Strict Liability law creates problems
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
now probably off to prison for handing it in.
So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
rozzers eventually turn up
Jon Green
What an appalling story! Poor sod. Not a miscarriage of justice,
because justice was applied as the statutes require -- but what
badly-drawn statutes!
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Brian Morrison
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
>> now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>
>> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
>> call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
>> rozzers eventually turn up
>
> What an appalling story! Poor sod. Not a miscarriage of justice,
> because justice was applied as the statutes require -- but what
> badly-drawn statutes!
I was listening to Radio 4 last night, his solicitor was interviewed on
the PM programme.
Apparently the Wiltshire Police web site has advice on surrendering
firearms and this chap followed the advice, making an appointment to
deliver it to the police station.
Someone needed to tell the jurors that they had absolute discretion to
find him not guilty if they thought the law stupid or the circumstances
warranted it. A jury cannot be in contempt of court and their decision
and reasoning is protected from scrutiny.
--
Brian
Jon Green
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
>>> now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>>
>>> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
>>> call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
>>> rozzers eventually turn up
>> What an appalling story! Poor sod. Not a miscarriage of justice,
>> because justice was applied as the statutes require -- but what
>> badly-drawn statutes!
>
> I was listening to Radio 4 last night, his solicitor was interviewed on
> the PM programme.
>
> Apparently the Wiltshire Police web site has advice on surrendering
> firearms and this chap followed the advice, making an appointment to
> deliver it to the police station.
Got that impression from the article too, good to hear left hand is
talking to right hand...
> Someone needed to tell the jurors that they had absolute discretion to
> find him not guilty if they thought the law stupid or the circumstances
> warranted it. A jury cannot be in contempt of court and their decision
> and reasoning is protected from scrutiny.
My guess is that that might be the basis for appeal -- bad briefing from
the judge.
There is no purpose for the body of law, unless it be to protect
people*, whether by deterrence or by penalty. Clearly no-one was being
protected from anyone by this prosecution -- quite the opposite, in fact.
Jon
(* Including "persons corporate")
Marcus
They could have decided not to charge or not to bring the prosecution.
However, I understand that there may be more to this case than meets the
eye. I heard something to do with a cattle prod - but was not paying
attention.
There are problems if the such offence do not carry strict liability.
For example the problems prosecuting gamekeepers who poison birds of
prey. The police not only have to find poison they have to prove who
placed it. Even if they catch a keeper (an event rare as Golden Eagle
births) they are unable to prosecute the landowners who instructed them.
Marcus
The Natural Philosopher
Better still, post it to Gordon Brown.
The Natural Philosopher
Fevric J. Glandules
> Brian Morrison wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>> Someone needed to tell the jurors that they had absolute discretion to
>> find him not guilty if they thought the law stupid or the circumstances
>> warranted it. A jury cannot be in contempt of court and their decision
>> and reasoning is protected from scrutiny.
>>
> There is also discretion allowed to the police and CPS.
> They could have decided not to charge or not to bring the prosecution.
Is it just me or does it seem that there's more and more stupid cases
like this where all concerned (except the defence) claim that they
are duty-bound to apply the strict letter of the law? And juries
seem to be increasingly ill-informed?
Jon Green
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
r.moss-...@computer.org (Rupert Moss-Eccardt) wrote:
>
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/a
rticle-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden
> and is now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>
> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch
> it - call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away
> from the rozzers eventually turn up
Hmm. "- Comments on this story have been disabled for legal reasons".
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jon Green
Probably to avoid any legal risks associated with prejudicing a possible
appeal, I'd guess.
Dave Holland
>Brian Morrison wrote:
>> Apparently the Wiltshire Police web site has advice on surrendering
>> firearms and this chap followed the advice, making an appointment to
>> deliver it to the police station.
>Got that impression from the article too, good to hear left hand is
>talking to right hand...
I read about this elsewhere, and I gather the chap didn't mention the
gun when he made the appointment (duh) and when he went in to the
police station, he unwrapped the gun in the open reception area (duh)
and plonked it on the desk in front of the civilian receptionist
(duh).
Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
himself in the best light here.
Dave
Brian Morrison
I didn't quite catch the detail of that either...
>
> There are problems if the such offence do not carry strict liability.
> For example the problems prosecuting gamekeepers who poison birds of
> prey. The police not only have to find poison they have to prove who
> placed it. Even if they catch a keeper (an event rare as Golden Eagle
> births) they are unable to prosecute the landowners who instructed them.
>
While looking for more info I found this, quite amusing really:
"A friend of mine once had approximately the following conversation with
a work colleague who had just come to Britain from South Africa. This
took place before the latest change in the law which brought in such
draconian penalties for possession."
(South African): "I hear on the grapevine you are quite a crack shot at
clay pigeon. I wouldn't mind having a go at that."
(My Friend): "Of course. I'll introduce you at the club, and you can
hire a gun and have a go."
"Well I could just bring my own. I've got a nice shotgun."
"You've got a gun? How did you get that? It took me ages to get a licence."
"I just put it in the container of furniture and other stuff I sent over
from South Africa. How do I get a licence?"
"I think what you should do is take the shotgun around to the police
station, explain the situation, and they'll probably look after it for
you while you install a gunsafe, apply for a licence, and all that."
"Does that go for my handgun too?"
"No. You aren't allowed to keep a handgun at home, but you can keep one
at a gun club. Change my first idea. Don't take them to the police
station. Call the police, and ask them to come round to you."
"And my sub-machinegun?"
"Oh dear. Better idea. Don't call the police at all. I'd go out after
dark and drop them all into the canal if I were you."
--
Brian
Brian Morrison
I saw somewhere else, in a discussion between a current UK copper and
some American bod who couldn't work out what the fuss was about, that it
was suggested that being an ex-soldier it didn't occur to him how few
British people have been close to any firearm and hence react very
differently to them. Apparently this extends to the police as well,
hence part of the reaction at least.
I agree that Paul Clarke didn't do himself any favours with his actions,
whatever his intent, but the law does appear to be making a mountain out
of a molehill.
--
Brian
Richard Kettlewell
>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden
>>> and is now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>>
>>> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't
>>> touch it - call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance
>>> away from the rozzers eventually turn up
Personally that's much what I'd do anyway (if someone dumped a gun in
my garden). I wouldn't know how to safely determine whether it was
loaded, making it completely impossible for me to move it safely.
>> What an appalling story! Poor sod. Not a miscarriage of justice,
>> because justice was applied as the statutes require -- but what
>> badly-drawn statutes!
>
> I was listening to Radio 4 last night, his solicitor was interviewed on
> the PM programme.
>
> Apparently the Wiltshire Police web site has advice on surrendering
> firearms and this chap followed the advice, making an appointment to
> deliver it to the police station.
The nearest I can find to that description is:
http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=89:what-is-an-illegally-held-gun&catid=42:general&Itemid=41
or: http://tinyurl.com/yj4xfhk
It says "during an amnesty you will not be prosecuted for possessing a
firearm illegally if you hand it in". But it doesn't say whether one
is in force or not!
John Burnham
>
> I read about this elsewhere, and I gather the chap didn't mention the
> gun when he made the appointment (duh) and when he went in to the
> police station, he unwrapped the gun in the open reception area (duh)
> and plonked it on the desk in front of the civilian receptionist
> (duh).
>
> Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
> himself in the best light here.
>
The fact that the guy apparently has some history with the local
cops probably didn't help his case much either. Apparently he was only
recently acquited of beating a DVLA officer with a broomstick.
I suspect there's a lot of back story not being reported and the guy
hasn't been sentenced yet (as far as I know). Perhaps we should hold back
on the knee jerk moral outrage until the sentence comes through.
J
Richard Kettlewell
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jo...@deadspam.com (Jon Green) wrote:
> rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <ujvMm.48804$uf7....@newsfe12.ams2>,
> > r.moss-...@computer.org (Rupert Moss-Eccardt) wrote:
> >
>
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/a
rticle-1509082-detail/article.html
> >> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden
> >> and is now probably off to prison for handing it in.
> >>
> >> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch
> >> it - call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away
> >> from the rozzers eventually turn up
> >
> > Hmm. "- Comments on this story have been disabled for legal
> > reasons".
>
> Probably to avoid any legal risks associated with prejudicing a possible
> appeal, I'd guess.
The rules on contempt are very different WRT appeals. Judges are thought
to be able to handle public comment where juries are not.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
The Natural Philosopher
If its the central governments excuse for cocking up, it becomes the
de-facto way of doing things.
Obedience to rules now rates far higher than actual effective results.
No doubt there IS more to along the lines of 'what the fuck are you
doing arresting me for doing my public duty you snivelling little excuse
for a copper? If I had had you in my regiment you would have been snot
at dawn' etc etc.
Anyway, its the ultimate authority get out. No one is responsible for
failure. The rules are followed slavishly, because only breach of rules
and guidelines is a sackable offence. Getting the wrong rules is is just
an excuse for yet more fiddling with the legal framework, and yet more
calls on public money to get yet another QUANGO to look into it and
report back in 5 years time.
Its entirely legal to drive a bus full of passengers into the back of a
single carriageway pile up. It isn't legal to cross a double white line
to avoid it.
I THOUGHT this was what courts of appeal were for, and sentencing policy.
At the least he should have been technically pleasing guilty, if
possession is defined as 'having in your hand' and given an absolute
discharge. But the case should never have been brought. In the final
analysis the Law Lords should have the power to say that, like driving a
vehicle TO an MOT station without an MOT, the one exception to
possession of a firearm is to be taking it to someone who can safely
dispose of it.
And that his actions being the actions of any sensible law abiding
person, should not be subject to a law intended to prosecute for
entirely different purposes.
I suppose he is lucky it wasn't a table leg in a paper bag. Or he wasn't
a Brazilian.
At least he is still alive.
The Natural Philosopher
Why? without cartridges its just so much scrap metal.
> Dave
>
The Natural Philosopher
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:27:57 +0000, Dave Holland wrote:
>
>> I read about this elsewhere, and I gather the chap didn't mention the
>> gun when he made the appointment (duh) and when he went in to the
>> police station, he unwrapped the gun in the open reception area (duh)
>> and plonked it on the desk in front of the civilian receptionist
>> (duh).
>>
>> Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
>> himself in the best light here.
>>
>
> The fact that the guy apparently has some history with the local
> cops probably didn't help his case much either. Apparently he was only
> recently acquited of beating a DVLA officer with a broomstick.
>
A highly justifiable action IMHO.
So what happened to verdicts not being prejudiced by history then?
> I suspect there's a lot of back story not being reported and the guy
> hasn't been sentenced yet (as far as I know). Perhaps we should hold back
> on the knee jerk moral outrage until the sentence comes through.
>
If its more than a penny fine, there will be more outrage
> J
>
The Natural Philosopher
> Brian Morrison <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> writes:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>>
>>>> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden
>>>> and is now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>>>
>>>> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't
>>>> touch it - call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance
>>>> away from the rozzers eventually turn up
>
> Personally that's much what I'd do anyway (if someone dumped a gun in
> my garden). I wouldn't know how to safely determine whether it was
> loaded, making it completely impossible for me to move it safely.
>
well moving the safety to off and pulling the triggers while pointing
the barrels upwards, is a pretty good way to render it harmless. ;-)
Or just breaking the gun and looking down the barrels..not from the
pointy end though.
John Burnham
>
>> I suspect there's a lot of back story not being reported and the guy
>> hasn't been sentenced yet (as far as I know). Perhaps we should hold back
>> on the knee jerk moral outrage until the sentence comes through.
>>
>
> If its more than a penny fine, there will be more outrage
>
Ah, so you know the full details then ? No, you don't and neither do I.
Alternatively, just sit there being outraged - doesn't bother me or well
over 99.99999% of the population.
J
Jules
> I suspect there's a lot of back story not being reported and the guy
> hasn't been sentenced yet (as far as I know). Perhaps we should hold back
> on the knee jerk moral outrage until the sentence comes through.
This is cam.misc, so bugger that! ;)
Dave Holland
>The fact that the guy apparently has some history with the local
>cops probably didn't help his case much either. Apparently he was only
>recently acquited of beating a DVLA officer with a broomstick.
! Didn't know that.
>I suspect there's a lot of back story not being reported
As is, sadly, so often the case with the media.
(What's the saying? Once you've seen a media report on something you
know about, and seen the holes/errors/inconsistencies, you never trust
the media again?)
> and the guy
>hasn't been sentenced yet (as far as I know). Perhaps we should hold back
>on the knee jerk moral outrage until the sentence comes through.
Probably. I doubt the full story will come out too though.
Dave
Jules
What's the definition of possession in this case?
It was wrapped up; he had to unwrap it to see what was inside. Once he'd
touched it, does it then become possession of a firearm?
Does that mean that every time someone sees a Tesco bag that's blown into
their back garden, they should be calling the cops round just in case
there happens to be a discarded firearm inside? The mind boggles...
Jon Green
> Dave Holland wrote:
>> Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
>> himself in the best light here.
>
> Why? without cartridges its just so much scrap metal.
TBF, it's not exactly easy to tell at first glance whether an unbroken
shotgun is loaded or not.
Jon
Jules
>>>> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't
>>>> touch it - call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance
>>>> away from the rozzers eventually turn up
>
> Personally that's much what I'd do anyway (if someone dumped a gun in
> my garden). I wouldn't know how to safely determine whether it was
> loaded, making it completely impossible for me to move it safely.
How do you determine it's a gun if it's wrapped up, though?
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Dave Holland wrote:
>>> Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
>>> himself in the best light here.
>> Why? without cartridges its just so much scrap metal.
>
> TBF, it's not exactly easy to tell at first glance whether an unbroken
> shotgun is loaded or not.
>
unbroken.
> Jon
The Natural Philosopher
Its arguable that having a tesco bag in your garden with a gun in it is
already possession of a firearm.
If I ever find one, I think I'll find someone I dislike, hide it in his
shed, and do the anonymous tipoff bit. Now where does the chief
constable of Surrey live, again?
Jon Green
Depends how forensically-aware he was, I guess. If he was trying to
preserve evidence, he'd touch it as little as possible. *shrug* Dunno.
Mind you, I kinda doubt even I'd leave a shotgun unbroken -- even in
those circs. And I'm hardly the most military of individuals.
Brian Morrison
>
> Why? without cartridges its just so much scrap metal.
There were 2 cartridges in the bag with it....
--
Brian
Brian Morrison
I could have sworn I heard his solicitor mention Wiltshire Police on PM
yesterday.
--
Brian
Richard Kettlewell
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Personally that's much what I'd do anyway (if someone dumped a gun
>> in my garden). I wouldn't know how to safely determine whether it
>> was loaded, making it completely impossible for me to move it
>> safely.
>
> well moving the safety to off and pulling the triggers while
> pointing the barrels upwards, is a pretty good way to render it
> harmless. ;-)
l-)
> Or just breaking the gun and looking down the barrels..not from the
> pointy end though.
I'm sure it can't be that hard, but "I've just found a gun in my back
garden" is hardly the time to figure it out by trial and error!
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Jon Green wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> Dave Holland wrote:
>>>>> Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
>>>>> himself in the best light here.
>>>> Why? without cartridges its just so much scrap metal.
>>> TBF, it's not exactly easy to tell at first glance whether an unbroken
>>> shotgun is loaded or not.
>>>
>> And if he was a military man, for sure he wouldn't walk around with it
>> unbroken.
>
> Depends how forensically-aware he was, I guess. If he was trying to
> preserve evidence, he'd touch it as little as possible. *shrug* Dunno.
> Mind you, I kinda doubt even I'd leave a shotgun unbroken -- even in
> those circs. And I'm hardly the most military of individuals.
>
Exactly. teh sort of preson who desont know one end of a gun from teh
oter would probably peeek inside, panic, and call 999.
The sort of person who does, would probably pick it up in its bag, and
break it using the bag as a glove, and totter off down the nick with
it ticked under his arm.
I wouldn't tell them I was coming with a gun,either. Id probably get shot.
> Jon
The Natural Philosopher
The Natural Philosopher
of whom could doubtless advise me.
Brian Morrison
I imagine the difference would be lost on many people.
--
Brian
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Some years ago when my old dad died in 2003 he was a shooting enthusiast
but had got rid of the guns a few years before. However in his wardrobe
we found around a 1/4 ton of ammo!, 12 bore in bulk, 410, .22 cartridge
bullets, revolver bullets and a few small shells left over from the time
he was in the war..
Asked Old Bill if they'd come and collect it but said that I should take
it home!..
The missus wasn't all that keen on that idea;!..
In the end after the funeral we discovered a long lost relative who was
a keen shooter and gave the lot to him who thought all his Christmases
had come at once!!.
All the 12 and 410 stuff was fine despite the age of some of it;).
Dunno where the other stuff went, suppose someone has a shelf full of
ammo in case it'd come in handy;!.
And NO its not here!..
--
Tony Sayer
Steven Kitson
>Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Personally that's much what I'd do anyway (if someone dumped a gun in
>> my garden). I wouldn't know how to safely determine whether it was
>> loaded, making it completely impossible for me to move it safely.
