Was this really the only way of dealing with this...?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
He came home from Iraq in 2007, he suffered his accident and memory difficulties in 2009. It therefore follows he had 2 years when he would have known he had the weapon, even if he subsequently forgot.
The plea of mitigation concerning the loss of memory is tenuous, for if he did not declare the weapon between 2007-2009, why would he have suddenly declared it later? On that basis I can understand why he was advised to plead guilty and did so - and why the judge was dismissive of the plea for mitigation.
The plea of mitigation concerning the loss of memory is tenuous, for if he did not declare the weapon between 2007-2009, why would he have suddenly declared it later? On that basis I can understand why he was advised to plead guilty and did so - and why the judge was dismissive of the plea for mitigation.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 52
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a civil law point of view, possession of an unlicenced firearm is an absolute offence. There are no excuses. The penalties are harsh, 5 years usually.
Military personnel are also subject to civil law. This was tried in a military court, so the judge was not bound by the civil penalty.
Under the circumstances i agree, a bit harsh. But it would have been worse in a civil court.
Military personnel are also subject to civil law. This was tried in a military court, so the judge was not bound by the civil penalty.
Under the circumstances i agree, a bit harsh. But it would have been worse in a civil court.
Last edited by PURPLE PITOT; 12th Nov 2012 at 09:52.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 59
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is about him returning from a patrol carrying an extra weapon and not handing it in and getting a receipt from the Armoury or the RMP.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
On not unpacking kit, true. Both sons-in-law did just that. Think back, the kit was desert kit and not therefore used in UK. They were thankful for getting home in one piece and basically dumped th kit where they stopped. They had post-deployment leave, possibly new jobs, and they got on with their lives.
You know how busy it can be and unpacking kit that is not in use will be very low priority. Then new pattern kit was issued and unpacking would become an irrelevance.
Easily done.
You know how busy it can be and unpacking kit that is not in use will be very low priority. Then new pattern kit was issued and unpacking would become an irrelevance.
Easily done.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South of England
Age: 74
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'm afraid I have to agree with TStab.
Most of us on this forum have long service and some of us have done things for which the nation should be grateful (not me I admit - had a cushy time).
But if any of us break the law we get done; whether by CM, magistrate or even High Court. Given our supposed position in society we will probably be punished more severely by any court than any other plonker (as I have observed). Which isn't fair - but the fact is that this guy pleaded guilty to a rather serious offence.
Given all this, he actually received a fairly lenient sentence - only 18 months and not in civil prison.
He loses his career and, possibly his family house, which is awful for his family, but at least he doesn't go to the criminal training college, run by the government as HMPS.
He may be able to rescue his life, when he gets out (or his appeal succeeds), especially as he seems to be a man of resolve.
I have seen stupid boys go into Colchester and some time later emerge as grown men. If he goes in as a grown man, which he will do, I imagine. He will probably come out as a serious contender in the rat race. I hope he does!
With respect, I wish him and his family the very best of luck and I hope the Regiment will help them as far as they can.
Rgds SOS
Most of us on this forum have long service and some of us have done things for which the nation should be grateful (not me I admit - had a cushy time).
But if any of us break the law we get done; whether by CM, magistrate or even High Court. Given our supposed position in society we will probably be punished more severely by any court than any other plonker (as I have observed). Which isn't fair - but the fact is that this guy pleaded guilty to a rather serious offence.
Given all this, he actually received a fairly lenient sentence - only 18 months and not in civil prison.
He loses his career and, possibly his family house, which is awful for his family, but at least he doesn't go to the criminal training college, run by the government as HMPS.
He may be able to rescue his life, when he gets out (or his appeal succeeds), especially as he seems to be a man of resolve.
I have seen stupid boys go into Colchester and some time later emerge as grown men. If he goes in as a grown man, which he will do, I imagine. He will probably come out as a serious contender in the rat race. I hope he does!
With respect, I wish him and his family the very best of luck and I hope the Regiment will help them as far as they can.
