Five years imprisonment for doing a good deed.

Dimrill · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 15:34

Quote:

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."

The moral of the story is to just ignore everything you see and keep your head down, voter.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

Quote:

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.

What an absolute piece of shit. I hope someone leaves a bag of cocaine in his jacket pocket at a party, then throws the fucker in the cells.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 15:43

"I need to see a policeman, I have something to hand in."

"Just take a seat, they'll be with you."

"... ... ... I'll be back."

Thirty seconds later, car crashes through front of cop-shop:

"Oh no. In reparking my car I have pressed accelerate instead of the breaking. My face is red."

One minute later:

"Oh no. In handing over this gun, I am accidently firing this gun at you, the policemen. How do I stop firing? This is most awkward, this firing that I am doing..."

It's a common problem that the police endure almost every week, dramatised with creative license in the popular Terminator franchise, hense the strict laws on the ettiquette of gun-handing-in.

Plissken · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 15:44

Quite clearly the correct decision by law, but the law itself is an arse. Surely someone should be able to apply common sense at some point during proceedings?

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 15:49

Dimrill wrote:

Quite astounding.

Quote:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Fuck this fucking country sometimes. Honestly.

It's like this:

Page 4 of paper: SCOUTS AND GUIDES DESPERATE FOR NEW LEADERS - it's a disgrace that nobody is willing to take the time to volunteer for these youth movements.

FEAR ON THE STREETS - chavs running wild, ratboys terrorize neighbourhoods, don't children get brought up properly any more?

Page 5 (facing that): PAEDOPHILES BEHIND EVERY BUSH: Every adult must now pass a CRB check before they can even look at a child, even if it's their own. Ministers calling for women who have just given birth to fill in CRB forms before they will be handed their newborn. Paediatricians are being rounded up and thrown into a vat of acid. Ministers are further calling for death and torture for anyone who touches a child, walks past a child or thinks about children. Please place this newspaper on the ground and await the death squads because this article has just made you think about children.

WOMAN GIVEN POLICE CAUTION FOR TELLING CHILD OFF: Librarian Miriam Cuticura, 34, was given an official caution after telling her five year old son Felix to stop misbehaving. Beastly Miriam, from Barnstaple, was beaten senseless in the back of a police van and left on a wasteground. She was warned not to use the caution papers to stem the bleeding from her wounds.

Anyway. There was a similar amnesty of firearms in Toronto, which we took advantage of when my grandfather had to be into a home. We recovered his rifle from its hiding place in the closet, put it in the car, drove to the police station, and went in and said we had a rifle in the car we wanted to hand in. A cop came out and carried it in for us, and LET IT SIT THERE ON THE COUNTER while he filled the forms in. Every single cop who walked past the reception came over and stroked it lustily.

JohnCoffey · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 15:58

That's fucking ridiculous.

It's like arresting all of the people in a bank for being accomplises if it got robbed.

Seriously, what the fuck?

Edit. Or how about all those years ago when rambo knives and the ilk were all banned and they asked people to put them in drop bins? They may aswell have sat and fucking nicked everyone who put knives in them

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

Plissken wrote:

Quite clearly the correct decision by law, but the law itself is an arse. Surely someone should be able to apply common sense at some point during proceedings?

This is just it. The judge or defence or someone should have made it clearer to the jury that the intent of the law matters more than its letter. What else could he have done, waited for an amnesty? I'd have likely done the same thing, though possibly after shooting my neighbour's dogs.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:02

Plissken wrote:

Quite clearly the correct decision by law, but the law itself is an arse. Surely someone should be able to apply common sense at some point during proceedings?

The defence:

"That was a right pretty speech, your honour. But what is a firearms charge? English law defines it a person as being guilty by physical possession, BY PHYSICAL POSSESSION." etc.

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:08

sinister agent wrote:

What else could he have done, waited for an amnesty? I'd have likely done the same thing, though possibly after shooting my neighbour's dogs.

