Is This the Most Enraging Story of the Year? Perhaps!

JohnBUK

I suppose a few years ago, like you said, I'd have treated this as one of those silly stories that must have appeared in the Daily Sport or similar. Now of course we've come to realise this is the norm.
It is the usual issue of the "Law" and "Justice" which us poor naive fools believed were related in some way. No more, sadly. The Law is a game practised by those who make their living from it and Justice is just one of the outcomes that may or may not arise from that game.

JohnAnt

"including the jury" - no, first and foremost the jury. We're used to police who simply try to gain convictions, and judges who are bloody fools.
But why on earth did an English jury convict on this evidence?
(Unless perhaps the jury was of such a composition as to be prejudiced against British soldiers? )

Hysteria

WTF? There MUST be more to this story - surely....?

terence patrick hewett

Didn't the poor man know that you avoid contact with the police under all circumstances. They are more dangerous than the criminals themselves.

Geoff Miller

This is not an exception:-

Ten days in Britain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av00IxWs94c&feature=player_embedded

Bunnykins

Utterly unbelievable. Our society has become a joke. But perhaps still more enraging is the fact that the Spectator chooses to award the very people who are guilty of turning this country into such a ridiculous place. A 'dispiriting business' indeed.

John Edwards

Apparently according to the article this is a "strict liability" offence to which there is no legal defence. One would have hoped that the jury would have acquited nonetheless.

I am guessing but perhaps the purpose of this offence is to prevent criminals caught in possession of a firearm claiming that they "found it".

In2minds

The UK police live in a bubble. They imagine the whole of the population is happy with their super-chump ways and would like more.

Yow Min Lye

Quite possibly the 'most enraging' story, Alex. However, the competition is stiff...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227871/Fury-immigrant-baby-killer-paid-4-500-bribe-quit-Britain.html

Charles

It seems clear that (based on the facts reported) the jury was right to convict...and the judge would be right to give an unconditional discharge. Beats me why the police and the CPS chose to prosecute though!

john miller

Compare and contrast.

Baroness Scotland - remember her?- designed the law such that the relevant offence was not taking a copy of the documents. It was irrelevant whether you said you saw them, if you didn't keep a copy then you were in cac. So, it was the equivalent of a "strict liability" offence.

Except there, BS just explained to everyone that, hey, its just like the congestion charge and , bingo! £5,000 later the law maker was in the clear.

BUT. If you aren't all the things that Baroness Scotland is (and you may create your own list at this point), the State take a rather different view, doesn't it? No legions of ministers and heads of quangos rushing to the media saying "she didn't mean it therefore she is innocent".

No, instead, there is the shrug of the shoulders and 5 years porridge for the poor sod who became an enemy of the State.

The irony is, of course, that it was the government in the 1960s that crapped itself about anarchy within the citizenry; in the 00s it is the citizen that has to worry about anarchy within the ruling classes.

vanderleun

Ah, England. Sad but as a free country you are over, finished, clapped out, done.... gone to join the choir invisible, just another dead parrot nailed to its perch. Buh-Bye... hope that soldier gets out when he gets out.

Dirty Euro

That is just scummy police up to their old tricks again. They are too scared to hunt real crimi8nals so they go after do gooders as easy targets.

BM

If England adopted the Scottish verdict, then jury nullification would have been a viable option.

terence patrick hewett

This case has now gone around the world. Its everywhere. The Surrey Police, the Jury and the Judge, our judicial system and the Labour Government who have enacted so much legislation of this sort have earned the contempt of the world. You are a laughing stock. Congratulations.

Dennis

Where were the prosecutors in this? Didn't they have the discretion to not go forward with the charges? Is there hope for a pardon?

Mike43

Did you not ever hear of jury nullification? That would happen when a jury believes the prosecutor or police are over-reaching their boundaries.

In Texas, where I live, we also have the "some men just needed killing" defense. That works as well.

It seems you all are less citizens and more governed.

SageM

And the British scoff at Americans for not wanting to walk down this utterly insane and entirely predictable path, all while their violent crime rate surges past that of the US.

Grant

The jury were legally correct to convict since it is a 'strict liability' offence (strict liability for possession offences is obviously retarded in the first place.)

But they should have judged the law wanting and used their power of Jury Nullification to ignore it. The only possible excuse for not doing that is if they didn't realise they had that power.

Which they may well not have. AFAIK courts don't go out of their way to inform juries of their rights, which is shameful in itself.

Waffle

There are legal issues here, but they relate entirely to strict liability and the power/responsibility of the jury, prosecutor, and police in this matter. They have nothing to do with gun control laws; the same situation could arise with drugs or child porn given strict liability laws against those, both of which are illegal in the US.

So I'd appreciate it if Americans could refrain from butting in with ill-informed crowing about how great the second amendment is.

As for the 'needed killing' defence, it's charmingly pithy but ultimately of most use to people in racist communities who want to kill blacks without censure. I prefer the rule of law.

Constantly Furious

Oi! The 'Constantly Furious' blog was one of the early breakers of this woefully undercovered story, and caused the #PaulClarke Twitter storm that pushed it to prominence. Have a look at tinyurl.com/y8cfxbt

Surely your 'Most Enraging' headline indicates you knew that?

MadSkier

I agree with Hysteria above . . . . there MUST be more to this story that the bare facts reported by the correspondent. For a start, I wouldn't go into the police station with a shotgun and put it down on the desk of the chief constable without any prior warning!! Come to think of it - I don't think I'd get as far as the chief constable with a shotgun in my possession, sawn-off or otherwise. It would have been detected long before I got to the end of the corridor.

Alfred T Mahan

I think you'll find that Paul Clarke had previous. Last year he had a run-in with a council official but was acquitted:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html

So the decision to prosecute was probably based on history rather than just the facts of the case. Doesn't necessarily mean it was right, though.

Harry

Historically speaking the English justice system has always been operated by a bunch of shmucks . Harry from New York

Gareth

Well this article adds to the rage Alex, its all hearsay.
If he said he found it at the bottom of the garden then who put it there? Why was he not believed? Has he been found guilty without having been PROVED to have owned the gun and just made up the story of having found it. Is it part of Common Law to be found guilty without being given a trial? Was there a trial? What was the full story...........please tell us Alex.