I first heard about this story via Twitter yesterday.
Now Constantly Furious has blogged about it and I quote his excellent article here in full:
There’s a term in law known as ‘Strict Liability’. This is official, formal legal shorthand for ‘You know what? I really don’t care why you were doing it, mate’.
Strict Liability applies to offences like speeding. So, if you’re caught breaking the speed limit, you can’t just claim that you didn’t know, or that you had to get home to see the end of X-Factor, or you were fleeing violent axe murderers. Speeding is speeding. You cannot exceed the limit for any reason.
Now, this might not seem too unreasonable, really. A bit crude, a bit simplistic, but you can sort of see where the legislators are comin’ from, eh?
However, what happens when lazy or inept legislators, rushing to put together yet another knee-jerk set of laws, use this as their own little shortcut?
Paul Clarke of Reigate can tell you.
Mr Clarke found a discarded shotgun and – rather than blagging a bank, or shootin’ up some boyz in da ‘hood – decided that he should hand it in at the local police station.
After all, possession of an unlicensed firearm is an offence, innit?
Oh yes. It is. But, unfortunately for Paul, it’s a ‘Strict Liability’ offence. Remember them? No excuses.
So, when Mr Clarke arrived at the local nick – having had the courtesy to ‘phone ahead to announce his intention – was he offered a cup of tea and the thanks of several beaming Bobbies?
Was he fuck. He was promptly arrested, and thrown into a cell.
When the case came to court, was he given an apology for the misunderstanding and sent away, without a stain on his character?
Was he fuck. ‘Strict Liability’, see?
The judge, directing the Jury, sealed his fate, saying,
“This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
The Jury, not really knowing what the fuck was going on, and probably slightly disappointed that this was not really like on the telly at all, took a scant 20 minutes to go along with the Judge’s direction, and find the poor sod Guilty. Guilty. For fuck’s sake.So, will the judge now unravel this mess, and sentence Mr Clarke to something proportionate and tolerable: “you will be taken from this place and given a cup of tea and your cab fare home” ?
Will he fuck. He can’t, even if he wants to.
There’s a minimum sentence for the crime of possessing a firearm. A mere judge can’t be trusted to know what’s appropriate, so he’s given guidelines from on high.
So – and here comes the sit down and brace yourself bit – when Paul Clarke is sentenced, on December the 11th, he must be sent to prison for a minimum of five years. Five fucking years. Five years in prison, for doing what pretty much every last single fucking one of us would have done in the circumstances.
What the flying, gibbering, fuckity fuck have we come to?
It’s an over-worked phrase, but could you make this shit up? No, you fucking could not.
What kind of insane, kafka-esque fucking mess do we live in?
Really, really, really. What the fuck?
If anyone sets up some sort of legal fund to keep Mr Clarke out of stir then count me in for a donation.
Filed under: Bizarre, Current affairs | Tagged: a fucking travesty, injustice, law, not vice versa, Paul Clarke, shotgun, Strict Liability, the law should serve the people
I’m afraid that I cannot agree with you that this is an excellent article – it cannot be, as it singularly fails to mention the main culprits in this ridiculous state of affairs.
It can be argued that Strict Laibility is necessary for some offences – what if Mr Clarke had been a chav-pikey-hoody carrying a concealed weapon arrested one hundred yards from a police station whose Brief then claimed he had found it and was bringing it in to surrender it? How do you prove the intent beyond reasonable doubt?
Given this, the judge had no choice but to apply the law, and the jury had no choice but to follow the judge’s direction, despite CF’s rather snide comments.
What the article has spectacularly missed is not the fact that any sensible policeman would have turned a blind eye to this technical breach of the law – they do so all the time on behalf of their informants, many of whom are themselves law-breakers – although the arresting officer in question should be noted for no further promotion, ever.
The stunning miss concerns the Crown Prosecution Service, who took the decision to bring this case to court, after which the result was a foregone conclusion. The CPS does not just consider the likelihood of a successful prosecution, it is duty bound to consider whether a prosecution is in the public interest… I quote from the CPS Code:
In 1951, Lord Shawcross, who was Attorney General, made the classic statement on public interest, which has been supported by Attorneys General ever since: “It has never been the rule in this country — I hope it never will be — that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject
of prosecution”. (House of Commons Debates, volume 483, column 681, 29 January 1951.)
The full publication can be found here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2004english.pdf
To bring a prosecution in this case was clearly not in the public interest, and the role of the CPS in this case, and its reasons for prosecution should be fully investigated and challenged.
If such a process is set up for the benefit of Mr Clarke I would also make a donation.
