Paul Clarke Update II

Friday, 20th November 2009

The national newspapers may not be terribly interested in the Paul Clarke case but, happily, legal blogger Jack of Kent is. He's produced a detailed account of the case, and the law, that I highly recommend.

Mr Clarke may not be the ideal poster boy for liberty but it's equally clear that this is of little to no import. What we have here, as Jack of Kent makes clear, is a case that makes a nonsense of a) strict liability offences, b) manadatory minimums, c) the police and d) the CPS. It's possible that e) the judiciary and f) the jury could also be added to this list.

Mr Clarke has not been sentenced yet. He could be discharged. Since no other party has disputed, or even sought to dispute, his account of events one can only hope that he will not, in fact, be locked up for five years for the crime of finding a shotgun and handing it in to the police. Common-sense may yet prevail.

At the very least, however, all parties may agree that this case, and others like it, demonstrate some of the problems with creating strict liability offences and, even more so, with mandatory minimum sentences. Since, alas, these latter help make politicians seem "tough" on crime we ought not to expect any reduction in their use.

One final thing: this story demonstrates the importance of local reporting. (Whether that be in the form of printed newspapers or, in the future, on the web). Without Holly Thompson's reporting for the Surrey Mirror this case would not have received any attention at all. One can only wonder how many other stories, how many other injustices, are missed thanks to the decline in court reporting.

Filed under: Britain (737 more articles) , Guns (19 more articles) , Law (122 more articles) , Newspapers (382 more articles) , Police (158 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Rhoda Klapp

November 20th, 2009 12:50pm Report this comment

So if I find a shotgun in a playground full of kids (if I was allowed in such a place, having passed my CRB check) I am supposed to leave it there? To call the police and wait until they come? Am I in possession if it is at my feet? Actually the sensible legal solution is to get a nine-year-old to carry it to the police station with me. Of course I won't be able to check whether it is loaded.

Doug of London

November 20th, 2009 2:54pm Report this comment

Who was the defense lawyer?
I want to make sure I dont hire him if I ever need one.

Michael Booth

November 20th, 2009 2:58pm Report this comment

Isn't this one of those occasions when the Crown should intervene in person and speak wise words of common sense in Jack Straw's ear?

Bruce

November 25th, 2009 3:53am Report this comment

This case makes me ever so happy to be living in the USA, where there is no such thing as a "strict liability" criminal statute because any such thing would be held unconstitutional.

Post comment