Has England really become this ridiculous?

I don't think that the common law allows a judge to decide a) against the law, b) against the jury's verdict.

But you, David, certainly have a better knowledge about that.

There is liberty here, I would confirm.

We're not slaves to an idea born in the 1770s,
that was already getting too old in the 1880's.

Suspended term for shotgun finder
(BBC News, December 18, 2009)

A former soldier who was given a suspended sentence after handing a sawn-off shotgun to police believes his actions merited an award instead.

Paul Clarke, 27, of Merstham, Redhill, was convicted of possessing a firearm in November and sentenced earlier.

Reading Crown Court heard Clarke found a bin liner containing a shotgun in March and was arrested when he handed it in four days later.

The judge told Clarke he should have asked police to come straight away.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said the minimum sentence for possessing a firearm was normally five years, but it was a "highly unusual case" and gave Clarke 12-month sentence, suspended for one year.

Judge Critchlow said: "I understand you were once a soldier, and you in particular ought to have appreciated the danger posed by such a weapon and should have asked the police to come and collect it right away."

Clarke had told the court he did not call the police when he found the item because he had suffered "harassment" from Surrey Police over a relationship he was having with a female detective.

He said he stored it in a wooden chest at his home and arranged to meet a police officer he know personally.

The court heard that he was arrested during the meeting after he produced the bin liner containing the gun from his trousers.

Clarke told Reading Crown Court his arrest was a "stitch-up" by police and he should have been given a good citizen award.

Lionel Blackman, defending, quoted Home Office guidance, which said: "No obstacle should be placed in the way of a person who wants to surrender firearms or ammunition to the police.

Following the sentencing, Clarke said: "It's pathetic how Surrey Police have ignored Home Office policy.

"The Crown Prosecution Service has betrayed the public interest, all over a personal grudge. I think I should get a good citizen's award. I'm the only victim here."

The court was told Clarke had previously been convicted of handling stolen goods in 2001, of possessing a stun-gun in 2002 and of affray in 2008.

A spokeswoman for Surrey Police said: "Clarke was given the opportunity to explain the full circumstances of how this lethal and prohibited weapon came to be in his possession.

"This explanation lacked credibility and a report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

"Surrey Police stands by its decision to investigate and make its case to the CPS which decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute the case in court."

Quote:

Suspended term for shotgun finder
(BBC News, December 18, 2009)

The court heard that he was arrested during the meeting after he produced the bin liner containing the gun from his trousers.

Never the less, David. Never the less, they're big clunky pieces of ordinance.

Paul Clarke sentenced
(Surrey Police Press Office, December 18, 2009)

The Judge has today heard all of the evidence against Paul Clarke, who was found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon by a jury at Guildford Crown Court on 10 November 2009. Surrey Police is pleased that, having heard all of the evidence today, Clarke has been sentenced appropriately.

Sentencing Clarke to a one year custodial sentence, suspended for one year, at Reading Crown Court, Judge Critchlow said: “…a term of imprisonment must be imposed to mark the gravity of keeping such a weapon and not immediately surrendering it to the Police after finding it and not forthwith notifying them that you had it. I understand you were once a soldier and you in particular ought to have appreciated the danger posed by such a weapon and should have asked the Police to come and collect it right away…..”

As part of his summation the Judge pointed out to Clarke that he did not “immediately notify any police officer that you had found such a weapon. That would have been the sensible course to have taken. Instead, you kept it for four days, and in fact, you did not inform any officer about it when you arrived at the police station.”

The court heard that Clarke was “27 years of age and has previous convictions for handling stolen goods (2001), possession of a stun gun (2002) and for affray (2008).”

Paul Clarke had claimed he found a sawn-off shotgun and cartridges in his garden. He was in fact, in possession of these for some days and did not contact the police to inform them or enable officers to collect the items.

He then went to Reigate Police Station for a meeting on a wholly unrelated matter and did not mention the weapon before or during the meeting. At the end of a meeting he produced the weapon which had been concealed in his trousers.

Clarke was given the opportunity to explain the full circumstances of how this lethal and prohibited weapon came to be in his possession. This explanation lacked credibility and a report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Surrey Police stands by its decision to investigate and make its case to the CPS which decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute the case in court, and Paul Clarke was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.

This case clearly illustrates the serious view which is taken of the possession of any prohibited weapon such as a sawn-off shotgun or shortened shotgun. Such weapons are frequently prepared specifically to be used in the commission of serious violent crime.

Surrey Police advises anyone who believes they may have found a firearm to contact them immediately using the 999 system. The weapon should not be touched so that officers attending can ensure any forensic evidence is recovered and make the weapon safe. The weapon may already have been used in a serious crime so the police will treat the location of the weapon as a potential crime scene.

And even then, he didn't get the five years the pro-gun Americans were expecting him to get.

And even then, he didn't get the five years the pro-gun Americans were expecting him to get.

he coud have immunized himself from all judicial danger
by either leaving the gun there for anyone to take who actually desired it,
or
by quietly taking it home for use in an emergency

David wrote:

he coud have immunized himself from all judicial danger
by either leaving the gun there for anyone to take who actually desired it,
or
by quietly taking it home for use in an emergency

Or, had he followed the law, called the cops, telling them that a gun was left in his garden.
They would have come to pick it up, with no worries for the discoverer.