Shotgun man faces years in jail
A man who handed a shotgun that he found into a police station may face up to five years in jail for possession of a firearm.
Paul Clarke says it started with what looked like a bag of rubbish dumped at the end of his garden Clarke said: “I saw a black bag here, looked inside, and there was a shotgun.”
He was prosecuted and a jury found him guilty of possession of a firearm. He is now facing five years in jail. He says he was simply doing his civic duty – handing the shotgun in at his local police station. He has been advised not to discuss his case in detail until sentencing next month.
Jack of Kent was the reason I appeared on the news briefly to comment as he suggested to Channel 4 that they do a short interview with me. Jack of Kent did the heavy spade work on this with a very good blog post on the issue which may be read here.
It is a pretty shocking story and, for my part, I think the Police and CPS have made the wrong decision here and I very much hope the judge will discharge Clarke under the ‘exceptional circumstances’ provision which he is fully entitled to do. As I say on Channel 4 News - this case illustrates the absurdity and dangers of strict liability offences and minimum sentences. I am not a fan of minimum sentences. While I am not over bothered about ‘maximum sentences’ being prescribed by Parliament, I take the view that the matter of sentence should be left to judges and that parliament should be very careful when introducing ‘minimum sentences’… or better… parliament should not introduce minimum sentences at all into any statute. Do, please, read Jack of Kent’s review of this case. Hopefully we will not have a miscarriage of justice when Clarke comes to be sentenced before Christmas.
While Surrey Police seem reluctant to comment on this case because the judge has yet to sentence (Clarke has been convicted so not ‘sub judice’), The CPS representative was not reluctant, nor am I or others. One thing I am reasonably confident of is that Crown Court judges make their own decisions and are not swayed by news, bloggers or anyone else – and that… is as it should be. So we are free to express a view here given that Paul Clarke has been convicted.
Channel 4 News film (short 3.42 mins)
And… well done to Channel 4 News (few mainstream tv/newspapers did) for taking a lot of time to cover this important issue…. and to a young journalist Holly Thompson at a local Surrey newspaper for breaking the story in the first place.
***
UPDATE 21 December 2009
The judge gave Clarke a 12 month suspended sentence – applying the exceptional circumstances rule. It was a very unusual case. For my part, not that it matters what I think – the judge applied common sense all round. Good judgment.
Wow. Talk about counter-productive policy. The statute aside, the police should be welcoming any guns turned into them with no questions asked, lest they have more left on the street (perhaps literally).
Otherwise, fully agree with problems of “strict liability.” Surely such a standard flies in the standard of some common law principle of justice?
I also wondered if some legal quibbling could focus on “possession.” Does the statute at all define what that is?
Cathy – it is bizarre….. I do hope there is no hint that as Police couldn’t get Clarke for earlier ‘difficulties’ they decided to ‘put him up for this one’… it stinks, frankly.
If a High Court judge found a carrier bacg with a sawn off shotgun in it – he would commit the same offence… I doubt, however, that he or she would be prosecuted. therein lies the poterntial for injustice
We have a lot of very poorly thought out legislation – particularly in the criminal and civil liberties field. Judges should decide sentences… not parliament and certainly not right wing tabloid newspapers…
It certainly does stink-the statement from the cps is absolutely ridiculous.
James C – we don’t live, as most of us well know, in a perfect world… but this decision of the CPS was very poor… especially, since I understand, Surrey Police had a leaflet encouraging people to hand in weapons…. ridiculous… that is why I wonder if there is more than meets the eye… I do hope not.
I certainly am pleased, however, that I don’t live in Surrey and have people leaving weapons in my garden.
I don’t buy this ex post facto justification at all – and I am delighted that Channel 4 News took a lot of time (and they did) to interview a lot of people for a very short piece.
C4 News sent a very experienced producer/ camera director down to do the interview… all the way to the Medway (where I am temporarily based) just to get the the short piece… on a SATURDAY morning just to get a view about this astonishing case …. and it clear they invested real time and energy in putting this story together with many other interviews and the structure of the piece … and in doing so made the issue more public…. so… they get my vote.
I’ve got no problem with Paul Clarke’s arrest, prosecution or conviction.
Are we listening to the same channel 4 video? Clarke says he saw a “bag of rubbish” and took it inside his house to have a peek inside when he found the sawed off shotgun.
To top it off, he sleeps on it and the next day calls the cops to say, “I’ve got something for you”. Not sensing the “doing the right thing urgency” when it took him a further three days to be arsed to go to the cop shop.
Who among us would keep a sawed off shotgun “they found” in their house? Not me. You? Don’t be silly. We’d ALL not touch it and ring the police immediately.
As for strict liability, we have several crimes that are strict liability. Mostly things to do with public safety where the stakes are high – like motoring offences. That’s why the cops aren’t really interested in the reasons why you were speeding or drunk – just that you were. Given Government interest in public safety, it’s perfectly legitimate for the Government to make firearms possession strict liability.
I’m shedding no tears for Paul. Dumb people who make “poor choices” go to jail all the time.
