Convicted for turning in a shotgun that was found

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This is pretty scary!

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."

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

This might be a good example of what could occur if the second amendment were replaced with draconian laws like those of the UK.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Sousuke

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So the next time you find a dead body in your garden, throw it into the trunk of your car...but first put it in a plastic bag to preserve the evidence, then carry the body bag into the police station.

Any prison time would be too harsh, IMO, however, this guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

[HAL 9000 96]

Woa... maybe he should have said that he found a gun when calling in...

Somehow I think the conviction will likely get thrown out on appeal.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I take your point (for instance it may have been used in a crime and you've effectively damaged the evidence by bring the gun in to the station), yet 5 years is crazy.

[Pooky 3,844]

Woa... maybe he should have said that he found a gun when calling in...

Somehow I think the conviction will likely get thrown out on appeal.

You missed this part:

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.

That was the presiding judge. An Appeals Court is not going to find any differently. His best hope is for his sentence judge to be lenient, i.e. a suspended sentence.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Pooky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I take your point (for instance it may have been used in a crime and you've effectively damaged the evidence by bring the gun in to the station), yet 5 years is crazy.

Hopefully, he won't be sentenced the maximum (5 years for possession), but he really did a stupid thing.

Imagine if it were a kilo of coke he found in his garden and he brought it in? Or anything that is illegal....what a dumbsh!t.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm...I do not understand what is the justice here?

Punishment for no criminal wrong doing or even a misdemeanor. I feel for the guy. Only the police will do the right thing, and the civilian will always do the wrong thing.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

[HAL 9000 96]

Woa... maybe he should have said that he found a gun when calling in...

Somehow I think the conviction will likely get thrown out on appeal.

You missed this part:

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.

That was the presiding judge. An Appeals Court is not going to find any differently. His best hope is for his sentence judge to be lenient, i.e. a suspended sentence.

Did read it, and Appeals Courts have been known to find in favor of defendants where ambiguity in the law was a clear factor. Particularly when the defendant's admission of innocence provides for an argument contrary to the verbiage in the law itself.

[Niels Bohr 72]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

[HAL 9000 96]

I take your point (for instance it may have been used in a crime and you've effectively damaged the evidence by bring the gun in to the station), yet 5 years is crazy.

Hopefully, he won't be sentenced the maximum (5 years for possession), but he really did a stupid thing.

Imagine if it were a kilo of coke he found in his garden and he brought it in? Or anything that is illegal....what a dumbsh!t.

Like I said before- if he'd told the police when calling of what he'd found... he probably wouldn't be in that mess. The bin cold have had something else, like a bomb.

[natty bumppo 297]

catch 22 ....

possession at home where he found it ... or at the police station ....

[Pooky 3,844]

Woa... maybe he should have said that he found a gun when calling in...

Somehow I think the conviction will likely get thrown out on appeal.

You missed this part:

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.

That was the presiding judge. An Appeals Court is not going to find any differently. His best hope is for his sentence judge to be lenient, i.e. a suspended sentence.

Did read it, and Appeals Courts have been known to find in favor of defendants where ambiguity in the law was a clear factor. Particularly when the defendant's admission of innocence provides for an argument contrary to the verbiage in the law itself.

But here there is no ambiguity in the law. Neither side disputed that fact.

A no-time sentence is the best result he can hope for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.