UK court clusterfuck - man faces jail for handing in gun

[Feil]

longish link
No confirmation yet from major news sources - this appears to be a legit local news website.

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
Thursday, November 12, 2009, 10:30

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."

Mens rea evidently doesn't mean anything to the arresting officer, the judge, or the prosecution. He shouldn't have touched the gun, to be sure - that's the way it works in the US, too - but it's appalling to see a complete lack of consideration of criminal intent in the legislative. Does anyone know if "strict liability" really has this much legal merit in the UK?

[Vympel]

Mens rea evidently doesn't mean anything to the arresting officer, the judge, or the prosecution. He shouldn't have touched the gun, to be sure - that's the way it works in the US, too - but it's appalling to see a complete lack of consideration of criminal intent in the legislative. Does anyone know if "strict liability" really has this much legal merit in the UK?

Mens rea doesn't apply to offences of strict liability. The concept of strict liability is a very well settled btw.

It sucks, but it is perfectly above board legally - the law probably says something like:-

"(2) Anyone who is in a possession of a firearm [blah blah blah] shall be guilty of an offence.

[blah blah blah] is an offence of strict liability."

The end.

[Darth Tanner]

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.

How can he ring such a high ranking officer and get a personal meeting? Did he not discuss why he wanted to meet him as I'm pretty sure the officer would have advised him to leave the gun alone. If the officer told him to bring the gun in surely that would serve as a good legal defence.

I’m surprised the CPS or the police chose to pursue this especially considering you can murder someone and walk away with a shorter sentence.

[Rogue 9]

My God, that's absolutely pants-on-head retarded. How can such a punishment be remotely justified considering the complete lack of harm that came from his actions?

[Norseman]

EVIL GUNZ! EVIL GUNZ! EVIL GUNZ!

I'm not trying to be flippant here, that's the mindset that leads to these laws and these convictions. Even in Europe Britain is viewed as being a bit bonkers in terms of gun control. At times Britain seems to be some kind of unholy combination of the worst elements of US government and European government.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well, what would happen in the US if someone found a bag of marijuana on the street and walked into a police station saying 'uh, I found this, what do I do with it?'

[CmdrWilkens]

Well, what would happen in the US if someone found a bag of marijuana on the street and walked into a police station saying 'uh, I found this, what do I do with it?'

They might be arrested (based on the amount and the locality) but they almost certainly wouldn't spend longer in jail than necessary to get a judge handy for a release on personal recognizance. The trial would center on motive and the defendant would get off...unless there was something else to the story.

[Atlan]

EVIL GUNZ! EVIL GUNZ! EVIL GUNZ!

I'm not trying to be flippant here, that's the mindset that leads to these laws and these convictions. Even in Europe Britain is viewed as being a bit bonkers in terms of gun control. At times Britain seems to be some kind of unholy combination of the worst elements of US government and European government.

Word.
I mean, I live in the Netherlands, and this is hardly the most gun friendly country in Europe. But if I was to do exactly as the guy in the article, I'll bet I wouldn't spend more than a night in jail. Police and or judge might tear me a new one for potentially fucking up a crime scene, but there would be no "Do Not Pass Go, Do Not collect £ 200,-, Go Directly To Jail" nonsense. Unless there's more going on than is stated in the article it sounds to me like all involved on the law side went full retard.

[Zed Snardbody]

Well, what would happen in the US if someone found a bag of marijuana on the street and walked into a police station saying 'uh, I found this, what do I do with it?'

They might be arrested (based on the amount and the locality) but they almost certainly wouldn't spend longer in jail than necessary to get a judge handy for a release on personal recognizance. The trial would center on motive and the defendant would get off...unless there was something else to the story.

Hell some places it might not even be jail, just a citation you can contest latter if that.

[[R_H]]

My God, that's absolutely pants-on-head retarded. How can such a punishment be remotely justified considering the complete lack of harm that came from his actions?

The British Association of Chief Police Officers wrote a 93-page guide on how to ride a bicycle.

Link

Guide gets dropped after ridicule

[El Moose Monstero]

My God, that's absolutely pants-on-head retarded. How can such a punishment be remotely justified considering the complete lack of harm that came from his actions?

The British Association of Chief Police Officers wrote a 93-page guide on how to ride a bicycle.

Link

Guide gets dropped after ridicule

Um...

"This work was neither requested nor drawn up by ACPO and we do not endorse it," said a spokesman. "It was put forward by a group of well-meaning police officers with an interest in this area.