Waited for a disinterested copper to turn up three hours later, only to find the gun has since been spotted by some passing chavs and snatched. The copper will then arrest him anyway, as he could only have known it was a gun if he'd opened the bag, and that's INTENTION TO LOOK AT A FIREARM, that is.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:16

I think so far I've had four enhanced CRB checks. Thank the lord too, as without my practically yearly check there's no number of little tykes I wouldn't have got my grubby hands on.

Dr Lave · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5979

Hmmm, this story seems quite one sided, so I'm not jumping to any conclusions.

I think the obvious thing to do would be to leave it where it is and ring the cops to come out and do some CSI magic on where it was dumped and deal with it safetly. The police might take ages to come out over most things, but guns and shit make them pull their arses out. If a guns been dumped it's probably been used for something. And doesn't want your prints all over it.

Not wait a night, pick it up, then waltz through town with a shotgun and ammo. That was ridiculously dangerous thing to do. Not because he would kill anyone or anything, but because if someone spotted what he was doing he could have been shot by the armed reaction squad peeps.

Still being an idiot shouldn't be 5 years in jail though.

But seriously who wouldn't think to ring up and at least explain the situation first?

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:24

I suppose the next step from this is for them to do you if a passing gang member dumps their gun into your bin. Why not? After all, they already want to charge you if a passing pillock throws their coke can into your 'non-recyclable waste' bin.

Meanwhile, you nick a car, leads the police on a merry chase, putting hundreds of innocent motorists at risk. A fleet of police cars, a helicopter and a huge crash later, they smash the windows in with batons, drag you out, and sentence you to 100 hours community service with a six month driving ban.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16653

I can see the how this has happened though. They are rightly taking a tough line on guns and if just saying that you "just found it in a bag and were going to hand it in, honestly" were ever allowed as a defence then there would be problems. I highly suspect that when the law was framed that they never really envisaged a scenario like this one and that there will be some top level intervention and ultimately a just outcome.

Dr Lave · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5979

The guy found a gun. And waited for a day.
The guy rang the police and asked for a meeting. But didn't mention A FUCKING GUN.
The guy thought that carrying a loaded gun through the streets was a good idea.
The guy thought that a police chief on knowing that a man wants to see him (but not WHY) would react well to a man walking in and putting a gun onto the table unannounced.

Yeah, your a army man, but then you should know better than that.

Phoenix Wright's throat would be horse with the shouting he would be doing to this testimony.

The guy is an idiot or lying. But either way there is more to the story.

kalmar · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:43

As Lave said, this might not be as clear cut a scandal as is made out.
And, if he was "just doing the right thing" it seems highly unlikely he'll actually be sent to jail for it.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:43

Lave for his own series of DS Law Games, that was an excellent desk pounding, arm pointing blow by blow.

JohnCoffey · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:49

Dr Lave wrote:

The guy found a gun. And waited for a day.
The guy rang the police and asked for a meeting. But didn't mention A FUCKING GUN.
The guy thought that carrying a loaded gun through the streets was a good idea.
The guy thought that a police chief on knowing that a man wants to see him (but not WHY) would react well to a man walking in and putting a gun onto the table unannounced.

Yeah, your a army man, but then you should know better than that.

Phoenix Wright's throat would be horse with the shouting he would be doing to this testimony.

The guy is an idiot or lying. But either way there is more to the story.

But if he had opened up the barrel and took out the catridges then his prints would have been on those too? I dunno, I suppose he could have used gloves but someone else's prints could well have been on them. I agree with your points though. Personally I would have either broken it up and disposed of it or disarmed it and left it in a bin outside the police station before phoning them from a phonebox, or something. But that's only because I am paranoid.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:50

or just call the police and let them get it.

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 16:52

JohnCoffey wrote:

Personally I would have either broken it up and disposed of it or disarmed it and left it in a bin outside the police station before phoning them from a phonebox, or something. But that's only because I am paranoid.

Because there's certainly no CCTV outside a police station to see you putting it into the bin!

Bobbyaro · **Joined:** 18th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 11914

Fucking hell, how did this get to court? I despair, this poor man. Genuinely fucked off by this.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

NervousPete wrote:

I think so far I've had four enhanced CRB checks. Thank the lord too, as without my practically yearly check there's no number of little tykes I wouldn't have got my grubby hands on.

