Home Forums Chat Forum The (very strict) Letter of the Law

Viewing 4 posts - 41 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • The (very strict) Letter of the Law
  • mildred
    Full Member

    Bigdummy – yes you're right, I was thinking of offensive weapons.

    Having had a closer look it would appear that unlawful possession is one of strict liability – that is, you either possess it or you don't, and if you have no lawful right of possession, then it is unlawful possession.

    There really has to be more to this incident.

    1) People who work for the Police and I can't even get to see a Supt (unless they **** up).
    2) Why would someone acting in the best interest of the public be prosecuted? – Why would this be in the Public's interest?
    3) What about al the other people who hand in weapons e.g. "My Grandad's died and I've found this service revolver". This happens A LOT.

    Possibly he was being 'clever', and thought he could put the shits up a ranking officer to make a point? Whatever, it's a pretty stupid way to report finding a firearm.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Not sure if the outcome has been posted elsewhere, but here it is….

    Originally Posted by BBC News
    A former soldier who was given a suspended sentence after handing a sawn-off shotgun to police believes his actions merited an award instead.

    Paul Clarke, 27, of Merstham, Redhill, was convicted of possessing a firearm in November and sentenced earlier.

    Reading Crown Court heard Clarke found a bin liner containing a shotgun in March and was arrested when he handed it in four days later.

    The judge told Clarke he should have asked police to come straight away.

    Judge Christopher Critchlow said the minimum sentence for possessing a firearm was normally five years, but it was a "highly unusual case" and gave Clarke 12-month sentence, suspended for one year.

    Judge Critchlow said: "I understand you were once a soldier, and you in particular ought to have appreciated the danger posed by such a weapon and should have asked the police to come and collect it right away."

    Clarke had told the court he did not call the police when he found the item because he had suffered "harassment" from Surrey Police over a relationship he was having with a female detective.

    He said he stored it in a wooden chest at his home and arranged to meet a police officer he knew personally.

    The court heard that he was arrested during the meeting after he produced the bin liner containing the gun from his trousers.

    Clarke told Reading Crown Court his arrest was a "stitch-up" by police and he should have been given a good citizen award.

    Lionel Blackman, defending, quoted Home Office guidance, which said: "No obstacle should be placed in the way of a person who wants to surrender firearms or ammunition to the police.

    Following the sentencing, Clarke said: "It's pathetic how Surrey Police have ignored Home Office policy.

    "The Crown Prosecution Service has betrayed the public interest, all over a personal grudge. I think I should get a good citizen's award. I'm the only victim here."

    The court was told Clarke had previously been convicted of handling stolen goods in 2001, of possessing a stun-gun in 2002 and of affray in 2008.

    A spokeswoman for Surrey Police said: "Clarke was given the opportunity to explain the full circumstances of how this lethal and prohibited weapon came to be in his possession.

    "This explanation lacked credibility and a report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

    "Surrey Police stands by its decision to investigate and make its case to the CPS which decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute the case in court."

    Fair enough I think.

    epicyclo
    Full Member

    I can see their point, but I think the greater good is to get people handing in guns. And it's an even greater good if guns get handed in by people who we may class as a bit dodgy 🙂

    I'd think twice now.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    nice.

    Stoner – Member

    Surely the Judge can impose no sentence,

    al – I think (BD will correct me if Im wrong) that illegal possession of a firearm is not just a matter of strict liability but also mandatory sentencing. In this case 5 yrs. Now there has been cases of judges not following mandatory sentencing, and one would hope that this is one that might fall in to it…

    My hope has sprung eternal.

Viewing 4 posts - 41 through 44 (of 44 total)

The topic ‘The (very strict) Letter of the Law’ is closed to new replies.