And what's wrong with someone producing a guide on how to ride a bike with 100% compliance with both legal, safety and highway code rules? Police officers should be in total compliance with all of the above if they're going to seriously enforce the same rules on everyone else. It doesn't do to be fined for riding on a pavement and then ride around the corner and find a police officer doing exactly the same thing. It hardly comes under the same wing as the topic at hand.

[Coyote]

And what do we learn from this?

"Next I find a weapon that has been dumped by some yob, I'll just quietly toss it in the dumpster and walk away." Or bury it and let it rust to meaninglessness a bit first.

If they're this assholish about a guy bringing it in voluntarily, what will they do even if he calls them out and they "find it on his property"? Going to the Hotel Stretchyerpooper regardless.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, what would happen in the US if someone found a bag of marijuana on the street and walked into a police station saying 'uh, I found this, what do I do with it?'

They might be arrested (based on the amount and the locality) but they almost certainly wouldn't spend longer in jail than necessary to get a judge handy for a release on personal recognizance. The trial would center on motive and the defendant would get off...unless there was something else to the story.

Hell some places it might not even be jail, just a citation you can contest latter if that.

Here you _cannot_ be be charged if you turn in a gun. There is a permanent amnesty for turning in guns. Infact you could possibly apply for a license for it, say you found an old gun in your grandfathers henhouse or something. It doesn't even matter if you've had the guns for years beforehand.

[Siege]

Word.
I mean, I live in the Netherlands, and this is hardly the most gun friendly country in Europe. But if I was to do exactly as the guy in the article, I'll bet I wouldn't spend more than a night in jail. Police and or judge might tear me a new one for potentially fucking up a crime scene, but there would be no "Do Not Pass Go, Do Not collect £ 200,-, Go Directly To Jail" nonsense. Unless there's more going on than is stated in the article it sounds to me like all involved on the law side went full retard.

In point of fact, a friend of mine once found a practice grenade on the street (shortly after New Years; presumably some idiot thought it'd be fun to pop off during the celebrations, decided against it at the last minute, and just threw the thing out). He took it into the nearest police station and even though the officer on duty flipped out and told him to never ever do that again (obviously) he got off with a stern talking to along the lines of 'don't bloody pick up potentially dangerous explosives you found on the street you dolt'. No fines, no courts, no jailtime, nothing. So yeah, I would suspect The Netherlands are a bit less hysterical about these things.

[SCRawl]

On the one hand, walking into a police station and taking a shotgun out of your bag has to be a bad idea. On the other hand, what was he supposed to do, sit by the shotgun until a police officer could come by to collect it personally? I guess that that would have been the smart (and responsible) thing to do, but considering he'd gotten advice from the police superintendent, one would think that he ought to be in the clear.

I would expect the judge to impose the lightest possible sentence when the time comes.

[Korvan]

In point of fact, a friend of mine once found a practice grenade on the street (shortly after New Years; presumably some idiot thought it'd be fun to pop off during the celebrations, decided against it at the last minute, and just threw the thing out). He took it into the nearest police station and even though the officer on duty flipped out and told him to never ever do that again (obviously) he got off with a stern talking to along the lines of 'don't bloody pick up potentially dangerous explosives you found on the street you dolt'. No fines, no courts, no jailtime, nothing. So yeah, I would suspect The Netherlands are a bit less hysterical about these things.

I feel it's better to err on the side of caution about handling such objects, but apparently the members of the Vancouver police force do not agree with me. A couple of summers ago, I found a blank from a starters pistol lying on the sidewalk. It was lying in the hot sun and looking at it, it appeared a bit worn and abraded so I didn't want to risk touching it. I called it in to the police and waited around till an officer showed up.

When he arrived, the officer went right over to the cartridge and immediately picked it up, holding it right up to his eye to get a close look at it. When he noticed my expression of concern he told me not to worry as it could not possibly fire as it didn't even have a primer. You'd think that in training, they'd have mentioned rimfire cartridges at some point.

[His Divine Shadow]

Heh, sounds like what you'd expect to me given the mostly shitty and then usually atrophied firearms training most police officers get and then bother keeping up with. The only ones who know their ass from a hole in the ground with regards to firearms are those officers with a private interest.

[Master of Ossus]

Mens rea doesn't apply to offences of strict liability. The concept of strict liability is a very well settled btw.

It sucks, but it is perfectly above board legally - the law probably says something like:-

"(2) Anyone who is in a possession of a firearm [blah blah blah] shall be guilty of an offence.