Rgds SOS
Last edited by SOSL; 12th Nov 2012 at 15:14.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN
You know how busy it can be and unpacking kit that is not in use will be very low priority. Then new pattern kit was issued and unpacking would become an irrelevance.
Easily done.
How very true, in another life, on return from Aden (amongst many others) my worldly posessions in the ubiquitous Deep Sea Boxes took ages to arrive at my home (no known posting at time of departure). A very unsympathetic SWO at Thorney Island, unable to understand the situation, could only react with periodic threats. Just as well I hadn't packed anything interesting in them for transit to my home in Belfast in 1967/1968.
Last edited by Shack37; 12th Nov 2012 at 14:36.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The absolute nature of the firearms legislation gives almost no room for manouevre. If you find a weapon dumped in your front garden, pick it up and take it to your local nick, you will have committed an offence and will be liable for a 5 year stretch. Arguments regarding whether it would be safer to leave the firearm in place (and risk someone else walking by and taking it) are irrelevant.
'Do you have a firearms licence for the firearm you are in possession of?'
....'No'.....
'You're nicked'.
'Do you have a firearms licence for the firearm you are in possession of?'
....'No'.....
'You're nicked'.
I spent 4 months doing 2 or 3 lectures a week in a departure lounge of a OOA. The lecture was about taking any ordinance or suchlike home and the consequences of getting found out. We used to offer a amnesty if it was handed in there and then, you would be amazed at what some people thought it was ok to take home. I'm not suprised and there will be plenty of others with 'things' in their homes in GB.
Last edited by dctyke; 12th Nov 2012 at 15:50.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 87
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
English dramatist George Chapman in 1654 - Revenge for Honour:
'Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle... For doing deeds of nature! I'm ashamed. The law is such an ass.'
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mindset of Government
Apparently HMG tightened up gun laws after WW1because they became fearful of old soldiers taking up arms after discovering the country was not quite the land fit for heroes promised to them by some Welsh Politician....1926 general strike, people in dungarees breaking wind in the palaces of the....
The law apart suspect Dave, George and Nick a bit concerned about well trained squaddies bringing trophy shooters home from their war on terror, hunt for WMD or what ever it was I forget...
Of course criminals have no trouble sourcing shooters and hand grenades up in Gunchester...
The law apart suspect Dave, George and Nick a bit concerned about well trained squaddies bringing trophy shooters home from their war on terror, hunt for WMD or what ever it was I forget...
Of course criminals have no trouble sourcing shooters and hand grenades up in Gunchester...
No matter what we may think about the rights and wrongs, the moral aspects or the record or intentions of those involved, the issue is (sadly, I agree) very simple. UK firearms law (nor most other laws) makes little or no allowance for circumstances. In fact that law is one of the clearest we have. If you are in possession of a firearm for which you do not hold a licence, you are committing a crime for which there is a clearly laid-down penalty in civil law.
OmegaV6, you cite a case where the outcome seems so appallingly unfair. The point is that he did, clearly commit a crime under the act and the jury would have had no option but to find him guilty. The judge would have been bound by sentencing guidelines. The only bloke that could have made a difference to the whole issue (once the poor lad had taken possession of the shotgun) was the arresting officer. Maybe he could have handled things differently. Once arrested, the guy's fate was sealed. Sad, but true. IMHO, the guy acted very honourably and went to prison for so doing.
Now, had I been in Paul Clarke's position, even though I know the Act, I would probably have done the same thing, expecting better treatment from the Police for, potentially, stopping very nasty crime or even helping to solve one. As for the SAS gent, I have been told EVERY time I left theatre not to take any hardware with me as souvenirs. Different cases, same law, I'm afraid.
OmegaV6, you cite a case where the outcome seems so appallingly unfair. The point is that he did, clearly commit a crime under the act and the jury would have had no option but to find him guilty. The judge would have been bound by sentencing guidelines. The only bloke that could have made a difference to the whole issue (once the poor lad had taken possession of the shotgun) was the arresting officer. Maybe he could have handled things differently. Once arrested, the guy's fate was sealed. Sad, but true. IMHO, the guy acted very honourably and went to prison for so doing.