>
>well moving the safety to off and pulling the triggers while pointing
>the barrels upwards, is a pretty good way to render it harmless. ;-)
Oh, there's something I heard ones, about what happens to things that go
up... can anyone remind me?
Steven Kitson
>Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Personally that's much what I'd do anyway (if someone dumped a gun in
>> my garden). I wouldn't know how to safely determine whether it was
>> loaded, making it completely impossible for me to move it safely.
>
>well moving the safety to off and pulling the triggers while pointing
>the barrels upwards, is a pretty good way to render it harmless. ;-)
Oh, there's something I heard once, about what happens to things that go
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Suppose the best thing might be to ask them to call round in case there
just might any forensic evidence they could get.
After all most unlawfully acquired shotguns seem to be -cut down- to fit
in more convenient cases and bags;!..
--
Tony Sayer
Calvin Sambrook
news:hduckn$pns$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
>> Marcus wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>> Someone needed to tell the jurors that they had absolute discretion to
>>>> find him not guilty if they thought the law stupid or the circumstances
>>>> warranted it. A jury cannot be in contempt of court and their decision
>>>> and reasoning is protected from scrutiny.
>>>>
>>> There is also discretion allowed to the police and CPS.
>>> They could have decided not to charge or not to bring the prosecution.
>>
>> Is it just me or does it seem that there's more and more stupid cases
>> like this where all concerned (except the defence) claim that they are
>> duty-bound to apply the strict letter of the law? And juries
>> seem to be increasingly ill-informed?
>
> If its the central governments excuse for cocking up, it becomes the
> de-facto way of doing things.
>
> Obedience to rules now rates far higher than actual effective results.
>
This was well established by Stanley Milgram back in the early 1960s where
he showed, somewhat alarmingly, that people tend to obey percieved authority
and not apply "common sense" or indeed morality.
> I suppose he is lucky it wasn't a table leg in a paper bag. Or he wasn't a
> Brazilian.
>
> At least he is still alive.
Indeed. Those two cases in particular are classic Milgram stuff, he had his
subjects electrocute people (well they fully believed they were anyway)
simply because someone in authority told them to. Substitute shoot for
electrocute or in the case we are discussing here substitute prosecute for
electrocute.
Sarah Cooper
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
doesn't always break the firing pins and not immediately obvious to
anybody else that it is "rendered harmless".
If it were me, I'd not get fingerprints on it, leave it in the boot and
get plod to come and have a look so it doesn't look like I'm brandishing
it in any way. No way of knowing whether it was unloaded or not if
unbroken and breaking it may destroy evidence.
The guy was an idiot to walk into a police station like that but the army
don't employ shotguns the last I looked. If he's not been around shotguns
he simply wouldn't have known how to handle one.... except to only point
it in a safe direction, which I believe is exactly what he did.
Not the brightest thing to do, but the charges against him are even more
stupid.
--
SCoop
Calvin Sambrook
news:K7B*tn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
They come down but much more slowly and therefore less dangerously.
Richard Kettlewell
In this case it was apparently a bin liner; the profile of a gun may
be pretty obvious through that.
If not or if more opaquely wrapped, though: open wrapping, erk! a
gun!, put last bit of wrapping back, get on phone to police. Or to a
lawyer for advice if you're particularly paranoid about the police, I
suppose.
To add a bit of local relevance l-) Cambridgeshire police have this to
say:
What should I do if I unexpectedly come into possession of a firearm?
You may find yourself the unexpected owner of a firearm or firearms
through no fault of your own. Many people inherit firearms following
the death of a relative, or discover them in a loft, garage or shed
when they move house.
If you find yourself the owner or in possession of a firearm you are
not authorised for, contact the Firearms & Explosives Licensing
Department.
You may be eligible to be issued with a temporary permit to possess
the firearm(s) whilst arrangements are made to disposed of them
safely and appropriately.
If you discover firearms, explosives or ammunition in a house you
move into do not attempt to handle them, as they may be loaded and
dangerous, contact the police.
Fevric J. Glandules
> The fact that the guy apparently has some history with the local
> cops probably didn't help his case much either.
How do you know when the law is not being applied impartially?
When the police, judges, etc., are all making a big song and dance
about how they have to apply the law impartially.
And this, I might add, is why some of us get het up about bad
legislation - because it *does* end up applied inappropriately,
however much the politicos assure us that it wouldn't get used
like that.
This is under fairly recent legislation AIUI so there should be
plenty of serving MPs to ask whether they though it could end up
being used like this.
Fevric J. Glandules
> And that his actions being the actions of any sensible law abiding
If he'd been sensible he'd have *said* what he'd found.
Of course, as has been pointed out, as an ex-squaddie he may not
have seen it as any big deal.
> person, should not be subject to a law intended to prosecute for
> entirely different purposes.
*This* seems to be the important issue.
Duncan Wood
<scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> Dave Holland wrote:
>> Jon Green <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>>> Apparently the Wiltshire Police web site has advice on surrendering
>>>> firearms and this chap followed the advice, making an appointment to
>>>> deliver it to the police station.
>>> Got that impression from the article too, good to hear left hand is
>>> talking to right hand...
>>
>> I read about this elsewhere, and I gather the chap didn't mention the
>> gun when he made the appointment (duh) and when he went in to the
>> police station, he unwrapped the gun in the open reception area (duh)
>> and plonked it on the desk in front of the civilian receptionist
>> (duh).
>>
>> Stupidity isn't illegal, but it sounds like he didn't exactly present
>> himself in the best light here.
>
> I saw somewhere else, in a discussion between a current UK copper and
> some American bod who couldn't work out what the fuss was about, that it
> was suggested that being an ex-soldier it didn't occur to him how few
> British people have been close to any firearm and hence react very
> differently to them. Apparently this extends to the police as well,
> hence part of the reaction at least.
>
> I agree that Paul Clarke didn't do himself any favours with his actions,
> whatever his intent, but the law does appear to be making a mountain out
> of a molehill.