Excellent comment, Mr Rob, which can only serve to further demonstrate the insanity of this case.
Mr Rob is almost spot on. Whilst agreeing fully that the CPS were at fault (and why, because strict liability is an easy win and helps with their stats) the fact remains that the jury should have acquitted. Not only would a perverse verdict have pissed off the CPS big time, and rightly so, it is occasions such as this where there is a ready opportunity for 12 citizens to act on all our behalves in standing up to challenge the morality of the law. It is not for no good reason that the jury is said to be the last bulwark of democracy. There was a time when it was not a heave to be called for jury service, but a responsibility and an honour. It remains a shame that, in an era when we need juries more than ever to help uphold the rights of the citizen against the state, people see jury service as nothing more than an enforced chore, at the end of which they are expected to rubber stamp the decision of the prosecution.
I feel assured that Keir Starmer, a man who is held in high regard among lawyers, will be sincerely concerned that this case was ever prosecuted by the people under his charge. What he can do about it now, though, I am unsure. The conviction will be safe at law, and not open to successful appeal. My guess is that all that can be done is for Mr Clarke to be granted a pardon. I am not sure who would have the power to do that. Let’s hope it is anyone but Jack Straw.
You raise very good points anon (the last anon I corresponded with had a habit of just going HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA, so while I am pretty sure you are not he, it would be good for future purposes were you to make up a pseudonym, preferably a very silly one – but I digress) – I don’t know what can now be done either, but if a campaign to pardon Mr Clarke were to be initiated I hope bloggers could help to contibute funds.
Regarding juries, again agreed, but I feel “should” have acquitted is too strong. It would have taken a very self-confident jury to go against a judge’s direction based on a point of law like that, and even had the idea occurred to them, they might have been uncertain as to whether they could, or indeed whether they might have been setting some unintended precedent for the future; but yes, they could have, and it would have been good had they done so.
That they were placed in such a position by the CPS shows how far standards have fallen since the days when the police solicitors initiated prosecutions; that the CPS might thave thought they could score an easy “kill” without a wave of adverse publicity shows how far the intellectual calibre of its solicitors has plummeted since the CPS’s inception.
Having followed a few of the links on other sites, it would seem from photographs, age etc that this Paul Clarke has quite recently had a little run-in with a DVLC Inspector and been acquitted. It also seems that he may become a blogger cause celebre.
Should this be the case, I hope that various hot-headed people do not make arses of themselves over this and harm his cause – whatever may have occurred previously, even being a bumptious young man does not warrant a five-year stretch – it is not even a criminal offence. If there is a connection between a past case and how the CPS have handled things now, that one could have influenced the other is in fact of the utmost seriousness, and the people inside the CPS responsible for the decision to prosecute need to be put in front of a public inquiry. If what is being hinted at is anywhere near true, then this is far more serious than a silly decision by the CPS (although for Mr Clarke’s sake this should be addressed first).
Another reason why they will keep dumbing down education until they can eventually remove juries from the equation entirely. Those twelve souls quite possibly believed the defendant to be not guilty, but, sheep-like, and unaware of just what the fuck a jury is there for in the first place, they meekly did as the judge directed.
As far as I understand it, they are under no obligation to do so. Even for a Strict Liability offence. See Bushell’s Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case) and Jury Nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification).
Of course, in their drive to create model citizens, you can be sure the state never educates our kids about such trifles.
“What the article has spectacularly missed is not the fact that any sensible policeman would have turned a blind eye to this technical breach of the law…”
As they presumably do with those ‘gun amnesties’ so favoured in Brixton and like parts? Or do they have to get some kind of ‘abeyance order’ passed in order to deal with the strict liability issue?
[...] Mr Rob makes some interesting comments over at Steve Shark’s place that I feel somewhat miss the point. Responses over there deal with this well, I [...]
[...] Truly, the law is an ass [...]
As I understand the law, a judge cannot direct a jury to a guilty verdict – a powerful reason for getting rid of them.
The implication that the judge has done so in this case must be wrong, unless, as seems to be the case these days, the whole of English law has been chucked out of the window.
Gosh, I wonder whose law will take its place?
A question:
If he left the weapon in situ and called the police to take it away, since the weapon was on his property, would he still not be in possession of it?
Perhaps Surrey Police would offer guidance on the issue: how precisely should Mr Clarke have dealt with the situation in order to get the weapon off his property and into the safe hands of the police without having to do 5 years in jail?
[...] case you too have been in a bunker lately, get the background to the story from Steve Shark (happy 1st birthday for the blog, btw) and Constantly Furious. [...]