#paulclarke : serves 'im right?
And the #paulclarke tag on Twitter has come alive, albeit in a somewhat one-sided fashion. It would seem that the early tweeters feel that Mr Clarke should consider himself .. err ... lucky to have got off so lightly.
@sshrpe thinks
"#PaulClarke gets 12 month suspended sentence; walks free. So, erm, a lot of fuss over nothing, in the end."
What? Fuss over nothing? A man is arrested, spends time in a police cell and is then given a criminal record, and that's 'nothing'? Really? Oh well, perhaps we should get back to X-factor then?
@Niaccurshi tweets:
"#PaulClarke gets a suspended sentence and so is effectively let free. This case has become the perfect example of a good system working well"
Pardon? A good system? Working well? Are you taking the piss?
A man hands in a gun at a police station and is promptly arrested? That's 'good'? He's eventually given a criminal record? Is that 'good'? Should we all get criminal records following any misunderstanding with the police? Just to teach us to behave better next time? Would that be a good system?
Wouldn't a truly good system have told him not to be so daft in future and sent him home from the police station months ago? It would certainly have been a better use of taxpayers money.
What about the debate as to whether this is a crap law? Should limited liability apply to such an offence? Sod it. Who the fuck cares? 'Nothing' to worry about here.
What about the CPS's decision to proceed? Was that in the public interest? Oh, don't worry, Paul Clarke is 'effectively free'. He might have a criminal record, but that probably serves him right, somehow, eh?
What about Clarke's allegations that the police had been harassing him? That his house had been 'turned over' 5 times? That a warrant card had been planted in his house, for which he was threatened with arrest? Should we forget all that 'fuss' now, and get on with the Christmas telly schedule?
What about Clarke's statement today that he was sleeping with one of the female officers at the very same station, and that he was worried that "jealousy" may have been a factor in his harassment? Should we be concerned about the integrity of the police involved, or should we be content to wonder whether or not it will snow on Christmas day?
These tweeters are the worrying vanguard of the many who think, and who have frequently stated, that Paul Clarke was "dumb". That he did a "stupid" thing.
Well, yes, maybe. You could debate that.
But should 'dumb' people, who do 'stupid' things be given a criminal record?
According to the - apparently mindless - court of public opinion it would seem, yes.
Live in modern Britain? Be afraid. Be very afraid.
_
Posts
21 comments:
You simplify the issue far too much.
You believe that he did nothing wrong based on what he claims, I believe we don't know the full details of exactly what has gone on but that we do know it was much more interesting than a man just rushing to hand in a gun at a police station.
You call it a misunderstanding, again without anything to back up that it was misunderstanding alone that meant the police broke from the guidance issued to them by the home office if that was as simple as that.
If Paul Clarke had done only what you would like to believe he had done then I would agree that the good system was tarnished by a bad element (in this case the police force), but we already know it isn't the case.
I'm not vindicating criminal records for dumb people, but then I also don't have as active an interest as you seem to in taking hearsay and rumour to make a resolute stance on a rather misty matter.
There are some people whose believe that our Government and Police Service is so great, invent invisible and fictious reasons to justify its behaviour.
"There must be more", "There has to be something else". We don't need to hear it, see it, know what that smoking gun is. We should just assume it exists, assume they're all jolly good chaps and get on with Winterval. They simply can't bring themselves to accept that the system doesn't always work, isn't always good and that sometimes if it smells bad, it is bad.
The Government gag the media with all sorts of laws preventing the truth getting out. Stop police officers from sharing their version of the truth. And they tell us to just assume there's something good that we're not being told, something to justify it all. Well, before I believe there is, I'd like to see it.
There are some people whose believe that our Government and Police Service is so awful, invent invisible and fictious reasons to condemn its behaviour.
"There must be more", "There has to be something else". We don't need to hear it, see it, know what that smoking gun is. We should just assume it exists, assume they're all terrible evil chaps and get on with Winterval. They simply can't bring themselves to accept that the system isn't always corrupt, isn't always bad and that sometimes if it seems good, it is good.
Clever. But when, on the face of it, this sounds like a terrible miscarriage of justice. I'm sure it's up to the police and others to justify their actions.
Why if there is something more, have the police not come forward with it? Perhaps because it doesn't exist, because this is a rotten case.
It's bad enough that the police never admit they're wrong, but with civilians roped in, they can do whatever they want.
Anonymous, you have no proof of your claims either, that's my overriding point. You're sceptical and paranoid of the authorities...fair enough, I don't really care about that...but let's not pretend that just because you personally believe there must be something afoot here, that it is necessarily anything like a reality.
I do not think a great deal of comfort can be taken from the court giving a suspended sentence.
I think it was an injustice for him to even face a 5 year mandatory sentence, unless the court found "exceptional circumstances". I am glad that the judge did so, but I am uneasy that one had to rely on this before there was a just result overall.
When there is both (a) a strict liability offence and (b) a mandatory term of imprisonment, then the exercises of discretion by the police and the CPS become crucial. It does not seem in this case that good decisions were made.
And good decisions should have been made; it is not appropriate to just rely on the court exercising its dicretion at the end of a process.
So, although I can see Niaccurshi's points, I generally side with Constantly Frurious on this.
Surely (the other) anonymous is basing their opinion on what was actually made public?
Statements that the Police and CPS must have had more to their case constitutes the only conjecture on this comment board.
@J of K
Well put. You have the knack of expressing these things clearly.
Exactly how 'Niaccurshi' can claim that this is "the perfect example of a good system working well"" beggars belief.
I am afraid that the statement "the perfect example of a good system working well" is not in my view correct.
The reasons given for the exceptional circumstances means that the decisions to charge and prosecute seem flawed.
If the judge was correct, then I cannot see how the police and the CPS could have made their decisions correctly.
It is a perfect example of a bad system working inconsistently.
"There are some people whose believe that our Government and Police Service is so awful, invent invisible and fictious reasons to condemn its behaviour."
Well, it's not like the police have been shown, on occasion, to misuse their position and falsify records is it?
Oh. Wait...
All parties in this sound like equal wankpots to me.
But you can't prosecute someone for being a wankpot. It seems, though, we *can* employ public servants in the criminal justice system who are.
Sigh.
youve kept this one running CF good on you ! its wrong and a waste of money !
"If Paul Clarke had done only what you would like to believe he had done then I would agree that the good system was tarnished by a bad element"
Good system? *Good system?*
The system is what is rotten here. Let me remind you that nothing is known for certain. We do not know for certain that Clarke was morally innocent. We do not know for certain that the police were corrupt. We do not know for certain that they made a mistake.
What we do know for certain is very simple: the court was not allowed to test for Mens Rea, despite the fact that the police specifically *were*. To put it more simply; Clarke should have been considered innocent until proven guilty before the police, but before the court he was only considered guilty.
This is an absurdity, and it is stupid. The system is rotten. The police may have been entirely right. Clarke may have been a very nasty piece of work. But the system does not allow that to be investigated by the court, therefore it is rotten.
"I'm not vindicating criminal records for dumb people, but then I also don't have as active an interest as you seem to in taking hearsay and rumour to make a resolute stance on a rather misty matter."
I'm afraid you obviously do. You regard the system as inherently good, ergo you are fine with allowing the word of the police to overrule the courts. I think that's as close to taking hearsay and rumour to make a resolute stance on a misty matter that you can get.
@niaccurshi I've seen the paperwork and I know that he didn't do anything wrong. I've seen the stuff about the police, though.
And it's not just a case of 'he's not going to prison so it's all okay' for all those stupid tweeters because one can argue that it's only the press coverage he received which brought that about. We have government by PR these days, why would a crown court judge not consider public opinion?
The press coverage he secured didn't just turn up on his doorstep, eitiher. There were supporters behind the scenes working hard to get his side of the story across. You don't have to look to far down the article to work out who.
Hey folks,
Here's what we know. He told the police something that wasn't the truth (he said he'd just found the weapon, in fact he has kept hold of it). He tampered with potential evidence of a crime by moving and handling the weapon. He carried a dangerous weapon in an unsecured fashion through a public place (in his trousers if you believe the police, many of you here won't as standard I understand).
Even with all the other controversies involved including claims of jealous police officers and love triangles or whatever, these above points are all ABSOLUTE JUSTIFICATION for an arrest and charge of possession of a firearm.
Please remember it is not the police's job to determine if someone is telling the truth or not...that is the courts discretion. Now as much as the regular readers here will simply claim it's a "waste of money" the reason I think this is a good system is because gun possession is a crime of absolute evidence and lots of unknowns as to the context of that possession. You either possess a gun or not, easy peasy...whether or not when you say "well I was only bringing it in, civic duty guv, gimme a medal ta" that is actually the truth is a murkier and much harder to ascertain area of knowledge.
It's entirely right that if the police are certain that what is being said is the truth that they choose not the arrest and charge, and there are examples whereby when individuals have gone out of their way to inform the police about the finding of a gun the police haven't thought to arrest. But if there is any doubt they have to put it to a jury and a judge.
Jack is entirely right that the issue is the strict liability nature of the offence, but the reality is that if it's strict liability the charge is stacked against the accused with the only recourse being an "exceptional circumstances" sentence. If there is no strict liability it means the burden of proof is on prosecution and that means the case is stacked against the authorities with no recourse if the verdict can't be found.
Let me be clear, if it wasn't strict liability then plenty of criminals would simply use the defence of "it isn't mine, I found it, was about to bring it in" and there is very little that could be done to prove without a doubt that this wasn't the case. These sort of criminals would be let free and would walk the streets again without a doubt.
I believe that a judge in a case that (hypothetically) was similar to Paul Clarke's case except for a few factors (the accused wasn't already known to have been accused of a violent crime, the accused didn't tamper with or handle the gun and the accused informed the police right away) would discharge the accused.
So the police, having doubts, were right to arrest. The CPS, following their own guidelines given the actions of Paul, were right to prosecute. The jury ultimately couldn't decide on anything other than guilty, and the judge then gave him a punishment fitting for the stupidity, danger and potential ramifications of his actions...that punishment being let free with a years "don't do anything to break the law" rule. This is why I think it's a good system (not a perfect one) working in the best way possible. Based on what we know, at least, which is obviously a lot less than what some here are assuming, hypothesising and outright making up. :)
"why would a crown court judge not consider public opinion?"
Because in general they don't. For every case like this where the public can claim that the judge came down on their side, there's another where people claim the courts aren't fulfilling the public's wishes. This is because judges are generally consistent to the sentencing guidelines they have, and the information that's available. Sometimes that fits with the public's perception, sometimes it doesn't.
"I'm afraid you obviously do. You regard the system as inherently good"
Perhaps "good" is the wrong term. Least bad on balance for everyone is more accurate I guess.
"ergo you are fine with allowing the word of the police to overrule the courts"
Not at all, let's conjoin more unrelated stances to make our point shall we?
Don't get me wrong, if Mr Clarke is being harassed by the police then that needs to be dealt with. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/ would be a good start for him perhaps? If it is true that the actions of the police in arresting him were through a vendetta rather than genuine doubt of "innocence" then an investigation would uncover that and could perhaps be used in an appeal
I think this is where Paul Clarke should look next, as I think that is a separate issue to what I believe (from what we know) his irresponsible actions surrounding the firearm.
19 December 2009 08:13
Niaccurshi said...
Hey folks,
Here's what we know. He told the police something that wasn't the truth ......
Please go back to the root of the debate Niaccurshi. Paul never told the police he had 'just found' the gun. He told them the truth. the police in the court did not dispute his statement. they did not challenge it. They and the CPS ignored it and went on in their own way.
I am one of those people who was actively, but quietly in the background, promoting support for Paul. Yes I know the man but I am not a friend of his. I live in the same community and am pleased that he took the gun to the police.
Nobody has yet seemed to ask how the gun got into his garden?
In any event there are always multiple versions of what happened. Many people have asked that Paul give account for his actions and have questioned his integrity. he may not really know himself why he delayed going to the police. Fear seems to have been a significant part of it but generally there is more than one factor involved when we make a decision to act or not to act on something.
He has not hidden that he has messed up in the past. he does not try to pretend that he has always been a model citizen. However, he tried to find a way to do the right thing without making thigs worse for himself or his family.
Well done Paul. Have a great Christmas and New Year. The one you did not think you were going to get and I lok forward to seeing the outcome of the appeal and your name being properly cleared.
Now how can we harness Paul's attempt to do what was right, perhaps mentor him to avoid some less wise decisions and help to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Oh sorry Paul, you already tried that didn't you.
What? Fuss over nothing? A man is arrested, spends time in a police cell and is then given a criminal record, and that's 'nothing'? I've seen certain bloggers claim that said defendant has a 'previous.'
I've not (yet) seen other bloggers trash this defense.
Certainly a 'member of the public' should have some defense against a charge of carrying a firearm through the streets to a police station without telling the station what he was carrying, but...
Surely the phone call should have been 'I have a found gun here can you collect it' (days ago) rather than an ambigious call to the local plod of 'I have something for you'.
Anonymous - I refer you to...
"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.""
From the report in to his initial court appearance. This statement he gave is at complete odds with the statement he gave at his sentencing, but never mind for such details, they just get in the way of a good authority bashing! ;)
Post a Comment