Unintended consequences?

[Shelby07]

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex...il/article.html

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 12:15

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."

- Comments on this story have been disabled for legal reasons

[thechenman]

What a crock...there are just too many stupid laws on the books. The other thing is that too many people are intent on the letter of the law, without taking into consideration the spirit of the law. Common sense would tell you that this case does not make any sense. And the government continues to wonder why everyday citizens don't trust them. Sheesh...

[PigFish]

...Sssssss ssssss ssssss!

Okay the fuse is lit! Stupid people, electing stupid politicians writing stupid laws. We get what we deserve. - Piggy

[mkz]

FUBAR!!

[Ken Gargett]

if indeed the law is 'strict liability' as they say then there was no alternative (and if so, hopefully this will have it changed asap).

but the beak deciding the sentence will have a little more discretion and presumably can find no time to be served and i would suspect, no conviction to be recorded (unless the act invokes set penalties, in which case one would hope that the attorney general or whatever is the local equivalent would step in retrospectively).

problem is that so many laws have unintended and often ridiculous consequences and then we get the band aids that set up loopholes and so on and on.

one doesn't really expect much from pollies anywhere.

[samb]

Seems like a load of horse$hit to me. 5 years in prison for trying to do the right thing. I would think it would be up to the discretion of the judge. What is fair in this situation? Sentancing him for something that is "against the law" but nothing bad happened and he was using good intent. Fooey!! Maybe community service or house arrest, but prison? Geez, people are stupid.

[Kangaroo495]

It's a no-win situation for this guy. He saw the bag in his garden and took it inside before opening it. Therefore, as soon as he picked up the bag, he was in possession of the firearm. Perhaps it could be considered that he was in possession of it from the moment it appeared in his garden.

Surely there's a law which prevents people from being prosecuted when they commit a crime so absurdly unavoidable. Or anyone could go around dropping bags of guns into their enemies' gardens, thereby setting them up to be prosecuted.