Man faces minimum 5 years in prison for handing in shotgun left in his garden

[SomeGuy]

www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.ht ml

'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.

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.

Officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, was 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."

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."'

Wow, I'm shocked. I thought htere must be more to it than that but it doesn't appear so. The prosecution say that being in possession is a crime no matetr what the intent, they don't appear to have challenged his motives at all. Unbelievable.

WTF? Loads of people would assume that the right thing to do in that situation is hand the gun to a police station. That's absolutely awful.

You'd have thought they could find 3 jurors willing to ignore the law for the sake of justice, I guess in Guildford they play it strictly by the book....

Good grief, poor man.

Guess the message is DON'T be a good citizen, if you find a firearm, leave it where it is and pretend you never saw it.

Bloody hell.

Excuse my language, but has the world gone completely mad?

The fact it was a jury trial means the jurors did have the right to find him innocent. So the jurors are idiots while the law is an ass.

Edam- and leave it so some kids find it?

It doesn't sound like he told the police why he needed to see them on the phone - why not?

just read Rwality;s comments
hmm
but presumably the jury didn't know that? So same would apply to anyone doing the same?
Also, you were in court for this one??

Fucking hell.

I wouldn't know to 'ring the police and not touch it'

Actully I probably would ring the police because Id be terrified of it but this guy has military experience so is probably used to handleing guns so thought nothing of delivering it there himself.

How mad is that?!?!

How utterly ridiculous. Poor man. Hopefully the judge will be sensible and nothing more will come of it.

ah, the plot thickens.

Still, he did hand it in. Which is odd if he had been using it for nefarious purposes.

Lavender, exactly - that's what's mad about this, that apparently you would be in danger if you did the right thing and alerted the police! (Not that I'd have handled the gun personally, I'd have phoned them. But then I've never had anything to do with guns, an ex-soldier like my BIL might well react differently.)

No one in their right mind would take a gun then found in the garden in their house over night and then wander down to the local police station with it the next day.

Any sane person would just call the police immediatly !

and I notice the comments have been disabled for the weekend and reinstated Monday???

Now I know very little about the law an' all, but I didnt think previous convictions were mentioned during a trial?

hmm, reality the problem with that comment is that the jurors weren't allowed to be told that, so we really shouldn't take it into consideration either.

It doesn't excuse the jury, but it does excuse the CPS/police who might otherwise appear to be acting unreasonably - it would be a bit much to prosecute a mother who found a gun in the playground, but you'd think differently if she had a string of convictions for weapons offences.

The other thing of course is that comments on websites are completely unverifiable and often total BS.

no, lk, thats what i mean, sounds like they learned that afterwards

I don't know if there was more to it, but the judge seems to be saying that it doesn't matter.

So if for example someone dropped their bag (containing a gun)in the street and you picked it up for them then you would be guilty? Not 'appear to be guilty' or 'could be mistaken for someone who was guilty' but actually guilty.

If your intention doesn't matter then you can imagine all kinds of ridiculous examples can't you. If someone leaves a bag on a bus then the driver is 'in possession of it' even if he doesn't know it.

It seems madness, but nothing surprises me any more.

i read about this somewhere else, i think he kept the gun for sometime before handing it in. there is definately more to the story.

But why on earth would he ring the police and ask to see the superintendant and not say 'I've found a gun?'

He knew the superintendent's name, so given what the jury were told after conviction, I'd assume the he's been nicked by that officer before.

So maybe the 'found it in the garden guv, honest' line is not entirely accurate?

Still, jury convicted him without knowing any of that. Which is quite scary.

If you think of it from the pov of the police - here's a guy with a record of gun offences, who rings up the police station & asks to see the superintendent, comes to the police station and pulls a sawn-off shotgun out of a bin bag....

If I'd been on the jury hearing that story, even without knowing the previous record bit, I think I might have thought it sounded a bit dodgy.