handing in a discarded shotgun now faces 5 years in jail

Joined
24 Oct 2006
Messages
673
Reaction score
107
Location
London
Country
United Kingdom
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."
- Comments on this story have been disabled for legal reasons
 
Sponsored Links
I think the police have every right to be suspicious, when a member of the public walks into the station with a gun, claiming it was found....

The key concern is:- When he phoned the police, he did not report that he had found a gun...
(a day later......)

Now, if the guy has just been stupid, then of course that needs to be looked into... If there isn't any suspect of criminal involvement... then that should be the end of the matter. Just because you've found a gun, handed it in.. not followed 'correct' procedure... It should't mean 5 years....save that for the real crims.

I ask everyone... if you found a gun, would you ask for an appointment to speak to the Chief Superintendent or would you just say in your phone call... you've found a gun, in your back garden?

I would like to think that the police, over the phone would give you the correct advice... which should be to leave the item undisturbed including any forensic evidence that may exist. And.. they should send an officer to you door.

I remember hearing a similar story, where a person had found a bag of cash. The person handing in the found cash was charged for theft. The advice given by police then, was that if you find anything, just to leave it undisturbed.

With the risk of all these problems... being arrested etc..... I understand why many think "why bother helping the police"
 
Sponsored Links
I remember hearing a similar story, where a person had found a bag of cash. The person handing in the found cash was charged for theft. The advice given by police then, was that if you find anything, just to leave it undisturbed.

Thanks for that, I now know that if I hand in a bag of cash I will be charged with theft.

Given that logic, my best bet would be to keep the cash and keep stumm.

What happens if I find a dying child and rush it to hospital, if it then dies, am I a murderer? $hite british laws... :evil:
 
this is stupid, the police often have gun and knife 'amnesties' where any scum bag can walk in and put their weapon in a big plastic box.... why don't the coppers arrested all those people for being "in possession"???

This post offers very little of the actual fact of the whole situation, but based on what we know here, surely the police, and the jury for that matter should have looked at this guy's intentions... and applied some common sense?
 
As the article states, the law offers no scope for interpretation of intent in cases of possession.

It's the same with drugs laws, possession of more than a certain quantity is automatically taken to be "intent to supply".

Unauthorised possession of a firearm is against the law. No ifs, buts or maybes. If it were any other way then every scrote caught with a gun could claim that they had just found it and were just on their way to hand it in - the police would then have to PROVE otherwise.
 
As the article states, the law offers no scope for interpretation of intent in cases of possession.

It's the same with drugs laws, possession of more than a certain quantity is automatically taken to be "intent to supply".

Unauthorised possession of a firearm is against the law. No ifs, buts or maybes. If it were any other way then every scrote caught with a gun could claim that they had just found it and were just on their way to hand it in - the police would then have to PROVE otherwise.

so how does an amnesty get around this law?
 
An amnesty is a published and advertised statement suspending the provisions of the possession offence for a defined period - it is not an anonymous process and usually refers to legally held weapons which the authorised owner no longer wishes to be responsible for.

Any illegal drugs or weapons handed in are still forensically tested to see if they can be linked to other crimes.

The shotgun should have been left where it was and the police called immediately. Not picked up, taken into the house overnight and carted to the police station the following day.

What if it had been stolen from the house overnight - I doubt the guy involved had a properly secured gun cabinet to store it in - or stolen from the car used to take it to the police station (I'm kind of hoping he didn't walk through the streets with it, or take it on the bus!)?[/u]
 
An amnesty is a published and advertised statement suspending the provisions of the possession offence for a defined period - it is not an anonymous process and usually refers to legally held weapons which the authorised owner no longer wishes to be responsible for.

Any illegal drugs or weapons handed in are still forensically tested to see if they can be linked to other crimes.

The shotgun should have been left where it was and the police called immediately. Not picked up, taken into the house overnight and carted to the police station the following day.

What if it had been stolen from the house overnight - I doubt the guy involved had a properly secured gun cabinet to store it in - or stolen from the car used to take it to the police station (I'm kind of hoping he didn't walk through the streets with it, or take it on the bus!)?[/u]

no, you're right. Thank-you for putting this into context.
 
and usually refers to legally held weapons which the authorised owner no longer wishes to be responsible for.

Why would an amnesty be needed for legally held weapons?
Always thought it was for guns not accounted for by the police and to give law abiding people a chance to hand in guns without the risk of prosecution.
 
Not many knives held illegally, but the police still have knife amnesties.

Also lots of WW2 souvenir weapons out their which, while not held strictly legally, have not yet been used in any crimes. An amnesty serves to get these out of the public domain.

Then there's of wives/children of deceased, legal shotgun owners who can't sell their relative's guns (as non-shotgun holders, that would be illegal), amnesties give them an easy way of disposing of them.

A dumped shotgun is very likely to become evidence in a criminal investigation and should be left EXACTLY where it is until forensics have secured it. By handling it and moving it, this guy quite possibly destroyed evidence which could have lead to a gun crime being solved.
 
I had both numberplates nicked from my SORNED car, remember that, it's important.

So I reported it to police, as some idiot might try to use them for crime, by cloning their car.

Next thing is, two coppers turn up, look at the car, yes you are definately missing two numberplates. Get this - one copper states how he likes my Sherlock Holmes video collection, and how crime should be like that nowadays, and the other cop, want's to buy my car from me!!!!!!!!!!! My fiance shows him the car minus numberplates, he says he wants to buy it, she says it's worth £5k. It's a 1995 Toyota Celica, without an MOT, worth £1k? I'd have ripped his hand off, but that would be assualt on police? :LOL:

Then get a follow up call, 'Were the police courtious and nice' WTF? What a waste of time and money for the police. IT'S SOME STOLEN NUMBERPLATES that ARE REGISTERED OFF ROAD. And damaged when they were ripped from the car.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top