I completely agree that it’s wrong to carry concealed weapens without a license. I also agree that if you find a shutgun (or are in possession of one, and want to stop being in possession of it) it’s reasonable to call the police to ask them to pick it up. But there can be millions of reasons why you don’t want the police to pick it up. Maybe you have nosy neighbours. Maybe you simply don’t want to explain to your kids that somebody for some reason put a gun into your trash.
So the behaviour of Paul Clarke, taking a shotgun to the police and handing it in, is perfectly normal and understandable. Yet he got arrested and found guilty of possessing a firearm, a crime that carries a minimum of a five year prison sentence. And that is utterly insane.
What we have here is a case of somebody taking an illegal gun off the streets, and being arrested for it. In other words, he is facing five years of jail for no longer wanting to engage in an illegal activity.
In the twitter storm that resulted some people linked to an article about somebody called Paul Clarke that threatened someone for no reason. Also they point out that his story seems unlikely, and that he probably had the shotgun in possession a long time before, instead of just finding it as he claimed. Let me clarify that this is completely irrelevant. It may be true, and in there was proof of him having the gun in possesion for a long time, then possibly he should have been arrested. But there is no proof of that. Also what he did before should not enter in to this. He is not arrested for being a jerk or an aggressive man.
What is the result of this kind of interpretation of the law? Well, let us look at a question Lee Griffin asked me on twitter: What if Paul Clarke had been mugged on the way to the station and then later used to kill 5 people. Would Paul Clarke still innocent of wrongdoing? Well, in the eyes fo the law, he would. Because he would then have been out of possession of the gun, and not arrested and not convicted of any wrongdoings. Also, continuing to hide the gun from the police would also have been rather safe, unless the police have a habit iof raiding his house. Another good safe bet would be to sell it to some criminal. All of these alternative actions would have kept the illegal gun out there on the streets, and Paul Clarke wouldn’t have been arrested.
His only cause of action if he wants to do the right thing is to tell the police about the weapon. And if he does not want the neighbors excited or the kids worried his only possible action is the go with it to the police station. Which got him arrested. A moral cause of action got him arrested, where an immoral one would not have, even if he had made nothing wrong from the start.
So this is a case where Paul Clarke is convicted of doing the right thing, when doing something wrong would have kept him safe. And that’s why this is insane. It tells people that handing in guns is dangerous. It tells people to not invoke the police. If you get involved or see anything criminal, go home, keep your mouth shut and if you should happen to have anything illegal in your possession, on no account tell the police. Just chuck it in a lake. That’s what it tells people.
Crime may not pay. But if being legal doesn’t pay either, then the base of the law has been undermined.
The story sounds absurd, and I really hope there is something more to it. But it might be worth comparing it to the swedish case NJA 2003 s. 361, wherein a man, who had gotten possession of a bag, turned it in to the police four days after discovering that it contained a large amount of cocaine. He was initially sentenced to five years in jail for possession.
The swedish supreme court did ultimately free him of all charges, which in it’s reasoning looked at the purpose of the regulation (keeping cocaine out of circulation) and determined, in direct conflict with the written law, that he had not comitted a crime. I’m afraid that lower courts in general are reluctant to diverge from written law in the same way.
That’s a good point. I did think of that case, but I hadn’t thought about the interpretation you did, that lower courts find him guilty just to make a difficult case go upwards in the procedure.
Maybe courts should simply be able to ask the next level to say ”We think this is out of our league, do you want to take over” so you can get it up in the process without any sentencing.
In private law, there is such a possibility (RB 56:13) if both parties agree, but not in criminal law. A potential problem with having a similar procedure for criminal law is that is the accused effectively would lose his/her right to appeal, as the only proper trial would be in the supreme court. This seem to be permitted by ECHR (eg. protocol 7, article 2(2)) but still…
This should not be an issue at all. There is no question no crime was committed, it is absolute tyranny at work. England is a mess, and it is run by criminals who don’t even hide their intent.
Only the law-abiding are targeted by the thugs who call themselves law enforcement here.
From what I understand, he was convicted by a jury.
Either there is something else to the story, or the jury acted very irresponsibly.
Hello! I just stop bay to say hallå! How are things with you?
We don´t need any weapons nowadays because now they have vaccine to kill us with. Is there äny swine flu near you? French people will not take the shot! I´m not going to do that either. Om jag inte kan överleva på mina immuniteter får det vara.
@Trocchi yes, this is absolutely correct. Unfortunately.
The problem as I see it is that if Paul Clarke had telephoned the police and asked them to collect it he could have been waiting a long time, perhaps 5-6 hours as the UK police are usually giving more priority to ”hate” crimes.
During that time, it is possible that the criminal/criminals who owned the gun would have come back to retrieve it, and I hate to think what would have happened then! If they already owned a shotgun they probably own handguns as well, and probably not afraid to use them. Despite our ”lawless Britain” reputation, we’re not accustomed to gunfights in the streets of Surrey, yet..
I hope Mr Clarke finds justice, but this is Britain and he almost certainly won’t.
I just stop by ska det stå. ser jag nu .. Sorry!
@Trocchi: On the contrary, a crime was committed. The definition of a crime is an action which breaks the law. That has no regard to whether that ‘law’ is right or wrong.
@ed: Judges often instruct juries to make certain verdicts. Juries are often unaware of the right of ‘jury nullification’ – the right of a jury to find not guilty DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE OF GUILT. Jury nullification should be a key safeguard against government tyranny, but it is not working.
@MHmedia: Well he kept it overnight. So that argument doesn’t hold.
(His keeping it overnight has elsewhere been criticised, but it is not foolish. An unloaded gun in one’s house poses no danger unless one is burgled, and that’s unlikely. It may have been unwise for Mr Clarke to have taken it to the station when he found it, eg at night.)