#paulclarke - important updates

Last weekend there was a twitter storm over Paul Clarke, who found a gun, took it to his local police station and was arrested and now faces five years in prison.

Other than a short piece on page 25 of the Sun, which was not transferred online, coverage in the mainstream media has been pitifully inadequate.

Clarke's lawyer, Lionel Blackman, spoke to Eddie Mair on Monday's PM program on BBC Radio 4, but the story was very low key, and only added the bizarre fact that Clarke had once been found in possession of a cattle prod.

Comments at the original story have been disabled for 'legal reasons', and Holly Thompson, the journalist who was in court and wrote the original piece, seems to have gone to ground.

Is the story dying? Is it being allowed to die?

Well, one blogger has not let the matter rest. One blogger has pushed the boundary that divides journalism and blogging, and put the mainstream media to shame.

Self described 'Legal Writer' Jack of Kent has been busy, has researched diligently, and has come up with by far the best post on this grim tale so far: "An Anatomy of an Injustice"

You really should get over there and read the entire, excellent piece. He speaks about the law itself:

Mandatory minimum sentences for a range of firearms offences were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, one of the most notorious and illiberal statutes ever passed by Parliament. The director of the pressure group Liberty stated:

"In years to come, as more innocent people emerge after years in prison caused by these plans, we'll wonder how Parliament let this shameful attack on justice get into law".

The legislation relating to mandatory minimum sentences for a range of firearms offences were not even properly scrutinised by Parliament. They were introduced at the very late (and post committee) "Report stage"

So, the law itself is dodgy at best. But what about Clarke? Is he dodgy at best?

'Jack' has also spoken with the CPS, whose decision to prosecute is right at the bottom of this tale. The CPS throw a somewhat different light on the case (CF's emphasis):

Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors the CPS considered it was in the public interest to prosecute Mr Clarke as he was in possession of a sawn off shot gun.

He had come into possession of the shot gun and two shotgun cartridges some days earlier and had not immediately contacted the police to make them aware of its existence.

He was given the opportunity by the police to explain the full circumstances as to how he was in possession of the lethal weapon but his explanation lacked credibility.

Hmmmm. That's a twist, eh? 'some days'? 'lacked credibility'?

Jack has also described in more detail the court proceedings, and the behaviour of the judge:

"The judge summed up by stating this was an unusual case and that, as it was a strict liability, there could be no defence. However, he was careful not to direct the jury to convict: it was a matter for them.

Thanks to Jack's work this week, there's now much more detail in the public domain, and much, much more to think on.

Good work, Jack.


_