(UK) Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html




Read the whole article. "Sensible" firearms law from our cousins across the pond. "Black bin liner" is UK for "trash bag".

Guy saw a black trash bag in his lawn, wondered what was in it, found a shotgun...brought the shotgun to the local police...and now faces five years in jail.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

Another zero tolerance society which practices insanity in the name of public safety...imagine how many found guns will go unreported because of this complete nonsense..

Bit shocking that an English judge is so blatantly ignorant or uncaring about the principle of mens rea, but there you are.

If he had summoned the police to come to his property to pick the gun up, they probably still could have arrested him for possessing it when he picked the bag up to see what was in it.

Damn, just damn. I hope there is some process by which the man can be pardoned.

From the story:" 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.""

Yeah, this is pretty fucked up UK. Get your shit in order ASAP, because this is beyond ridiculous. You've just set a horrible precedent.

Are you serious?

This is beyond insane.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction ...

... 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.

He telephoned police, and he didn't say "there is a firearm on my property I would like removed", he said he'd like to "pop in and see" the Chief Superintendent.

Strict liability and intent aside, I'm wondering what I might have felt had I been a chief superintendent who had a former soldier "pop in and see" me and lay a shotgun on the table. Or what kind of moron would do that.


Just curious. If someone ineligible to possess a firearm in the US is found in possession of a firearm, what defences are available?

...who knew that a gun not pointed at someone is unlikely to be dangerous.

While Prosecutor Stalk (how Dickensian!) seems to fancy himself an English Inspector Javert, such devotion to the letter of the law might bode ill for civil disobedience in the UK.

They would have had to build a new women's prison just to house all the 'criminals' from the Greenham Common protests...

Okay, he couldn't buy one without going through whatever legal maze the UK requires of people to get a permit. But could he possess one?

"The sun never sets on the British empire."


The British Empire in 1897, marked in the traditional colour for imperial British dominions on maps
source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

How did they get so castrated?

We shot a shotgun at clay pigeons the whole morning. They never asked for IDS and one of us was schizophrenic

Then he would have a right to possess a gun, a right worthy of respect and vigorous defence.

:sarcasm:

Sort of like how in the US it's technically a felony to have a picture of an infant breast-feeding or a little kid in a bath ("Production/Possession of Child Pornography"), but people *usually* aren't prosecuted because the prosecutor realizes that the case is moronic. Once in a blue moon, an over-zealous prosecutor does go after a grandmother who has some pictures of her grandkids in the bath (That exact kind of case has happened at least once), and my blood pressure reaches dangerous levels. Usually, public outcry will cause the prosecutor to drop the case and slink off.

Edit: Also, if they'd go after him for turning in the shotgun, they might have been nearly as eager to prosecute him even if he just reported it ("Look, he has a shotgun on his property! Stop, criminal!")

"Strict liability and intent aside, I'm wondering what I might have felt had I been a chief superintendent who had a former soldier "pop in and see" me and lay a shotgun on the table. Or what kind of moron would do that."

I suppose you'd prefer that he'd left it on his lawn for a child to find. If UK police response is as slow as it is in the US, Mr. Garnett may have passed a birthday waiting for them to attive to remove the shotgun.

It's a sorry state of affairs when one is prosecuted for doing exactly what any responsible person should do in such a case - minimize the danger.

Just thinking aloud here. If the UK is anything like the US in respect to firearms training, almost any military of prior military member is far better trained in the safe use, storage, and disposal than any cop except a qualified armorer.

By all means, let the UK prosecute, then you applaud their actions for ruining a man's lofe because he did the right, although not strictly legal, thing.

standpoint, most civil libertarians would agree that zero tolerance a.k.a. strict liability is usually insanity and bad policy. Determination of intent must be the key for fairness in prosecution IMHO.

Did you know, Iverglas, that in most municipalities, including the gun control mecca of washington,dc, you can drop off a gun at the police station no questions asked?

Which of these nations the biggest firearms homicide rate per 100,000 population

Canada?

Norway?

Sweden?

France?

UK?

Germany?

Good old US of A?

if our non-firearms homicide rate wasn't higher than their total homicide rate. Our problems are poverty, the drug war and gang culture, not guns.

This is an excellent example of a case where jury nullification would be expected, at least here in the USA.

Guy does the right thing and gets screwed for it.

I've been to the UK, had a nice time but there is no way I'd ever live in such a nanny-state.

This is the future the grabbers and anti-rights crowd want for us.

Zero-tolerance in a society means things will work, but corruptly.

now that this monster is behind bars.

Three cheers for common sense gun control laws!

Firstly this case was not prosecuted by the police but the Crown Prosecution Service, secondly Clarke was not found guilty by a Judge but by a Jury of his peers and thirdly Clarke has a history of violent crime.

