|
|
v
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Man Arrested For Handing In Gun
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Man Arrested For Handing In Gun"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Tarquin Farquhar View PostOnly if it "might be of use for terrorism".
And it might, who can deny it......
In order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent," anyone in "suspicious circumstances" could be asked to explain themselves".
The key is; it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action. In other words you are guilty until proved innocent. This is the case unless you know better the barristers and solicitors acting for the NUJ A reporter for the Southern Evening Echo was arrested for photographing a Motorway bridge bon the excuse that the picture could be used by terrorists to target bridges. .
The Act:
Sec 76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc
(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction—
(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.
(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.
(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by The Dog Man View PostFirst .....
Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man
Go on own up. Who was this?
Whoever it is, they have got the self-righteous, self-entitled, above the law attitude of the police off to a tee.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BrilloPad View PostHe should have used it to rob a bank instead.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lockhouse View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Dog Man View PostFirst of all I am sure that the intelligent readers will have realised that this story is not true, it is reported by one side only and therefore doesn’t give a true picture.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/n...l/article.html
Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."
The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"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.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.
Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.
He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".
Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"
To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."
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.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.
He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.
"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.
"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"
Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.
Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."
- Comments on this story have been disabled for the weekend, they will be reinstated on Monday.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Dog Man View PostFinally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man
I wouldn't go taking so much interest in HAB's manhood if I were you.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by HairyArsedBloke View PostOn the way home from the pub last night I passed three police cars from the dog patrol parked outside one of the restaurants with the pigs inside collecting a take-away. The engines of all the cars outside were still running, but there was nobody in any of them and one of the cars had a dog barking as if it was in some distress.
I’ve seen them there before doing the same thing; it’s not an isolated incident. I think I’m going to start taking my camera out with me to take pictures. However, taking pictures of the police is an offence now.
Now back to my friend above.
Are police officers not allowed to eat? I find that a 12 hour shift with no food is a long time.
Are police officers not allowed to use a take-away is there some special place we should buy our food from?
The dog vans were left with the engines running through the use of a "run lock" device, this allows the driver to remove the keys and lock the doors while leaving the engine running to allow the air conditioning to keep the dogs cool. Any attempt to move the vehicle kills the engine.
If the police officer was using his phone while driving then he was totally wrong and deserves to be disciplined for it. If he was parked in the station car park with the engine running then this was no offence.
Finally HairyArseBloke you have proved my theory that the size of a person’s foul mouth is inversely proportionate to the size of his man hood. Yours must be so small.
The Dog Man
Leave a comment:
-
Maybe they forgot to mention he popped into the bank en route to the police station.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by k2p2 View PostI wonder if this is the whole story.
2 other issues. The CPS can decide whether its in the public interest to pursue the case, which they did (making me more inclined to think that they'd performed a sanity check). Secondly the speed of the guilty verdict from the jury; 20 mins. Juries do go against the direction of the judge; Clive Ponting was cleared of breaking the Off. Secrets Act even though that's exactly what he did.
So, appears perverse, but I'd like to know more. I really hope something we're not aware of justifies this verdict and sentence. Otherwise its atrocious.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by k2p2 View PostI wonder if this is the whole story. If I found a gun in my garden, I might indeed bring it into the house to prevent anyone else taking/using it. However, I'd call the police immediately and tell them I'd found a gun. I wouldn't wait till the next day, make an appt with a named officer (still not mentioning the gun) then turn up at the station and produce it out of bag whilst still having forgotten to mention that that's what I'd brought in. Not saying the guy should have been convicted, but certainly behaved a little foolishly.
Thant doesn’t work either. About 20 years ago a distant friend who was a resident landlord in a small block of flat s. He reported to the police about a package hidden in a tree in the back garden. The package contained drugs. Although he was not suspected in dealing he was charged on the technicality that the drugs were in possession on his property. He got six months for that.
Leave a comment:
-
So if you find a firearm the message is one of:- Keep it
- Discard it so that someone else can find it
- Sell it to a bloke down the pub
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by k2p2 View PostI wonder if this is the whole story. If I found a gun in my garden, I might indeed bring it into the house to prevent anyone else taking/using it. However, I'd call the police immediately and tell them I'd found a gun. I wouldn't wait till the next day, make an appt with a named officer (still not mentioning the gun) then turn up at the station and produce it out of bag whilst still having forgotten to mention that that's what I'd brought in. Not saying the guy should have been convicted, but certainly behaved a little foolishly.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: