[BengalTiger]

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

For those who don't feel like reading the article:

A former British soldier found a discarded gun in his garden, brought it to the local police station and now faces jail for...


...handling the gun over to the cops.

[stuart133]

FOR ****S SAKE. Sorry about that but this is what is killing our once great country. This is truly pathetic, the jury should all be shot. ARRRRGH FUUUUCK.

[Flipside]

I greatly doubt that you've got the entire story from the paper, hence the 'Comments have been disabled for legal reasons' at the bottom. Makes me wonder what those 'legal reasons' are.

To quote Dickens, 'The Law is an Ass', but I can assure you, even if this is 100% accurate, the UK is most certainly not the only place that laws are enforced to the point of stupidity.

[zookeeper]

This is truly pathetic, the jury should all be shot.

The story quite clearly implied that the law itself was at fault. If according to the law the guy is without a question guilty then what the heck can the jury do when presented with such a case?

[stuart133]

Sorry just got a bit carried away there. The point is that this is the kind of thing that really pisses me off, but ah well.

[iamzack]

Can't the jury determine that the law is stupid?

[Flipside]

They may well have decided that, but even if they had found a Not Guilty answer, the judge may well have over-ruled the verdict. The Judge would most likely have told them that they must find by the law, not by their own feelings on the matter.

That said, I see an unconditional discharge and a recommendation from the Judge that the Law be cleaned up as the most likely result of this case, 5 years is the maximum penalty, but the claim that he could be facing it is almost certainly sensationalism.

What I'd be more concerned about is why the Police and CPS chose to pursue the case to court in the first place, can't help feeling like this was an 'easy statistic booster' case.

[Mars]

Juries in the US can more or less do whatever they want - apparently that differs from the UK?

[Flipside]

To certain degrees they are free to make any judgement they so wish, in extreme cases, the Judge has the right to over-rule, but that often leads to a re-trial rather than a change of judgement, they very rarely do that however.

At the conclusion of a UK trial, the Judge summarises the case for the Jury, and lays out the facts they are to consider, often it is there that the Judge will mention not what results are expected, but rather the points of law that they need to take into account, and what evidence is 'solid' for both sides, so the Prosecution mentioning that the accused is, for example, a Heroin addict might be considered a possible motive in some cases, whereas it may have no bearing on others. The Judge will, to certain degrees, try to clarify what the law expects of the Jury with regards to the decision process rather than the verdict itself.

[headdie]

The law in itself is fair enough until you hit the area where the weapon carrier's intent is irrelevant which makes me ask two questions

1) what do we do if we find a weapon (such as in this case it is wrapped and you have opened the bag or whatever to find out what it is there by "handling" the weapon?
2) I have to question the legality of amnesties for handing in weapons

[Flipside]

That's why I'm suspecting an unconditional as a result, otherwise it basically sends a message that if you find a gun or something in a playground, you should leave it there, where other people might find it and contact the Police.

From the sounds of the Police round that area, you'd probably end up being charged for endangering the children in that case.

Had a similar incident near me, some teenagers were hanging around outside someone's house, throwing stones etc, were reported to the Police, who didn't show up for 4 days, and in that time he'd made a citizens arrest of one of the kids, and was charged for assault. Now, in truth, the charge of assault was actually accurate, he'd roughed the kid up pretty badly, but the real crime, to my mind, was that someone called to the Police for help and they couldn't be bothered to turn up for 4 days.

Edit: In fact, there's a pretty prominent case that highlights the apathy of the Police in areas of the UK, I'll see if I can track it down.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/28/fiona-pilkington-suicide-mother-police

[TESLA]

Can't the jury determine that the law is stupid?

You forget. The person is smart. People together are stupid.

[BengalTiger]

1) what do we do if we find a weapon (such as in this case it is wrapped and you have opened the bag or whatever to find out what it is there by "handling" the weapon?

You call the Cops and let them come and pick the weapon up.

However since you already touched the weapon while unpacking it, you're screwed either way in the UK I guess...

[Goober5000]

but even if they had found a Not Guilty answer, the judge may well have over-ruled the verdict.

Then what's the point of having a jury in the first place?!

The jury is responsible for judging the law as well as the facts.

[Galemp]

If I remember precedent correctly, juries HAVE found defendants guilty, but made the sentencing the absolute minimum.

[Flipside]

but even if they had found a Not Guilty answer, the judge may well have over-ruled the verdict.

Then what's the point of having a jury in the first place?!

The jury is responsible for judging the law as well as the facts.

The Judge cannot, iirc, sentence someone based on an over-ride, merely declare the trial invalid, and even then, there's a lot of red-tape involved and it makes an appeal all the more likely. It's kind of like it being declared a mis-trial in the US.

[MP-Ryan]

There is a point you're all missing:  while the law is admittedly ridiculous, it's a strict-liability offense.

Most offenses require both actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind).  Not only must you commit the crime, you must intend to do it or at least be able to reason out the consequences of your actions.

Strict liability offenses require only the act itself - mindset doesn't enter into it.  So, by law, the man is guilty.

That said, any officer with half a $%#@ing brain and any Crown prosecutor with an ounce of common sense should have declined to lay the charge in the first place.  It's called discretion, and "prosecution not in the public interest," and it's done all the time in Common Law nations.  I cannot, for the life of me, understand why that discretion was not exercised in this case.  Sentence or no, this man should not have a criminal record.

Now... on the other hand... who picks up a firearm, calls the police, and takes it to a meeting at the police station without disclosing on the phone that they've found a firearm and are bringing it in?  I would understand the guy's argument had he taken it straight in, but he phoned to book a meeting and failed to mention it was because he was bringing in a found firearm?  Doesn't that strike anyone else as implausible?  Methinks the media doth not report all the facts of this case.

[Flipside]

Exactly, as I said earlier in the thread, my big question is why the Police and CPS pursued the matter in the first place. Especially in the current environment where they are under fire for issuing cautions for things like ABH, GBH and even sexual assault, it seems not only contradictory, but self-defeating.

[Liberator]

So let me get this straight.  He's facing jail time because he carried the gun to the cops to be disposed of instead of calling the cops and waiting for them to come pick it up for him?

And you call us on our sideways laws, at least we don't put people in jail for being honest.

[Flipside]

It's a point of law, as I said earlier, the odds of him going to jail are, if the story is 100% factual, almost zero.

That said, we are assuming that he is telling the truth, based purely on a newspaper article, unless I am actually at the trial, I try not to do the Juries job for them, they know the details of the case far better than we, or the Newspaper do.