[blah blah blah] is an offence of strict liability."

The end.

Usually strict liability offenses don't involve felonies and jail-time, though. I mean, with things like speeding it makes perfect sense, but this guy was actually arrested for what happened. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, what would happen in the US if someone found a bag of marijuana on the street and walked into a police station saying 'uh, I found this, what do I do with it?'

I'd say it would depend on where in the US you were and who you were dealing with. I'd personally bet money that if you walked in to my department with a bag of marijuana and said "Hey, I found this and I wanted to turn it in". Then you'd receive a thank you and be on your way.

Furthermore, doesn't the UK believe in such a thing as officer discretion? I couldn't look at someone with a straight face and arrest them after they just told me that found a firearm and brought it in because they didn't want to leave it out in the open. Again, I'd say thank you and they'd be on their way.

[SCRawl]

Furthermore, doesn't the UK believe in such a thing as officer discretion? I couldn't look at someone with a straight face and arrest them after they just told me that found a firearm and brought it in because they didn't want to leave it out in the open. Again, I'd say thank you and they'd be on their way.

This was my thought as well. What seems likely to me is that during the initial encounter at the police station, the convicted man happened to talk to a "by the book" officer. Once the initial report an arrest were made, the hands of the law were tied.

Incidentally, Officer Sith, would you not want to know the name of the citizen who brought in a firearm? Just in case that firearm was later found to have been used in a crime? This is not to say that the citizen would necessarily get into trouble, but discovering the exact circumstances of his having found it might prove useful in such an investigation.

[Winston Blake]

I’m surprised the CPS or the police chose to pursue this especially considering you can murder someone and walk away with a shorter sentence.

My God, that's absolutely pants-on-head retarded. How can such a punishment be remotely justified considering the complete lack of harm that came from his actions?

This is what's called being 'Tough on Guns'. Every time 'tough new gun laws' are brought in (to the applause of the general public) the penalties and/or license fees go up and up. If I recall correctly, unlawful possession of firearm parts is treated the same as unlawful possession of whole firearms. This means if he had found a little shotgun hammer lying on the street and handed it in, he would have been treated similarly.

But really it's not a matter of 'fair' or 'unfair' - or being 'retarded', or a 'clusterfuck' - it's just how the law works. What it boils down to is this: the severity of these laws has been decided to be a fair balance against the danger of gun-related crime. If a society considers the problem and judges that threat to be very serious, then its laws will reflect that view. If that means unlawful firearm possession carries a stiffer sentence than murder, then well, that's just the way it is.

[Formless]

Bullshit. That just shifts the blame for being stupid from the officers in charge to the society as a whole for allowing such a moronic, unforgiving law to be passed in the first place.

[Rogue 9]

But really it's not a matter of 'fair' or 'unfair' - or being 'retarded', or a 'clusterfuck' - it's just how the law works.

The hell. It has everything to do with being pants-on-head retarded, because it's a bad law to begin with. It being law doesn't equate to it being right.

[Winston Blake]

Bullshit. That just shifts the blame for being stupid from the officers in charge to the society as a whole for allowing such a moronic, unforgiving law to be passed in the first place.

Yes I think that's accurate - I consider society to blame for such laws.

The hell. It has everything to do with being pants-on-head retarded, because it's a bad law to begin with. It being law doesn't equate to it being right.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm facepalming at it, not defending it. Out of is/ought, you're saying 'ought', and I'm saying 'is'. It sucks - I pity the guy. I'm just saying that at the end of the day, I consider it highly unlikely that this guy will get off or the laws will change. It's like what Vympel said:

It sucks, but it is perfectly above board legally

[Kamakazie Sith]

Furthermore, doesn't the UK believe in such a thing as officer discretion? I couldn't look at someone with a straight face and arrest them after they just told me that found a firearm and brought it in because they didn't want to leave it out in the open. Again, I'd say thank you and they'd be on their way.

This was my thought as well. What seems likely to me is that during the initial encounter at the police station, the convicted man happened to talk to a "by the book" officer. Once the initial report an arrest were made, the hands of the law were tied.

Incidentally, Officer Sith, would you not want to know the name of the citizen who brought in a firearm? Just in case that firearm was later found to have been used in a crime? This is not to say that the citizen would necessarily get into trouble, but discovering the exact circumstances of his having found it might prove useful in such an investigation.

Knowing the name, dob, and address via picture ID (if available), and phone number would of course be required. I didn't want to bother with the obvious details...