Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

I find the following quote to be rather disturbing....

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

[Kymmy]

Hmmm, change the law and see a load of guilty people walk, or make a single innocent man suffer..Surely the police should have "lost" evidence in this one so the CPS couldn't proceed.

Make me wonder what I would have done.. Leave it in a low wall garden for the original criminal to return and recover or even worse a kid to climb over retrieving his/her ball and find... or pick up the weapon, make it safe by unloading and then put it securely away until the police came.. It's not as though him (or even myself) isn't qualified to make the weapon safe...

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Hmmm, change the law and see a load of guilty people walk, or make a single innocent man suffer..Surely the should have "lost" evidence in this one so the CPS couldn't proceed.

Make me wonder what I would have done.. Leave it in a low wall garden for the original criminal to return and recover or even worse a kid to climb over retrieving his/her ball and find... or pick up the weapon, make it safe by unloading and then put it securely away until the police came.. It's not as though him (or even myself) isn't qualified to make the weapon safe...

Its ok as long as you aint the single person( think you are being sexist here inferring only men use guns lol lol )

Now I have seen this story and had this law highlighted I would not touch the gun I would call the old bill sit with a camera and if someone comes to get it take a photo.

This does seem to be a stupid law guilty or guilty think it does need changing. There may well be a reason why this law has been used on this bloke but seeing as the guilty verdict has been passed all the trial info should be available surely?

[Kymmy]

Where was I being sexist?? I only used "man" in reference to this one case in other words "a single innocent man" as it's the only case we've ever heard of.

Personally I wouldn't like to see the law changed as that opens up a defence in court, this though should never have gone as far as court.. As it's a slam dunk the CPS will always prosecute but how far do the police go in voiding a case like this and still stay within the law..

Derek can you personally think of any way as to what a police force could have done to prevent the case getting to court?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Derek can you personally think of any way as to what a police force could have done to prevent the case getting to court?

Plenty of ways but none that wouldn't involve someone getting shafted for it. Once the report goes to the CPS it gets difficult.

I still think there is more to the story than has been reported.

[Kymmy]

If there is then I'm sure that now the story has gone viral it'll soon pop out

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Where was I being sexist?? I only used "man" in reference to this one case in other words "a single innocent man" as it's the only case we've ever heard of.

Personally I wouldn't like to see the law changed as that opens up a defence in court, this though should never have gone as far as court.. As it's a slam dunk the CPS will always prosecute but how far do the police go in voiding a case like this and still stay within the law..

Derek can you personally think of any way as to what a police force could have done to prevent the case getting to court?

FFS didnt the lol lol give it away as a joke? I give up

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by punky

Also the jury did have the absolute power to acquit him even though the crime is a "strict liability" or whatever. The fact they only deliberated for 20 minutes means they probably didn't even try.

The thing with "strict liability," is that is does not allow a defence of ignorance, nor does "mens rea" need to be proved. This is what he court os using as a means to prosecute. There has to be something more to this case and I am puzzled as to why we are not being given the full facts.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Hmmm, change the law and see a load of guilty people walk, or make a single innocent man suffer..Surely the police should have "lost" evidence in this one so the CPS couldn't proceed.

Make me wonder what I would have done.. Leave it in a low wall garden for the original criminal to return and recover or even worse a kid to climb over retrieving his/her ball and find... or pick up the weapon, make it safe by unloading and then put it securely away until the police came.. It's not as though him (or even myself) isn't qualified to make the weapon safe...

Going by that assumption, one would have to assume that he has some knowledge of firearms regulations and what dangers the gun could have presented, whilst transporting it to the police station. But we still don't know what it was doing in the garden in the first place. It is a strong probability that the gun had been used in a criminal act, at some point and this person was connected to that incident, but this is the only crime they can prove he is guilty of. A bit like tax evasion for Al Capone (not suggesting that this person is of that same league, but just as an example).

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

If there is then I'm sure that now the story has gone viral it'll soon pop out

I can't find anything on it, except a couple of local news sites.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I can't find anything on it, except a couple of local news sites.

It's on 90% of the forums/mailing lists I frequent and got it via email 3 times

[NoKnowledge]

I'm gonna be a dumbass and say it, he requested a meeting with the Chief Superintendent because he has a personal vendetta against him for the reasons not known to me. He placed the gun with the barrel facing the officer(s) (not known how many) as a threat.

The above are not facts;
also found a news piece http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20...onduct_charges

On the face of it this story makes no sense and therefore i also believe there is more then we know and if and when that comes out there might be a debate to be had. While i personally would have just kept an eye on it and called the police i cannot understand the reasoning to take a shotgun to a police station if you know the super and not mention thats the reason your coming.

Looking online there seems to be no stories which show any side other than what we are hearing. That he found a gun, took it to the police, and hence was done for possessing a firearm.

Someone made the point that for the period of transport, i.e walking to the police station, he was carrying a loaded weapon and therefore was in possession which could have been dangerous but that argument would only work if police apprehended him before hand. I.E How could he prove he was heading to the station with it and not simply carrying a shotgun around. In this case he went right to the police.

I honestly do not understand how it went this far? With neither the Police, CPS, or Judge seeing how crazy it was. I hope there is more to the story...

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Damien

Looking online there seems to be no stories which show any side other than what we are hearing.

Apart from this.

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/g...l/article.html

Would appear that Derek was right...However one is now wondering how deep is this can of worms.

[Tezcatlipoca]

An opinion on this...

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...s-shotgun.html