I've had one, and I started the job several weeks before it was even sent off for processing. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if it never was. In that time, I kidnapped approximately 50 teenaged girls. It was great!

Also I was supposed to have one for a library job I started, but never did*. I contented myself with taking indecent photographs of children for a few months, but my heart wasn't really in that one.

*In defence of hillingdon council, at the time I was offered the job, this was not a requirement. It merely took them so long to give me a starting date that by that point, it had been added to the job thingies. In other words, they weren't imcompetently negligent. They were merely incompetent.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

KovacsC wrote:

or just call the police and let them get it.

Yep, they would be there in just under 48 hours too.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 17:15

not for a fire arm. Or have you rang the Police after finding a gun and it took 2 days?

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

I've rang the police for other stuff, and they have said "We are on our way right now", and they never showed up.

So, basically I have zero faith in the idea of phoning the police.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 17:18

they do get pulled to stuff with a higher priority. There are not enough police.

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 17:19

In the four dealings I've had with them recently, on only one did I at any point see an actual police officer regarding it. (these were: attacked by chavs in the street, chavs kicking in garage door, raging chavs outside the pub fighting, tax disc falling off bike)

JohnCoffey · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 17:44

MetalAngel wrote:

JohnCoffey wrote:

Personally I would have either broken it up and disposed of it or disarmed it and left it in a bin outside the police station before phoning them from a phonebox, or something. But that's only because I am paranoid.

Because there's certainly no CCTV outside a police station to see you putting it into the bin!

True. I've not lived anywhere with cameras.. Yet.. So I suppose I am a bit naive. They were all brought in when I was in the USA and we don't have them here. No need really, most we get is the odd drunken argument outside the pub.

I was just thinking back to the time the police offered drop bins for knives that had become illegal. I had a couple of screwed up survival knives I used to use when fishing and camping and decided to get rid of them.

JohnCoffey · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 17:44

KovacsC wrote:

or just call the police and let them get it.

Thing is what's the difference between that and walking into a station with it?

You still have it in your posession

KovacsC · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 17:47

well other than your not walking through a street with ammo and a gun. Plus the police can examine what it was in.

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

sinister agent wrote:

Plissken wrote:

Quite clearly the correct decision by law, but the law itself is an arse. Surely someone should be able to apply common sense at some point during proceedings?

This is just it. The judge or defence or someone should have made it clearer to the jury that the intent of the law matters more than its letter. What else could he have done, waited for an amnesty? I'd have likely done the same thing, though possibly after shooting my neighbour's dogs.

This could have gone no other way, as SA said. The intent of the law is clear and the judge would have had no option but to tell the jury they should find for the prosecution. Now it has to go be appealed all the way to the High Court, because they're the only ones who can do anything about it. Strict liability is fucking idiot, because it was pushed in by fucking idiots. Home secretrary could probably quash it, but then that'd ruin the law, so won't happen. Millions of pounds down the drain* because our politicians are knee-jerk fucks who refuse to think things through.

*Or, if the report is to be believed, a socially-minded man spends 2 years in prison and comes out (understandably) a complete authority-hating cunt with a flappy arsehole (well, that bit's not so understandable).

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 18:02

KovacsC wrote:

Plus the police can examine what it was in.

"Looks like this is a case we'll have to put together piece...

...by piece."

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

JohnCoffey wrote:

I was just thinking back to the time the police offered drop bins for knives that had become illegal. I had a couple of screwed up survival knives I used to use when fishing and camping and decided to get rid of them.

It's an entirely different situation if they actually announce an amnesty, of course.

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

Technically not, though. Strict liability still applies, they just promise not to look.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

I'm pretty sure if they say "we will not arrest you", they can't then arrest you. Surely?

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 18:22

Craster wrote:

I'm pretty sure if they say "we will not arrest you", they can't then arrest you. Surely?