>
If he's an ex soldier then why didn't he unload it?
Duncan Wood
<scra...@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why? without cartridges its just so much scrap metal.
>>> There were 2 cartridges in the bag with it....
>>>
>> But not in the gun..
>
> I imagine the difference would be lost on many people.
>
Presumably including his defence lawyer.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/section_19_firearms_act/
Brian Morrison
>
> If he's an ex soldier then why didn't he unload it?
It wasn't loaded, the cartridges were in the bag loose.
--
Brian
Brian Morrison
I assume his lawyer knows that the gun was not loaded, but if someone
puts an unloaded, unbroken shotgun down on the desk it isn't obvious one
way or the other.
--
Brian
The Natural Philosopher
no intention to use it, in effect here?
Brian Morrison
>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/section_19_firearms_act/
>>
> Now is a police station a 'public place' and is the mitigating factor of
> no intention to use it, in effect here?
>
How can you have mitigation with a strict liability offence?
--
Brian
The Natural Philosopher
well just in case someone thinks that using old ammo is a good idea, one
person I ken owes probably his sight, and possibly his life, to the fact
that when the old box of cartridges full of damp failed to pop more than
the primer, I stopped him reloading, until he had checked that the
barrels were clear. They were not. Bloody great lump of wadding and
powder half way down.
And I don't even have a gun license or own anything more than an air rifle.
The Natural Philosopher
a patter of shot is not very destructive. Its probably less harmful than
hail. That's why there are no special rules surrounding shotguns. The
muzzle velocity is low, and they are sub lethal at 60m.
vis a vis a 22 rifle, lethal at 2 miles maybe. Never to be fired at
targets above the horizon, or against banks of trees behind which people
may be lurking.
.
>
Duncan Wood
It's the defendants liability to prove it.
Duncan Wood
Duncan Wood
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
& not just old ammo.
http://www.basc.org.uk/download.cfm/docid/BF54EA58-414A-4E60-85EA62AC7D54E54E
The Natural Philosopher
The Natural Philosopher
Well someone I know here on this NG uses 12 and 20 bore..I think. so
that's a timely reminder.
THX for the link.
Calvin Sambrook
news:hdurfk$i7e$4...@news.albasani.net...
A public place is any place to which the public have access, so yes, that
includes a police station.
My understanding of strict liability offences is that there is no mitigation
as to the offence having been committed, got a gun? you're guilty.
The mitigation (or aggravation) comes into the sentencing stage and informs
the judge when he's deciding how long you should pleasure her majesty. In
this case I believe there is a minimum term anyway so this guy's going down.
Poor sod.
Matthew Woodcraft
> My understanding of strict liability offences is that there is no mitigation
> as to the offence having been committed, got a gun? you're guilty.
> The mitigation (or aggravation) comes into the sentencing stage and informs
> the judge when he's deciding how long you should pleasure her majesty. In
> this case I believe there is a minimum term anyway so this guy's going down.
If it really is the case that the letter of the law forces this
penalty, but everyone agrees that he doesn't deserve it, then this is
exactly the sort of thing that a royal pardon is for.
-M-
Duncan Wood
You'd have to convince everybody. A large chunk of world may well wonder
why when finding a sawn off he didn't just ring plod.
Calvin Sambrook
news:eAw*U4...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Trouble is he then has a criminal record which is pretty serious in itself.
Better than prison but still quite a problem, for instance when applying for
a job.
Now the other interesting question is at what point he became "in
possession" of the gun. I suspect that it was technically at the point it
was put in his garden, there's certainly lots of instances when this is the
case, eg a car dumped in a field becomes the farmer's possession at that
point and hence his responsibility to pay to dispose of. If that's the case
then there was nothing he could have done anyway to protect himself from
being prosecuted if the police so chose.
That's the trouble with bad law.
Cwatters
"Rupert Moss-Eccardt" <r.moss-...@computer.org> wrote in message
news:ujvMm.48804$uf7....@newsfe12.ams2...
> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>
> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
> now probably off to prison for handing it in.
I do hope he gets a pardon.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Jon Green wrote:
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>> http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
>>> now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>>
>>> So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
>>> call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
>>> rozzers eventually turn up
>>
>> What an appalling story! Poor sod. Not a miscarriage of justice,
>> because justice was applied as the statutes require -- but what
>> badly-drawn statutes!
>
>I was listening to Radio 4 last night, his solicitor was interviewed on
>the PM programme.
>
>Apparently the Wiltshire Police web site has advice on surrendering
>firearms and this chap followed the advice, making an appointment to
>deliver it to the police station.
a) He doesn't live in Wiltshire
b) That's specifically for people handing in their own guns under an
amnesty.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
>now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>
>So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
>call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
>rozzers eventually turn up
The guy was a dickhead. He found a gun in his back garden. So, what
did he do? Phone the police and tell them that he's found a gun? No,
nothing so sensible. Instead, he phones the chief superintendent
specifically, asks if he can go in to see him - never mentioning that
it's because of a gun he's found - then wanders in the next day and
plonks the gun on the desk.
In the report, he's quoted as saying "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". Well, d'oh, if you don't know what to
do, why not *ask* the police for some advice? Especially if you've got
the chief super on the phone - it's not like it's some kind of huge
secret that's got to be kept until you can meet in person.
Apart from the fact that carrying an unlicenced gun in public is an
offence (and it's a much more serious offence than mere posssession),
there are plenty of good reasons why taking a gun to the police
station, instead of just calling them to let them know you've found
it, is a bad idea. For a start, if it's been dumped, then the chances
are it's been used in a crime, and there could well be important
evidence associated with not only the gun itself but the exact
location where it was found. And, especially if it's been illegally
modified, then it may well not be safe.
