulling out a shotgun from a binbag and then it on the reception desk doesn't exactly strike me as a clever thing to do.

 

I doubt he will go to prison - it's more likely he'll be given a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

 

And as for gun control, I don't see why our Firearms legislation is labled as 'oppressive' when the vast majority of the population don't want guns in the first place. There isn't an enshrined constitutional entitlement in Britain for gun ownership - we don't need (or, in many cases, even want) handguns - legal gun ownership is mostly still reserved for the local shoots, and historical re-enactors (black powder weapons requiring a shotgun license).

[jonathan7]

Here's a facsinating table - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

The general rule, that funnily enough the tighter a countries gun control laws the less and less people die from being shot. There will be those who sight knife crime as being more prevalent here in the UK; I haven't been unable to find any stats on death rates from knife crime. But what is true is that you are four times more likely to die from a gunshot wound that you are a knife wound.

 

What however doesn't lie is homicide rates; found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate The US is top of all Western Nations with on average 5.8 homicides per 100,000 of the population. England and Wales by Comparison has a homicide rate of 1.37 per 100,000.

 

The lowest Sub-region is Western Europe with only 1.5 homicides per 100,000; this also features the greatest number of nations with the strictest gun control laws.

[Darth InSidious]

There isn't an enshrined constitutional entitlement in Britain for gun ownership

Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.

 

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

...

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;...

[Trench]

Reminds me of the addage "no good deed goes unpunished". If "oppressive gun control" actually could prevent a bunch of dead people and was carried out by a truly benign power.......maybe. Problem is a little thing called borders and human ingenuity. Don't think someone won't kill you just b/c they don't have a gun. Just look how many people get killed by suicide bombers.........(as well as stabbings, beatings, hit-n-run-n -run over-and then run over again, ad nauseam...)

This.

Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

 

I can understand some gun restriction, I don't exactly want .50 caliber Sniper Rifles in just anybody's hands.

QFT.

 

It isn't people with guns who are the killers (just listen), its stupid people with guns. If the people who "run" this country (USA) would get off there *sses and do something about educating Americans, and cleaning all the gangs and slime of our street, then we would be okay. But the government isn't doing a d*mn thing.

I own a shotgun, but I've never even thought about shooting it at someone (unless they were to try to break into my house, but that's a different story).

 

@Thread: The guy should have called first, but I don't think he should go to prison for five years because of an honest mistake. Give him a warning, a slap on the wrist, and send him home.

[Darth InSidious]

The Pavlovian reaction of the Americans in this thread is simply astonishing.

[Darth Avlectus]

The lilly-living acceptance by the euros in this thread no less surprising.

[Astor]

Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.

 

Ah, I hadn't realised that. I'll go fetch my Matchlock, then.

 

I own a shotgun' date=' but I've never even thought about shooting it at someone.[/quote']

 

Wait, you mean to say that a 14 year old is allowed to own a shotgun in the USA?

[jonathan7]

The lilly-living acceptance by the euros in this thread no less surprising.

 

It was the Americans who started the argument about Britain's Gun Laws, but you've not presented any arguments which have in anyway answered the arguments presented against you. i.e. the Statistics, for all your arguments against gun control, we still have a far lower homicide rate than you; indeed the place that has the highest regional homicide rate in the UK is Northern Ireland... The only place in the UK where the average citizen can own a gun; coincidence?

 

Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

 

This argument is disingenuous as it fails to count for the fact that your 4 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a knife wound. And as you work your way down the list, the items are less and less efficient at killing people. UK gun law is aimed at "preserving as much life as possible" and in that aim it is very effective.

 

In reality, there are only really two logical routes to go, either a near total ban, or every citizen is allowed a gun. In terms of saving lives, I think it a mere matter of logic that a society which has very few guns, will have a lot less in the way of violent death (as backed up by the statistics).

 

That said I don't think any ban on guns would be effective in the US as there are so many in circulation, but sooner or later you need to tackle the fact your nation does have a gun problem related to violent crime.