So what if it's one of those prostitute stings on COPS, and the really unpleasant fat-thighed female undercover cop asks if y'all want some business, and you ask 'are you a cop and are you going to arrest me?' and she says no, and you then say yes, damn right, and the cops come screaming up to arrest you... can they not because she just said they wouldn't?

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 19:06

From another forum discussing this (lots of cops) and on the jury being mental to award such a verdict:

Quote:

I dealt with an RTC once where a lorry turned left at some traffic lights and in doing so ran over a young boy who had been waiting on his push bike against the kerb. Ran all three axles over him, not a pretty site. I copped the job of telling his parents what happened. The driver made off from the scene and was found an hour later hiding in the back of a wardrobe at his mothers. Turned out he didn't have a licence or any sight in his left eye... He ended up in court, was convicted of careless driving, and walked out of court putting two fingers up at the local press.
A few weeks later the father of the boy, in broad daylight in the middle of the village, pulled up next to where the lorry driver was standing with a mate, calmly took a shotgun from the back seat of his car, and shot the bloke at point blank range. Unfortunately he had the wrong load in the weapon and only winged him. He then got back in his car and drove straight to his solicitors office to wait for the police to arrive. Needless to say he ended up in court charged with attempt murder and after a lengthy trial during which countless witnesses told exactly what had happened the jury found him not guilty. Completely wrong legally of course, but morally the right verdict I'd say.

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

MetalAngel wrote:

Craster wrote:

I'm pretty sure if they say "we will not arrest you", they can't then arrest you. Surely?

So what if it's one of those prostitute stings on COPS, and the really unpleasant fat-thighed female undercover cop asks if y'all want some business, and you ask 'are you a cop and are you going to arrest me?' and she says no, and you then say yes, damn right, and the cops come screaming up to arrest you... can they not because she just said they wouldn't?

That's entrapment, isn't it?

We don't have that over here.

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

MetalAngel wrote:

From another forum discussing this (lots of cops) and on the jury being mental to award such a verdict:

Quote:

I dealt with an RTC once where a lorry turned left at some traffic lights and in doing so ran over a young boy who had been waiting on his push bike against the kerb. Ran all three axles over him, not a pretty site. I copped the job of telling his parents what happened. The driver made off from the scene and was found an hour later hiding in the back of a wardrobe at his mothers. Turned out he didn't have a licence or any sight in his left eye... He ended up in court, was convicted of careless driving, and walked out of court putting two fingers up at the local press.
A few weeks later the father of the boy, in broad daylight in the middle of the village, pulled up next to where the lorry driver was standing with a mate, calmly took a shotgun from the back seat of his car, and shot the bloke at point blank range. Unfortunately he had the wrong load in the weapon and only winged him. He then got back in his car and drove straight to his solicitors office to wait for the police to arrive. Needless to say he ended up in court charged with attempt murder and after a lengthy trial during which countless witnesses told exactly what had happened the jury found him not guilty. Completely wrong legally of course, but morally the right verdict I'd say.

I thought judges were supposed to disregard the jury if they were making a decision clearly opposed to the language of the law? Or is that the US? Or have I made it up? Not that I'm opposed to juries telling the law to get fucked in clear cases of miscarriage of justice, but. Judges can direct and compel juries, can't they?

IANAL, YMMV, ASO.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

I always wonder if people who get caught using prostitutes could get away with it by saying they were going to run off without paying.

metalangel · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 20:15

LewieP wrote:

I always wonder if people who get caught using prostitutes could get away with it by saying they were going to run off without paying.

Paying for sex isn't illegal, it's the solictation that's the bad part.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

MetalAngel wrote:

LewieP wrote:

I always wonder if people who get caught using prostitutes could get away with it by saying they were going to run off without paying.

Paying for sex isn't illegal, it's the solictation that's the bad part.

What is solicitation classed as legally?

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

BAD THINGY!

End of an Era · **Joined:** 25th Nov, 2008 **Posts:** 1041

Don't things like this usually end up with the convicted being acquitted and the law being changed?