Although possession of an unlicenced firearm is a strict liability
offence, there are some specific exceptions. One of those exceptions
is for cases where you find yourself in possession of a firearm
without having taken any action to acquire it. This covers cases
where, for example, you inherit a previously licenced gun from a
deceased relative (because you inherit the property, but the licence
expires with him), where you find a gun on property that you have just
taken possession of as a owner or tenant or, as in the case reported
here, where someone else leaves a gun on your property. In these
circumstances, provided you follow the correct procedures for
disposing of it (or, if appropriate, acquiring the necessary licence
to keep it), you won't be prosecuted.
http://www.met.police.uk/firearms_licensing/faqs.html explicitly
states that if you find a gun, you should leave it alone and call the
police. You can find similar advice on plenty of other websites.
Reading between the lines, not just in this story but elsewhere (it's
not the first time he's been in the news), it seems that the guy is a
wannabe hero with an attitude problem (consider, for a moment, the
fact that he knew the chief super by name and asked to speak to him
specifically. How many of us would have that knowledge or interaction
with our local police?). Acting like a jerk with a gun won't
necessarily result in you ending up in court, but if you've already
got a reputation among the local police as a nutter and/or
troublemaker, then doing something stupid like this is going to be
just they excuse they need to throw the book at you.
Tim Ward
news:ic16g55os9kg4rps8...@news.markshouse.net...
>
> consider, for a moment, the
> fact that he knew the chief super by name and asked to speak to him
> specifically. How many of us would have that knowledge or interaction
> with our local police?
Even some of us who do would call 999 in preference.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Fevric J. Glandules
> got a reputation among the local police as a nutter and/or
> troublemaker, then doing something stupid like this is going to be
> just they excuse they need to throw the book at you.
And the jury should have thrown it back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury#Jury_equity
Duncan Wood
Or not.
The Natural Philosopher
He just failed to say why..
The Natural Philosopher
> "Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ic16g55os9kg4rps8...@news.markshouse.net...
>> consider, for a moment, the
>> fact that he knew the chief super by name and asked to speak to him
>> specifically. How many of us would have that knowledge or interaction
>> with our local police?
>
> Even some of us who do would call 999 in preference.
>
after all.
Lets's face it, one of the reason most of the public don't cooperate
with the police, is that they are no longer tasked with solving crime
and maintaining law and order.
They are tasked with making arrests that give them high scores n
'detecting crime'
An old geezer walking in with a shotgun, is a gift. ten brownie points
for no effort.
Tim Ward
>>
>> Even some of us who do would call 999 in preference.
>>
> no. You would get done for wasting police time. Its not an emergency after
> all.
Oh Yes It Is - it's a "crime in progress" for which calling 999 is
absolutely fine, and likely gets you an A response.
Even if the "crime in progress" is my involuntary possession yada yada yada
...
Matthew Woodcraft
>"Matthew Woodcraft" <matt...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> penalty, but everyone agrees that he doesn't deserve it, then this is
>> exactly the sort of thing that a royal pardon is for.
> Trouble is he then has a criminal record which is pretty serious in itself.
> Better than prison but still quite a problem, for instance when applying for
> a job.
Indeed.
It would be best if there was a form of pardon that let you keep the
conviction hidden (similarly to the way you sometimes can after enough
time has passed). I've no idea whether pardons can currently work like
that.
-M-
Calvin Sambrook
news:ic16g55os9kg4rps8...@news.markshouse.net...
We'd all agree he acted like a dickhead. But there is no law against that,
sadly.
I think you are simply wrong about there being an exception in law for
finding a weapon. I've scoured the act and I can't find one. There's
plenty of Home Office guidance to police forces but that amounts to nothing
once it's in court.
It looks to me as if the HO guidance "Anyone surrendering an illegally held
firearm should be questioned discreetly with a view to establishing its
history but, ...[snip]..., the person handing it in should not be pressed.
The emphasis should be on creating an environment in which people hand in
illegally held firearms." has been ignored in this case. We can only guess
why.
One possibility might (and given what else has been said quite well could)
be that the person in question has been convicted of a crime recently.
Depending on the severity of that crime possessing a firearm at all becomes
an offense.
This whole thing demonstrates the problems caused when the government enacts
laws which are draconian and/or badly worded while stating that they will
only be used in the most serious offences or somesuch. Sooner or later,
often sooner and frequently, they are used inappropriately.
Bad law.
Jules
> The guy was a dickhead. He found a gun in his back garden. So, what
> did he do? Phone the police and tell them that he's found a gun? No,
> nothing so sensible. Instead, he phones the chief superintendent
> specifically, asks if he can go in to see him - never mentioning that
> it's because of a gun he's found - then wanders in the next day and
> plonks the gun on the desk.
>
> In the report, he's quoted as saying "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". Well, d'oh, if you don't know what to
> do, why not *ask* the police for some advice? Especially if you've got
> the chief super on the phone - it's not like it's some kind of huge
> secret that's got to be kept until you can meet in person.
I dunno, I loathe phones and always prefer to meet people in person if I
can (that or take the lazy way out and just do things via email), so
personally I can understand someone wanting to go and physically see the
chief super - but I still would have made sure I'd said *why* I wanted to
see them, I think.
Not sure what this guy's background is (I've met a few GCHQ people
before who are very careful about who they say what to and exactly how
they say it!). Or maybe he's just a little paranoid. Maybe he just
wasn't thinking clearly. All sorts of reasons, I suppose.
> Apart from the fact that carrying an unlicenced gun in public is an
> offence (and it's a much more serious offence than mere posssession)
He didn't necessarily know that, though - once he knew it was unloaded and
so couldn't accidentally hurt anyone he possibly just wanted to take it
into the cop shop where he assumed that someone would deal with it.
> there are plenty of good reasons why taking a gun to the police station,
> instead of just calling them to let them know you've found it, is a bad
> idea.
