Disgusting! The judge obviously misses the whole point of why there is any such thing as "law" in the first place. About the jury I have nothing else to say than that they are a bunch of retards.

He screwed up and ended up in jail.

He should have kept the firearm, and then gotten an ASBO ( preferably by beating up a politician while shouting "Allah Ackbar" ) to assure that the cops will never bother him again.

Interesting point of law. Does that mean he could have been found guilty without even touching the gun, as it was on his private property, thus in his possession?

However, the law is an ass, but so's this guy! Why move possible evidence - that was not in a public place - before the Police had a look? I can't believe any one, particularly an ex soldier is not aware of that basic rule. Why didn't he tell the Superintendant on the phone that he had found a gun and ask for advice? Indeed, why phone a Superintendant and not the Desk? As for walking through the streets with it? Come on......

Or am I being too harsh?

bambi-ski,
Thankfully given the train wrecks succesive governments have put the education system through, being stupid/uneducated is not yet a criminal offence.
There may be more to this story, but the "strict liability" shows the biggest problem, that the law is no longer "guidance to wise men", but purely "obedience for fools". We make the law, so we must be masters of it, not subservient to reactive political expediency in writing.

In the Crown Colony of Virginia, William Penn (later the founder of Pennsylvania) was on trial for sedition, having practiced his Quaker religion in the Anglican colony. A guilty verdict would bring a death sentence. However, the jury (led by one Edward Bushnel) refused to find William guilty, as the
law was plainly excessive and
onerous. This is British
Common Law in some of its
finest moments. "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy"
I ask: What has happened to
British Law? What has happened
to British juries? They had the balls to defy the Crown
in the 1700's, but today they
grovel to the PC crowd...

Mr Bambi does have a point though he does go over the top in his criticism of Mr Clarke, methinks.

Having ascertained the bag contained a weapon and ammunition very possibly of criminal origin, I would say, Mr Clarke would have been wiser calling Plod to the scene. Still, lack of wisdom hardly merits prosecution; if it did large numbers of people would be behind bars. So why did this happen?

Reading between the lines I suspect the story went as follows:

Mr Clarke found the gun and decided he should hand it in. The next morning he made his appointment with the Chief Super and went to his office. There, without prewarning, he hauls the shooter out of his bag with the words "look wot I found in my garden". At this point Boss Plod, seeing a random member of the public brandishing a sawn off in his office, loses all composure, shits his pants, dives under his desk and presses the panic button. The station heavies arrive and haul Mr Clarke to the cells thinking him some deranged armed loon determined to slot their boss. Chiefie collapses in a jibbering heap.

Later, after several strong cups of tea and some hours of post-traumatic counselling, Chiefie recovers enough to learn that Mr Clarke actually meant him no harm but was simply a well-intentioned numptie. Under normal circumstances Chiefie would then invite Mr Clarke for an interview without biscuits during which the error of his actions vis a vis the need to preserve evidence and maintaining firearm safety would be explained in no uncertain detail - possibly including the use of strong language.

Sadly, these aren't normal circumstances: Chiefie has been made to look silly. His dignity had been impugned and with it the dignity of the entire Surrey Stasi. The only solution to such a heinous crime is to throw the book at Mr Clarke.

IF this is the whole story then it's a disgrace. I blame the judge who would have directed the jury.I'd have done the same as the ex squaddie - but not now.

But there was more to this apparently, the year before he had been in an altercation with a traffic cop who he thought was stealing from his car ... his cards were marked.

Well, there you go. Accusing one of the stasi of petty crime AND bruising the dignity of the local Boss Plod.

Poor bugger didn't stand a chance.

So- there is 'no defence in law' against having an unlicensed firearm in your possession. Now,what do now if you find a dropped firearm - take it to the local nick & get done? Or clean, oil & stash the gun for a very rainy day? As Guy Gibson said- you're damned if you do & damned if you don't!.

As to "Leave it there and call the cops", how much you willing to bet that if he'd done that, and it'd been spotted and taken by somebody, he'd be prosecuted for not doing something to keep it from being taken?

NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE without the presence of a legal representative. In both the US and the UK there are so many laws, rules, and regulations that everyone is in violation. Being co-operative and "asisting" will get you thrown in jail regardless. As soon as Mr. Clarke opened his mouth he was doomed.

toad- I fear you are right & Mr Clarke's biggest crime was not being able to afford a decent solicitor.

Appalling! Whats he supposed to do sell it on the street? Orwellian breeze about!

I have no words for this episode. I shall now go back to sharpening my bayonet.

Clean, oil and stash for rainy day - sounds good to me Ed. Lesson learned, move on.

In a sane world the case would never have come to court, but is there a chance of a pardon? (an absolute discharge does not appear likely but I hope the wise Judge proves me wrong.

@Bushrat: No such thing as British Law because Scotland retained its separate legal system as part of the Act of Union in 1707. That's why the Jocks are entirely to blame for releasing the PanAm bomber.

@RemittanceMan: Good to see you're still able to type. Any chance of some new posts please? Best wishes.

I always understood that a jury could find a defendant "Not guilty" for any reason they saw fit and that a Judge could not direct a jury to bring a "Guilty" verdict?

Considering this has been on the statute for 40 years it's surprising there is no precedent.

I agree with Ed and Shadow12. While the U.S. justice system is no where near as dysfunctional as that enjoyed by British subjects, we are headed in the same general direction. I never thought that I would come to understand and embrace the general dislike for, and fear of, government that characterizes the average Italian in those areas south of Roma...but I have. "Authority" is perhaps best treated like a lunatic - avoid it when you can; deceive it when you must.

Good.Grief.

Is there a number that can be called, an email address, a local councilman...something where protests to this outlandish, idiotic and totally out of line judgment can be registered? Especially amongst the voters of that district?

And to think we once had an English Bill of Rights and the right to arms (1689).

Evil Prevails When Good Men Fail To Act

I doubt if it would have made any difference if he'd left it in his garden and called Pc Plod...his garden ergo what is in it belongs to him and is in his possession...so given a lack of motorists to harass in the Surrey countryside, it's likely that Mr Clarke would again have been arrested and used to boost the figures for "crimes successfully solved"