Now, had I been in Paul Clarke's position, even though I know the Act, I would probably have done the same thing, expecting better treatment from the Police for, potentially, stopping very nasty crime or even helping to solve one. As for the SAS gent, I have been told EVERY time I left theatre not to take any hardware with me as souvenirs. Different cases, same law, I'm afraid.
I agree with both the last two posts .. and yes .. ON APPEAL the guy got a reduced sentence.
Point of the law is that the judge at the trial must go by the sentencing guidlines .. which for unlawful possession are around 5 years. ....
Appeal court has stronger powers to reduce sentence, and in that case did so.
BUT he was still originally sentenced to 5 years... far less than the 18 months for the SAS Sgt.
The circumstances were also very different ..as I'm sure most will see.
Point of the law is that the judge at the trial must go by the sentencing guidlines .. which for unlawful possession are around 5 years. ....
Appeal court has stronger powers to reduce sentence, and in that case did so.
BUT he was still originally sentenced to 5 years... far less than the 18 months for the SAS Sgt.
The circumstances were also very different ..as I'm sure most will see.
It may be clear, but the fact remains that it's a #@*&! stupid law. As is any law that prosecutes an honest man doing what any reasonable person would do.
Man phones Police. By the time Police turn up another bad 'un slopes off with the weapon, then shoots another sub-postmaster. Man isn't prosecuted, but postmaster is dead. Is this the society you want???
.
Man phones Police. By the time Police turn up another bad 'un slopes off with the weapon, then shoots another sub-postmaster. Man isn't prosecuted, but postmaster is dead. Is this the society you want???
.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 12th Nov 2012 at 19:29.
Indeed no, it is not. But, and here's a big but, the law has to be clear. As is this one. It is close to impossible to get laws passed as it is. How complicated would they be to take account of every single, possible set of circumstances. I don't like the outcome of that case any more than you, but that is the law and it IS completely clear. I say again, the person that could have changed things was the arresting officer. A little discretion, perhaps? A caution? An amnesty?
I feel sick whenever a real criminal gets off with any crime, including gun crimes, possession, etc. Make exceptions to that law and you just make it easier for their defence lawyer to get them off.
I feel sick whenever a real criminal gets off with any crime, including gun crimes, possession, etc. Make exceptions to that law and you just make it easier for their defence lawyer to get them off.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this conjecturing is muddying up the waters and...
...indeed, a true statement, but utterly irrelevant to the case at hand.
There are two issues.
Was a crime committed. Answer yes, mate pleaded guilty.
Was the sentence appropriate given the mitigation. Answer, we don't know, because we are not privvy to the full facts. Neither are the media or anybody outside the legal teams/judge. In fact, if you have ever participated in a court martial as a defending officer, you will know that even the "jury" (that's the 3 officers sitting next to the QC) don't get to see the full unredacted evidence.
But if it is considered a "harsh or unusual" punishment, his legal team will appeal it.
In years gone by maybe, but increasingly plod (military and civil) are going to be held accountable if they don't play it by the book.
Somewhat trivial compared to the case in hand, but just before I left the mob, I drove off base, realised I had left my left my wallet in MQ and u-turned back into the main gate. Gate guard duly stopped me..I explained...he told me to stay still and fetched duty plod who promptly went into the full monty caution... "anything you say blah blah ****ing blah", (for not having my ID on me)
The wife and kids thought it was hilarious...and looking back so do I. But also a little bit sad.
As is any law that prosecutes an honest man doing what any reasonable person would do.
There are two issues.
Was a crime committed. Answer yes, mate pleaded guilty.
Was the sentence appropriate given the mitigation. Answer, we don't know, because we are not privvy to the full facts. Neither are the media or anybody outside the legal teams/judge. In fact, if you have ever participated in a court martial as a defending officer, you will know that even the "jury" (that's the 3 officers sitting next to the QC) don't get to see the full unredacted evidence.