It'd end up with you full of holes on this side of the Pond, I expect :-)
(anecdote from a friend in the US on this earlier - he once found a gun
that had been left in a rented apartment. Police told him to definitely
not bring it in, and suggested he take it to a charity shop in case they
could make some money out of it)
> For a start, if it's been dumped, then the chances are it's been
> used in a crime, and there could well be important evidence associated
> with not only the gun itself but the exact location where it was found.
> And, especially if it's been illegally modified, then it may well not be
> safe.
Problem there being that he didn't know it was a gun - seems like he just
saw something wrapped up in a bin liner and - I assume - had to pick it
up and unwrap it to see what was inside. Putting the gun back would at
best not make the scene any worse.
Once it was known it was a gun it certainly seems sensible to call the
police and have them come to you, so I'm still not quite sure what his
logic there was (one guess is that for whatever reason he didn't want to
be seen with a police car outside his house).
> (consider, for a moment, the fact
> that he knew the chief super by name and asked to speak to him
> specifically. How many of us would have that knowledge or interaction
> with our local police?).
Depends where you live and the size of the town/village...
cheers
Jules
Fevric J. Glandules
Why not? Did the guy deserve a custodial sentence for being a dickhead?
Fevric J. Glandules
> This whole thing demonstrates the problems caused when the government enacts
> laws which are draconian and/or badly worded while stating that they will
> only be used in the most serious offences or somesuch. Sooner or later,
> often sooner and frequently, they are used inappropriately.
Quite. At which point our defence against bad law is the jury.
Jury members need to know that they *can* ignore the evidence
and return a verdict of "not guilty" if that is the right
thing to do.
The Natural Philosopher
> Calvin Sambrook wrote:
>
>> This whole thing demonstrates the problems caused when the government enacts
>> laws which are draconian and/or badly worded while stating that they will
>> only be used in the most serious offences or somesuch. Sooner or later,
>> often sooner and frequently, they are used inappropriately.
>
> Quite. At which point our defence against bad law is the jury.
>
And the court of appeal. Or high court.
Where the opportuinty to change law by a judgement, is possible.
Duncan Wood
<f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Well he appears to be in line for a custodial sentence for posession of a
sawn off shotgun that after he's been arrested he claims he found in his
garden. Which would generally be considred a bit unbeleviable, in the case
of a gun beinga dickhead with one is deemed to be worthy of a custodial
sentence. There may be some mitigation, he may well be so stupid that he
couldn't have rung the police & told them he'd found it rather than
aquired it elsewhere, but presumably his lawyer can make that argument at
sentencing. That's what exceptional circumstances are for.
--
Duncan Wood
Linda Fox
Since we haven't been given every detail of this case, and since the
guilty verdict does, at first glance, seem slightly strange, maybe we
should consider the possibility that the jury heard a more "fleshed
out" version than we've been given?
Linda ff
Cwatters
"Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:he0fmk$ouk$1...@news.tornevall.net...
Humm. I reckon it would be unwise for that to become standard/common place
as it works both ways. Pitty the poor innocent sod who ends up before a
group of Daily Mail readers after blood.
Cwatters
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ic16g55os9kg4rps8...@news.markshouse.net...
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>
>>Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
>>now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>
>>So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
>>call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
>>rozzers eventually turn up
>
> The guy was a dickhead. He found a gun in his back garden. So, what
> did he do? Phone the police and tell them that he's found a gun?
I can it now.. by the time the message gets to the SWAT team it's become..
"Black man in house has gun and s bagging people in his garden"
Fevric J. Glandules
> "Fevric J. Glandules" <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:he0fmk$ouk$1...@news.tornevall.net...
>>
>> Jury members need to know that they *can* ignore the evidence
>> and return a verdict of "not guilty" if that is the right
>> thing to do.
>
> Humm. I reckon it would be unwise for that to become standard/common place
> as it works both ways. Pitty the poor innocent sod who ends up before a
> group of Daily Mail readers after blood.
I believe I've heard of that happening.
Fevric J. Glandules
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:44:52 +0000 (UTC), "Fevric J. Glandules"
> <f...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Jury members need to know that they *can* ignore the evidence
>>and return a verdict of "not guilty" if that is the right
>>thing to do.
>
> Since we haven't been given every detail of this case, and since the
> guilty verdict does, at first glance, seem slightly strange, maybe we
It's not strange - the jury were told to decide whether or not the
accused was in posession of a firearm. He was.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Well he appears to be in line for a custodial sentence for posession of a
> sawn off shotgun that after he's been arrested he claims he found in his
> garden.
WTF? He didn't get arrested for posession and *then* start making
claims! He phoned the police and made an appointment to bring
"something" in!
He's a twit for not saying *what* it was, sure.
Calvin Sambrook
news:he0l3m$s2t$1...@news.tornevall.net...
That's precisely the point, it's a strict liability offence. The jury are
there to decide on the *facts*, because of the (bad) way this law is worded
they were not being asked "was this man in possession of a gun with some bad
intent?" but simply "was this man in possession of a gun?".
There is no option for them to decide "yes, but...", it's not permitted.
Strict liability offences are draconian. The government likes them a lot
because it's much easier to get a conviction, which makes them look
successful on law and order. On the other hand they catch people who are
essentially not guilty and turns them into criminals.
Possession of firearms is one example. Child porn is another where the
strict liability means that, for instance, a computer repair technician who
finds such stuff on a machine he is repairing is committing an offence as
soon as the image appears on the screen. The police generally don't
prosecute him of course but occasionally a rogue case gets through at which
point he's stuffed.
Bad law.
The Natural Philosopher
Compare e.g.
Loitering with intent..
Possession with intent to supply.
Attempted murder/murder: the intent to kill must be premeditated.
Of course these are NOT acts introduced in the last ten years.. go figure.
Plus all the furore around TV licensing..how long before *possession* of
TV or computer without a license..is illegal.