Here's the same nice man Paul Clarke, in the same Surrey news papers last year, although acquitted he freely admits to assaulting a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) Inspector. Obviously rather than assertain what the inspector complete with clipboard, suit and flouresent Jacket was doing and ask for ID, Mr Clarke hit him with a broom handle and said he would break his f****** legs. To be honest Clarke was lucky to walk away from that incident, but what comes around goes around, and I have little sympathy for him or his story with regard to find a shotgun with live ammunition dumped in his garden.

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html


A DVLA Inspector

Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free

Monday, September 29, 2008, 17:27

A man accused of beating a DVLA inspector with a broom handle has walked free from court after claiming his alleged victim had exaggerated the incident.

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.

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."

After the court was told that it was not possible to prove that the bruising to Mr Hart's arm had actually been caused by Mr Clarke, prosecuting counsel Laurence Aiolfi applied to have the offence changed from assault by beating to one of common assault.

But the judge, Mr. Recorder Stuart Lawson-Rogers, refused to agree to this - allowing Mr Clarke's appeal to succeed.



Far from being some sort of Misguided Saint Mr Clarke has a long history of violent offences, and is not someone who the police would want walking through the streets of leafy Surrey with a Shotgun and Ammunition.

The police in England & Wales do not prosecute, they merely pass the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is made up of professional Barristers and Lawyers who look at the evidence and decide whether a prosecution is in the public interest, the truth is most of the information regarding this case has not been disclosed yet, although there must have been sufficient evidence to convince a Jury of his peers of his guilt. As for sentencing I very much doubt Mr Clarke will get a long sentence, in fact I would be surprised if he gets more than suspended sentence and a community service order.

based on past crimes.

Yeah, he's one of those guys, you know, bad people, so arrest him for whatever.

He was convicted by a Jury who aren't even told a defendents criminal history but merely presented with the evidence of the case in hand, therefore he was not convicted in relation to past crimes at all.

And do you really think 5 years is warranted for a man turning in a gun to the police that he found in his yard? Who is being protected here?

He hasn't been sentenced yet, so talk of 5 years is nonsense and he can appeal against any sentence he is given. He was also found guilty by a Jury of his peers, not by the police
or Crown Prosecution Service. Nor do the Police, CPS or Judicial System make the law, they merely implement and interpret it, it is Parliament (the Executive) who are responsible for the law of the land.

As for walking through the streets with a loaded gun and ammunition, it's hardly a clever thing to do, and he put himself and the public at danger by doing so. Sadly poor Harry Stanley who was only carrying a chair leg didn't live to tell the tale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/708926.stm

because he did nothing wrong.

Only in the UK where the gun-paranoia cult has taken a firm hold, could a soldier turning in a weapon he found on his property to the police be considered a major threat to society. Here he'd be thanked and sent on his way.

The police may not have tried him, but they did choose to arrest him. And simply saying he could appeal is a weak defense. That could be made for any fraudulent arrest.

Firstly you have not been privy to the same details as the Jury about what exactly occurred, you have merely read an article by a local journalist. Secondly it is illegal to carry a gun in a public place in the UK even with a license, so what he did was illegal and warranted an arrest. Thirdly his arrest was not fraudulent as it is illegal to have a gun in a public place.

As I have already mentioned, what he did could have led to his own death, just look at the case of poor Harry Stanley. The police literature tells people to ring the police if they find a gun, not to walk through the streets with both gun and live ammunition putting yourself and the public at risk.

What if he had found a bomb and walked through the streets with it instead of phoning the police, would that be okay because he thought he should hand a bomb in at his local police station. A fully loaded shawn off shotgun with a sensitive trigger in a plastic bag could equally be a danger to members of the public and indeed the defendant themselves.

Just because you find something does not mean you walk through the streets and public areas with it, and I am sure the same would apply to anything potentially harmful to the public ranging from firearms and explosives through to poisons and radioactive materials. Furthermore it does not matter if you were aware of the offense or had no intent to harm, as ignorance of the law is no defence and such reckless actions are subject to Strict liability (criminal) laws.

Finally I acknowledge that guns are treated as dangerous objects in the UK, however we have strict gun laws for a reason, and that reason is to help prevent tragedies like Hungerford or Dunblane, and since we enacted stricter gun laws in the UK in 1997 there have been no gun related massacres of the type which are all too prevalent in the United States.