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

The conviction being quashed requires appealing up to High Court. Years and tens of thousands, because it has to progress through normal appeal first. As for changing the law, the government love the shit out of strict liability because there's little to zero room for canny lawyers to get people off.

MaliA · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 22:10

MetalAngel wrote:

From another forum discussing this (lots of cops) and on the jury being mental to award such a verdict:

Quote:

I dealt with an RTC once where a lorry turned left at some traffic lights and in doing so ran over a young boy who had been waiting on his push bike against the kerb. Ran all three axles over him, not a pretty site. I copped the job of telling his parents what happened. The driver made off from the scene and was found an hour later hiding in the back of a wardrobe at his mothers. Turned out he didn't have a licence or any sight in his left eye... He ended up in court, was convicted of careless driving, and walked out of court putting two fingers up at the local press.
A few weeks later the father of the boy, in broad daylight in the middle of the village, pulled up next to where the lorry driver was standing with a mate, calmly took a shotgun from the back seat of his car, and shot the bloke at point blank range. Unfortunately he had the wrong load in the weapon and only winged him. He then got back in his car and drove straight to his solicitors office to wait for the police to arrive. Needless to say he ended up in court charged with attempt murder and after a lengthy trial during which countless witnesses told exactly what had happened the jury found him not guilty. Completely wrong legally of course, but morally the right verdict I'd say.

So, we dislike the jury system, then? I can think of several ways to argue that one down from attempted murder.

As regards strict liability, I'm well fucking up for people not walking the streets with guns in their hands. it's a big fucking NO NO NO and that's why the law is there.

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

Mm. I take issue with that being the morally right thing to do. Totally understandable, and I very much doubt I'd find him guilty of attempted murder, but calling it morally right? Shotgunning people rarely is.

MaliA · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 22:19

sinister agent wrote:

Mm. I take issue with that being the morally right thing to do. Totally understandable, and I very much doubt I'd find him guilty of attempted murder, but calling it morally right? Shotgunning people rarely is.

And it shouldn't be.

Don't forget that when things get reported on forums, emotion gets added, and a twist to appeal to the prevailing wind of opinion.

MaliA · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 22:42

Dimrill wrote:

Quite astounding.

Quote:

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."

The moral of the story is to just ignore everything you see and keep your head down, voter.

Agreeing with Dr Lave, really, from what he said.

IF you happen to go out into the back garden at night to put the teabags in the compost and see a bag on the lawn, and it contains a gun, calling the police should be the first thing. It's their problem then. Not take it in to your house then ring for an appointment in the morning and then take it over.

It's too easy then for shotgun crime fiends to get away with dumping it.

BikNorton · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 10185

And if in the meantime the crooks come back to reclaim it and commit a murder with it?

How do you then go about your life knowing you personally, literally could've avoided a gruesome murder?

The law in this case (allegedly) is at massive odds to the moral, social responsibility which it is deliberately, actively discouraging. Welcome to your being-shot-in-the-face future, citizen.

I saw an enormous bullet - probably big enough to class as a shell, really - on the pavement in Aintree. Did nothing but text Charl and carry on. When I came back it was gone. She expressed mild disbelief that I didn't phone the police and hang around waiting for them... but well, eh? Someone drops a round like that, you don't want to be there when they come back to collect. And picking it up is apparently an automatic jail sentence.

MaliA · **Posted:** Sat Nov 14, 2009 22:58

BikNorton wrote:

And if in the meantime the crooks come back to reclaim it and commit a murder with it?

How do you then go about your life knowing you personally, literally could've avoided a gruesome murder?

The law in this case (allegedly) is at massive odds to the moral, social responsibility which it is deliberately, actively discouraging. Welcome to your being-shot-in-the-face future, citizen.

In my experience, weapons are often dumped psot crime and retrieved later.

Calling the fuzz with a " Quick! fuck! there's a fucking shooter on my manor guv!" call is not a bad policy. And tem what don't do it get porridge, as if they diddn't call the filth, then they fucking knew about, didn't they?

Mugs.

Ignorance of the law isn't a defence.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Five years imprisonment for doing a good deed.

Who is online