Calvin Sambrook
Precisely. The offences you list are not strict liability. The prosecution
needs to convince the jury that you had intent to do whatever and in order
to that they need to provide other supporting evidence. Compare that to a
situation where those offences were strict liability, imagine we have laws:
Loitering. Strict liability would mean anyone found loitering is
automatically guilty of a crime.
Possession for the purpose of supply. Anyone in possession would be deemed
to be about to supply.
Murder. Strict liability would mean all killing would be murder.
Fevric J. Glandules
> That's precisely the point, it's a strict liability offence. The jury are
> there to decide on the *facts*, because of the (bad) way this law is worded
> they were not being asked "was this man in possession of a gun with some bad
> intent?" but simply "was this man in possession of a gun?".
> There is no option for them to decide "yes, but...", it's not permitted.
Yes there IS! Looks like you have not read the WP entry I linked to
so I'll just paste in the relevant section:
Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales
was the acquittal of Clive Ponting, on a charge of revealing secret
information, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in 1985.
Mr Ponting's defence was that the revelation was in the public
interest. The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest
is what the government of the day says it is" – effectively a
direction to the jury to convict. Nevertheless, the jury returned a
verdict of not guilty.
Another example is the acquittal in 1989 of Michael Randle and Pat
Pottle, who confessed in open court to charges of springing the Soviet
spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs Prison and smuggling him to East
Germany in 1966. Pottle successfully appealed to the jury to disregard
the judge's instruction that they consider only whether the defendants
were guilty in law, and assert a jury's ancient right to throw out a
politically-motivated prosecution, in this case compounded by its
cynical untimeliness.[12]
Jennifer Liddle
> There is no option for them to decide "yes, but...", it's not permitted.
It specifically *is* permitted. The jury can decide whatever they like.
I'm reminded of the Clive Ponting case, where the judge directed the jury
to return a verdict of guilty on the grounds that he had admitted the
actual offence, but the jury refused and returned a not guilty verdict. I
recall that the judge was very unhappy about this, but there was
absolutely nothing he could do about it.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Silence gives consent. -- Canon Law
Fevric J. Glandules
> Calvin Sambrook wrote:
>
>> There is no option for them to decide "yes, but...", it's not permitted.
>
> It specifically *is* permitted. The jury can decide whatever they like.
>
> I'm reminded of the Clive Ponting case, where the judge directed the jury
> to return a verdict of guilty on the grounds that he had admitted the
> actual offence, but the jury refused and returned a not guilty verdict. I
> recall that the judge was very unhappy about this, but there was
> absolutely nothing he could do about it.
IANAL but I think the judge can order a retrial if he/she thinks the
jury has been nobbled, and possibly in other circs.
Marcus
I think they need to provide some prima facie evidence that this has
occurred.
They cannot simply state - I do not agree with your verdict and
therefore want a retrial.
This was settled reasonably early - I suspect that Garrow had a hand in it.
Marcus
Duncan Wood
So when did he claim he'd found a gun in his back garden before he was
arrested for possession of it? And his own statement said he phoned & said
"could I pop in and see him".
--
Duncan Wood
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Tue, 17 Nov
>2009 20:45:48 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:53:20 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt put finger to
>>keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
>>>
>>>Is a story of a chap who finds a gun at the bottom of his garden and is
>>>now probably off to prison for handing it in.
>>>
>>>So, remember, if you find a gun or knife in the street, don't touch it -
>>>call 999 instead and make sure you are a good distance away from the
>>>rozzers eventually turn up
>>
>>The guy was a dickhead. He found a gun in his back garden. So, what
>>did he do? Phone the police and tell them that he's found a gun? No,
>>nothing so sensible. Instead, he phones the chief superintendent
>>specifically, asks if he can go in to see him - never mentioning that
>>it's because of a gun he's found - then wanders in the next day and
>>plonks the gun on the desk.
>>
>Well, given the known police overreaction to even the faintest
>suspicion of a firearm, it's perfectly understandable.
Given the known police overreaction to even the faintest suspicion of
a firearm, it's even more stupid to walk into the station with it and
plonk it on the desk without warning.
>By the time the message has reached the firearms squad, it's likely to
>be "this guy phoned up and says he's got a sawn off shotgun and is
>hoping to find a copper", after which the deployed officers will get
>"He phoned up and made direct threats against the police, so it's
>shoot first, ask questions later"
That's even more implausible that the guy's excuse.
>The police and CPS between them have passed a very clear message with
>this prosecution.
>If you ever find a firearm, or have any suspicion as to where one may
>be located, the absolute last thing you should ever do is inform the
>police. If they don't shoot you they'll lock you up for at least 5
>years.
No, the police and CPS have passed a very clear message with this
prosecution: If you find a firearm, do things by the book instead of
trying to be the hero.
>>In the report, he's quoted as saying "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". Well, d'oh, if you don't know what to
>>do, why not *ask* the police for some advice? Especially if you've got
>>the chief super on the phone - it's not like it's some kind of huge
>>secret that's got to be kept until you can meet in person.
>>
>There are perfectly good reasons why he may not wish the police to
>come swarming round.
Well, maybe, if he's got things to hide. Or if he's paranoid. Neither
is a defence in law.
>If whoever disposed of the weapon there finds out who reported it,
>they could go out seeking revenge, so it's not unreasonable to want to
>keep it quiet.
Pity his actions meant it ended up in the papers, then, isn't it.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Al Grant
> You'd have to convince everybody.
You don't have to convince anyone to issue a
Royal Pardon. You just have to be Home Secretary.
Google for "Haase" and "Bennett".
Al Grant
> I think you are simply wrong about there being an exception in law for
> finding a weapon. I've scoured the act and I can't find one.
I found a chef knife on a pavement early one morning.
I hid it under my jacket and took it to Parkside. They just
said "thanks" and didn't even bother to take my name.