But if it is considered a "harsh or unusual" punishment, his legal team will appeal it.
I say again, the person that could have changed things was the arresting officer.
Somewhat trivial compared to the case in hand, but just before I left the mob, I drove off base, realised I had left my left my wallet in MQ and u-turned back into the main gate. Gate guard duly stopped me..I explained...he told me to stay still and fetched duty plod who promptly went into the full monty caution... "anything you say blah blah ****ing blah", (for not having my ID on me)
The wife and kids thought it was hilarious...and looking back so do I. But also a little bit sad.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 12th Nov 2012 at 20:44.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northumberland
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The declaration taken at the end of live firing, is also a legal minefield. As a qualified RCO, I would be required to take from everyone present 'the declaration'.
A number of my assistants would then carry the remaining live rounds, all the empty brass, and a large collection of weapons off the range. place them in their cars, and drive them back t the armoury. Often these assistants would be civilians, who had no blue card, and would be driving their own civilain cars. Often to an armoury many miles away.
As one of my civvy jobs once entailed traffic management for the Home Office
, I often imagined the conversation which would undoubtedly taken place following a routine traffic stop..........
A number of my assistants would then carry the remaining live rounds, all the empty brass, and a large collection of weapons off the range. place them in their cars, and drive them back t the armoury. Often these assistants would be civilians, who had no blue card, and would be driving their own civilain cars. Often to an armoury many miles away.
As one of my civvy jobs once entailed traffic management for the Home Office
, I often imagined the conversation which would undoubtedly taken place following a routine traffic stop..........
Last edited by si.; 12th Nov 2012 at 20:41. Reason: Spelling is getting worser.....
Two points, TOFO.
First, the only person in those circumstances that could have changed what came next was the arresting officer. Show me who else?
Second, had he *the Police officer in question) been 'sensible' about it, I doubt he would have faced disciplinary action, under the circumstances as his actions could be easily justified - by common sense, if nothing else.
That was the only point in the chain of events where any flexibility existed.
"Thank you, Sir, for being so honest and public spirited. However, I have to point out to you that you may have committed an offence under the Firearms Act 1968 in that I believe that you were in possession of an unlinceced firearm. I have to point out that to do so is a breech of the law. In veiw of the fact that you appear to have acted in the public interest without intention to commit further crime, I must caution you that any future action of this nature on your behalf will be treated as a serious crime and you may be procecuted."
I am, of course now guilty of serious thread drift as I am refering to the second case cited here, not that raised by the OP.
First, the only person in those circumstances that could have changed what came next was the arresting officer. Show me who else?
Second, had he *the Police officer in question) been 'sensible' about it, I doubt he would have faced disciplinary action, under the circumstances as his actions could be easily justified - by common sense, if nothing else.
That was the only point in the chain of events where any flexibility existed.
"Thank you, Sir, for being so honest and public spirited. However, I have to point out to you that you may have committed an offence under the Firearms Act 1968 in that I believe that you were in possession of an unlinceced firearm. I have to point out that to do so is a breech of the law. In veiw of the fact that you appear to have acted in the public interest without intention to commit further crime, I must caution you that any future action of this nature on your behalf will be treated as a serious crime and you may be procecuted."
I am, of course now guilty of serious thread drift as I am refering to the second case cited here, not that raised by the OP.
Also TOFO,
I know it's irrelevant to the legal case, but my point was about the society it is creating....for those still living in the UK that is. I've voted with my feet.
..and that is still relevant to the OP, because it appears that there is an increasing lack of common sense, judgement or justice, which is something I'm not prepared to put up with.
.
I know it's irrelevant to the legal case, but my point was about the society it is creating....for those still living in the UK that is. I've voted with my feet.
..and that is still relevant to the OP, because it appears that there is an increasing lack of common sense, judgement or justice, which is something I'm not prepared to put up with.
.
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 13th Nov 2012 at 02:36.