[Doofy]

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

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."

Sure am glad I found a way out of the madness.

[SpaceMonkey]

Is there a minimum sentencing requirement? If not, then it's up to the judge during sentencing to take intent into account if the law cannot.

EDIT: Sorry, I skimmed the article too quickly. I see there is a 5 year minimum.

[OAW]

Woooooowwwwwww. The UK is not playing on gun possession. Even if that was the letter of the law, one would think that the cops could have let the guy go with a warning. The guy was obviously doing the right thing ... just tell him that in the future don't touch the gun and just call it in. To do five years over something like that is beyond crazy IMO.

OAW

[ort888]

Only in America.

[lpkmckenna]

I saw this story at Fark yesterday. Do a search on the bloke's name and you'll see he walked on an assault charge six months ago. The gun was clearly dumped in his backyard by the cops as payback.

I was gonna post the story on the Police Abuse thread but was too lazy.

[lpkmckenna]

I'm not certain but I think "strict liability" cases in Canada and the US don't allow jailtime. For that kind of stupidity you obviously need to go to the UK.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The guy was obviously doing the right thing ... just tell him that in the future don't touch the gun and just call it in.

He didn't want to invite the cops on to his property (a smart move) and he called the captain directly knowing the average cop had it in for him assaulting a meter maid. Whether to brought it to the station or had the captain come to him home, he was clearly screwed.

He'll win on appeal I suspect.

[Dork.]

Isn't this why you blokes still have a Queen? Can't she wave her magic wand and make this all go away?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Isn't this why you blokes still have a Queen?

I think they split up after Freddie died? Didn't they?

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Can't she wave her magic wand and make this all go away?

Theoretically, she can issue a pardon. But that means it's still on the guy's record.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I saw this story at Fark yesterday. Do a search on the bloke's name and you'll see he walked on an assault charge six months ago.

...which wasn't actually assault. And wasn't six months ago.

Inspector Hayden Hart had claimed he was attacked by Paul Clarke, 26, as he patrolled Wood Street, Merstham, checking parked cars for out-of-date tax discs.

The inspector said he was clubbed repeatedly by his attacker, who warned him: "If you come near my vehicle again, I'll break your f****** legs."

But Mr Clarke, of Wood Street, Merstham, walked free from the Crown Court at Guildford after winning his appeal against conviction for assault by beating at Redhill Magistrates Court on March 12 this year.

Mr Clarke, 26, of Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, denied the offence, insisting he had never actually struck Mr Hart during the confrontation on June 12 last year (2007).

The court was told that Mr Hart was driving along Wood Street stopping to inspect parked vehicles to make sure that they were displaying valid vehicle excise licenses.

Giving evidence at the appeal hearing, Mr Hart said: "I had seen four vehicles which I was going to report for not having up-to-date tax discs."

He said he was inside his Honda filling out the appropriate forms when he heard a loud bang on his window and looked up to see a young man.

Mr Hart said: "He was carrying a broom stick without the head on the end of it."

He said the man appeared very aggressive and threatened violence against him.

"As I got out of my car to ask him what he was doing, he struck me on the arm two or three times with the handle," he said.

Mr Hart said he grabbed hold of the stick and there was a scuffle before the other man walked off.

He said he suffered extensive bruising on his arm and had to have time off work because he felt so shaken by the incident.

"I felt very depressed," he said.

However, under cross-examination by defence counsel Richard McConaghy, he admitted the bruises might have been caused when he had leapt out of his vehicle to see what was going on.

Mr Clarke said he had confronted Mr Hart because he thought he had seen him trying to steal something from his pick-up truck.

"I didn't realise he was a DVLA inspector. He might have been a prolific thief," he said.

He said he had the broom because he had been sweeping up some glass in the road - and the head, which was loose, had fallen off during the fracas.

Mr Clarke accused Mr Hart of exaggerating his injuries, adding: "I reckon he wanted some time off work and compensation."

This is a British squaddie vs a pansy traffic warden. There's have been more than a few bruises if said squaddie had actually decided to "club" the pansy.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I think they split up after Freddie died? Didn't they?

Yeah, it sucks that Freddie died, and good that they didn't do anything stupid like try and tour with another lead singer, who wasn't Freddie.

Theoretically, she can issue a pardon. But that means it's still on the guy's record.

You see, though, here is where having a Queen can be useful. Even she may only have the Official Power to pardon him, she could also Wave the Royal Finger and tell everyone involved to stop acting like children. It might take someone whose opinion is respected (but who doesn't have any real power) to make a Royal Suggestion that the people in power are idiots. Even if it isn't binding, it might be listened to.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You see, though, here is where having a Queen can be useful. Even she may only have the Official Power to pardon him, she could also Wave the Royal Finger and tell everyone involved to stop acting like children.

Does she have a track record of doing that ?

The British have been acting like fools for a long time, maybe she has given up on them

-t

P.S. Maybe we need a Queen for Obama, too.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You see, though, here is where having a Queen can be useful. Even she may only have the Official Power to pardon him, she could also Wave the Royal Finger and tell everyone involved to stop acting like children. It might take someone whose opinion is respected (but who doesn't have any real power) to make a Royal Suggestion that the people in power are idiots. Even if it isn't binding, it might be listened to.

Her Maj has a lot more power than people realise. However, using it is problematic since it gives ammo to the republicans (who'd quite like to turn Buck House into a YMCA for Somalian refugees).

Everyone already knows that the people in power are idiots, but Brits tend to have the solidarity of warm jello.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Everyone already knows that the people in power are idiots, but Brits tend to have the solidarity of warm jello.

Very good, using jello so the Colonials wouldn't be confused. I'll have my JELLY with some whipped cream from a can and some fruit sprinkles on it please.

When are you leaving?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

When are you leaving?

As soon as I figure out how to skirt around the Italian tax system.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

As soon as I figure out how to skirt around the Italian tax system.

Theres no such thing as an Italian Tax System.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Theres no such thing as an Italian Tax System.

Touché.

-t

[Doc HM]

I think a touch of skepticism is in order here. Is this the whole story?

Whatever the crime, and whatever the statutory sentence a jury ALWAYS has the right to find the defendant not guilty. Even if the accused is still holding the axe with his best friends severed head attached and giggling like a loon, a jury can still, for it's own reasons, find him not guilty. And a judge can always find ways to point this out to the jury.

I also find it strange that this story has not made the leap to the national press.