Kris – you have to be comfortable with your view on particular cases….
I am quite happy to look at ‘issues’……but I am not qualified to look at particular cases…… Iam an ‘observer’ (No more than that). I am quite happy to listen to all who have a view.
I hold to my view on this case – because it does seem that there may be a cock up? We shall see what the trial judge has to say – he heard all the evidence…. but… he is reported as saying that it was ‘an unusual case’. Unless my memory serves me badly.
Clarke was due to be sentenced on the 11th Dec, does anyone know what happened?
Bonviveur… The sentencing is, i believe 17th or 18th. Jack of Kent is going as is Holly Thompson – so it will be reported fully.
It takes the judges far too long to get round to sentencing offenders these days. In fact, the whole criminal legal process is abysmally slow and that in itself brings about injustice. Weeks can pass to get a “charging decision” out of the CPS. Then weeks can pass prior to committal of cases by the magistrates’ courts. Then more weeks pass before trial. Then, if guilt is established, further weeks pending sentencing.
The down side of how Mr Clarke seems to have been treated is that some will not hand in weapons which they find. It is far from uncommon that these things are dumped.
I also worry when I see the media refusing to comment about these cases. A judge of the Crown Court ought not to be influenced in sentencing by opinion expressed in the media. If that possibility is a serious concern then we have considerable reason to fear for the administration of justice.
Obiter…. I can see no reason not to comment on a case once a conviction has been given. I cannot imagine that any judge would be influenced by media – whereas a jury may well be before conviction. CPS had no difficulty in commenting on this particular case when Jack of Kent asked them questions.
It just gets worse and worse with people being arrested and not charged, or just cautioned. Some being charged with other crimes and the gun in the case being ignored and in my firend’s case, he was charged with possessing a firearm and given 5 years. The problem is, it was a replica and the method of supposed adaptation is dubious to say the least. Please have a nose at http://www.justiceforandymartin.org.uk and see if this case is in any way of interest. Gun law and its application is completely broken and the wrong people are being convicted of the wrong crimes. That is not to say that soem criminals are not being got, but there are a growing number of innocent individuals who are being locked up with no real evidence being placed before the courts and with cases varying so wildly that some dangerous criminals are being let go. This case appears to be just a bloke with no real care for having a gun and being silly in his way of contacting the police. Another miscarriage of justice just highlighting the poor use (abuse) of firearms law.
It’s a bummer I was not sitting on the jury. I would have treated my fellow jurors to my winning personality until they came round to my way of thinking, and delivered a perverse verdict of not guilty.
Would be interested to hear what Keir Starmer has to say about his underlings’ decision to prosecute.
Rob… I’ll have a look at this…. You should also pass it on to Jack of Kent – he may well be interested given his focus on the Paul Clarke case.
Thanks
Well done Mike; I think it’s wonderful that you expressed the sentiments you did about the worrying oversights in the legislation and subsequent policy measures.
This could be the beginning of the end for law. It’s just not ‘real time’ enough for cyberspeed or evolutionary fast forwards…..
Just a thought
This case is very concerning as it appears to undermine the long established principle that one can hand in a firearm to the police without a possession charge being automatically applied. You must expect to answer some questions but if you acted in good faith then you should expect nothing to happen to you. Since I was alarmed that this route may no longer be open to the public, I made some enquiries. I have a FAC and have extensive contacts within the legitimate firearms trade. The responses I received was that it was rather less clear cut than the reporting indicated. Clarke appeared to have had the gun for several days before handing it in. In addition, a shotgun that Clarke had previously had registered to him had turned up in a sawn off state. I am still concerned, as things don’t appear to add up in this case, but there appears to be more to it than a member of public handing in a s5 weapon in good faith. I hope the full details will come out a soon as possible.
Stephen – if you follow the links in the post above to Jack of Kent’s blog – there is a full discussion there. the Channel 4 film also covered the matter well.
The judge gave a suspended 12 month sentence.
[...] British blougger, has written extensively on this case and it’s well worth the read (via the deadly Charon). As with all strict liability crimes and crimes that involve mandatory-minimum sentences, the [...]
One of the most important acts of any dictator is to relieve the public of ANY weapons to make rebellion impossible.
The 2nd amendment in the US is not so that people can go deer hunting , it’s so that the people can defend themselves when the
government goes bad – and it always goes bad.
The UK people have been successfully neutered and its time we got our balls back!
Let me get this straight:
1) This man is a former soldier
2) As such, I can only assume he has some training in handling and using firearms
3) He turned in an illegal weapon (I use that term with some unease-I don’t know what the definition of a “sawed off shotgun is in the UK).
4) He was arrested and proscuted for his efforts????
I suppose I should not be suprised given the hysterical paranoia and fear that the police and government in the UK have regarding firearms. At least we have some common sense left here in Canada in that as long as you have the requisite training and applicable firearm licence endorsements, you can own pretty much whatever kind of firearm you want. As far as firearms ownership goes, a gun is like a condom….I’d rather have one and not need it than need it and not have it.