Blackmoor Vituperative

According to the Fully Informed Jury Association, it is important for jury members to be educated on the fact that they are judges of both the evidence and the law. Some people might wonder how that can possibly be a good idea. If it’s a law, it must just, right? If someone breaks a law, they must be punished, right?

How about when a former soldier finds a discarded shotgun in his yard and takes it to the police, and is sent to prison for at least five years for his trouble?

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.

(from Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun, This Is Surrey Today)

You read that right. He found a shotgun. He took it to the police. They arrested him for having possession of a shotgun. This is what passes for justice in the UK: a country where violent crime is rampant, while honest people are denied the right to protect themselves.

But whether or not you self-defense is a basic human right, or whether you think armed civilians are an effective deterrent to crime, Mr. Clarke did nothing wrong. The jury should have refused to convict him. That they found him guilty of violating the law despite the obvious injustice is proof that jurors do need to be educated on their rights. All it would have taken to send Mr. Clark home is one juror who knew her rights, and had the courage to exercise them.

I guess they don’t teach schoolkids about William Penn in the UK anymore.