In terms of homicides they have been falling steadily over recent years, and the UK has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

There were 42 gun-related deaths in England and Wales last year an 18% decrease (population 53 million), of which 15 gun deaths were in London, which has a population of nearly 8 million people.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html

The murder rate in England and Wales (pop 53 million) has fallen to its lowest in 20 years, with 648 homicides recorded in 2008/09 – 136 fewer than the year before, a 17% decrease in the murder rate. Of which 139 murders were in London (pop 8 million), a fall of 10.9%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/16/crime-survey-murder-rate-lowest

Strict Liability Law may seem unfair but it is there to protect society -

Quote: "These laws are applied either in regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a person upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to maximise the deterrent value of the offence. The imposition of strict liability may operate very unfairly in individual cases. For example, in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635, a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless. The justification is that the misuse of drugs is a grave social evil and pharmacists should be encouraged to take even unreasonable care to verify prescriptions before supplying drugs. Similarly, where liability is imputed or attributed to another through vicarious liability or corporate liability, the effect of that imputation may be strict liability albeit that, in some cases, the accused will have a mens rea imputed and so, in theory, will be as culpable as the actual wrongdoer."

Modes of culpability in English Law - I would suggest that Clarke was found guilty under the latter of these modes.

Direct intention - the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur

Oblique intention - the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.

Knowingly - the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur

Recklessness - the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not

Criminal negligence - the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonsable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences

Clarke has not been sentenced, and it should be noted that hardly any criminal caught with a weapon has been given the full five years and the Judge may merely decide to either hand down a suspended sentence or community service order, neither of which involve going to prison.

Firearm offenses in the UK doubled in the ten years following Dunblane, tighter restrictions on firearms ownership notwithstanding, and from 2000 to 2008, the number of recorded non-fatal assaultive GSWs tripled. The conclusion is inescapable that there are almost certainly more illegal handguns in the UK now than there were prior to Dunblane, that there are more people willing to use them, and that these people are increasingly "casual" offenders rather than "professional" criminals.

Note that your trumpeted drops in the UK homicide rate imply that the rate was previously higher; what comes down must have gone up first. So the level now is the lowest it's been since 1987. Which implies that prior to 1987, the homicide rate was lower still, even though that was before the post-Hungerford and post-Dunblane restrictions on private firearms ownership. How odd; it's almost as if tightening gun laws doesn't affect the violent crime rate!

The argument used in both the cases of the UK and Australia that "there have been no gun related massacres" since the passage of the latest round of restrictions is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The Netherlands and Norway, to name two examples, permit private handgun ownership, but have not suffered mass shootings comparable to Dunblane. France suffered the Nanterre shooting (8 dead, 19 wounded) in 2002, but did not tighten its gun laws, and has not had a comparable incident since. Germany, despite having quite stringent gun laws, has suffered three mass shootings in the past decade (Erfurt, Emsdetten and Winnenden). There's no consistent pattern to be discerned based on restrictiveness of firearms laws. One pattern that does seem emerge is that mass/spree shootings have become much more frequent since the advent of cable/satellite 24-hour rolling news channels, starting with the launch of CNN in June 1980, and their tendency to give unrelenting, world-wide coverage to every mass shooting, invariably painting the shooter as some kind of dreadful anti-hero (instead of the pathetic loser he invariably is), and inspiring no end of copy-cats.

Pop quiz: who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2006, and what did he/she/they receive it for? I bet you don't know without looking it up. But you probably know the names of the shooters at Hungerford, Dunblane and Virginia Tech. Why? Why would you know the names of those fuckheads instead of the people who identified HIV and linked it to AIDS, and/or the people who identified HPV as the cause of cervical cancer? Other than that the news media blasted you for weeks about the murdering fuckheads, and barely mentioned the people who saved infinitely more lives than any mass shooter could ever take.

But stabbing death rate increases have been outstripping the gun decrease, hasn't it?

Oops.

"As for walking through the streets with a loaded gun and ammunition, it's hardly a clever thing to do, and he put himself and the public at danger by doing so."

You must be British. Only there can doing a good deed be classed as "putting people in danger".

And yes, I lived there for 7 1/2 years. Was a victim of actual crimes numerous times, none of which ever got any attention from police. Your system, it is broken. I suggest you fix it.

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.


I walk the streets with a loaded weapon and ammunition every day of my life and it hasn't endangered anybody. As for Harry Stanley... Just sounds like a good fucking reason NOT to live in Britain. Evidently British subjects are scared shitless of people carrying stuff in bags but the police can murder anyone they want without consequence.

You know, 18 year-olds buying teaspoons for the younger kids, leading to "Don't Lie For The Other Guy"-type posters in the Housewares department (e.g. "A butter knife can get you twenty-to-life"), etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_eGJmKMwJo

Banning guns didn't stop crime in Britain. But of course some people still think getting stabbed is better than being shot.

After all, every loyal subject of the Crown had their firearms confiscated neatly and completely. Ten years later, you had to be a member of the IRA to own a gun and the Home Office was negotiating on that.