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."'

What a biarre story. I must confess, that until I read this thread, I would have picked up any guns I found, and taken them to teh police station....naive, obviously!

Okay so they would nt have been aware of previous form so it seems odd the jurors conviting him except that the law says posession itself is a crime...

As there was no actual evidence of 'intent' to cause harm or whatever then surely despite the law one might consider the fact that amnesty's are often declared to encourage people to hand in illegal weapons. If it is okay to ignore the law in these circumstances then why coildn't have similar common sense have been applied here for the sake of someone honestly handing in a gun?

we can't tell how he came across in the witness box - maybe the jury thought he was lying

Would you really pick up a gun you found in your garden? I wouldn't touch it, you don't know how safe it it, or if it has fingerprints, and I'd phone the police straightaway.

I wouldn't take it in my house and then phone the next day.

I would suspect that the jury thought he was lying about just "happening" to find it.

But according to the article it wouldn't make any difference if he's lying or not. There is no defence, picking up a gum that you've found aND HAnding it straight in means that you are guilty.

That's why he was found guilty, because he admits that he picked he up and took it in, so he is guilty.

i think I would be in the camp of "would phone the police immediately"

BUT if I did not have a phone on me, i might pick up the bag and take it with me to a phone, or police station if nearer, for fear that a child might pick it up and shoot themsleves or a friend in the meantime

i would certainly not have it in the house overnight!!

what are you to do if you can't get through to the police station or they don't come out? just leave it for the kiddies to find? ime it can be incredibly difficult to get the police to come out even if something has actually happened

With all this stuff don't the CPS decide when to prosecute or not, and there is a "public interest" thing. I also think there must have been more to this than meets the eye. The CPS must have thought that it was in th epublic interest to prosecute ie he was up to no good one way or another.

Not entirely, Stripey -- that's the legal position, but there is a looooooooooooooooong tradition of British juries refusing to find people guilty of things that of which they are obviously technically guilty.

IIRC in the period when there was an automatic death penalty for stealing goods worth over five shillings at least one jury found the defendant guilty of stealing five shillings' worth of the goods he had been accused of stealing but not the remainder. And juries' regular refusal to convict for manslaughter in cases of dangerous driving is the whole reason that the separate offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" was created.

So I still think that for the whole jury to be prepared to stick to the letter of the law and convict there was probably something else going on.