Paul Clarke has finally been sentenced. According to the Surrey Mirror, the local paper that first broke the news of the case, he's been given a suspended sentence of twelve months.

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.

_

Today, Friday 18th of December, is the day that Paul Clarke is sentenced.

CF posted several times last month on Clarke, the bloke who faces a five year jail sentence for handing in a gun he found at his local police station.

Radio 4 featured the story on the Today programme this morning, the potential major miscarriage of justice being deemed nearly as interesting as the temporary retirement of an old Irish DJ.

Diligent listeners will have picked up on an extra piece of information on this sorry tale. CF had already been told of this rumour, but specifically asked not to pass it on. It's highly relevant.

Paul Clarke claims that he had been harassed by the police for some time before the shotgun incident, and that his house had been 'turned over' by the police on no less than 5 separate occasions.

On one occasion, claims Clarke, an officer had left a warrant card there, later returning and threatening him with arrest for the possession of it.

Bloody hell. That changes things, just a bit, doesn't it? Gives us a better insight into the feelings between Clarke and the police, certainly.

So, in a climate of police oppression, where you'd already been threatened with arrest for possession of something that was - either accidentally or deliberately - 'planted' on your premises, what would you do if a shotgun suddenly appeared in your garden?

Would you follow exactly the police official guidelines, the only 'legal' option, and ring 999 immediately? If you were Paul Clarke, who'd had 5 visits to that house already that year?

Would you 'phone the police - the same police you might suspect put it there in the first place - and tell them you had a gun? Would you? In the circumstances Clarke was in, with the history he had?

Would you?


_

Gawain Towler, UKIP PPC for North Dorset, was mentioned in last night's post as having tweeted about the Paul Clarke case.

Constantly Furious wondered out loud if this indicated 'official' involvement from UKIP.

Mr Towler has just told CF the following:

"Just to let you know. Nigel Farage will be on the steps of Reading Court on the 18th.

He has supported me speaking to his constituent Mr Clarke from the start. The first meeting took place at the Merstham Home of our local constituency Chairman for example.

There will be more coverage of this, but I can assure you that Mr Clarke has the support of the entire UKIP leadership, both Batten and Pearson, and others for that matter.

Now that we know the details etc we will be prosecuting this case as loudly as we can. Trust me, this should not be a party political issue, but if the others cannot be bothered then we in UKIP will do all we can."

Well done the UKIP boys 'n' girls.

Just a reminder, Paul Clarke's MP is Tory Crispin Blunt. His website says precisely fuck all about Clarke's case and, unless CF is mistaken, he had made no public pronouncement on the matter.

What's your opinion on this, Crispin?

_

One of the odd things about the Paul Clarke case to date has been the total lack of involvement from politicians. Of any colour.

Of course, we don't expect to hear anything from Gordon Brown - this isn't X-factor, after all, for fucks sake.

However, we might reasonably have expected to have heard from MP's closer to the case.

Not a dickie bird from our latest Home Secretary, on this (or indeed, on anything else).

Anne Milton is the local MP, but that Tory lady's website is silent on the Paul Clarke case too. Perhaps she doesn't know that one of her constituents is about to banged up for five years for, in his own words,

"trying to be a good citizen .. I thought it was my duty to hand [the gun] in and get it off the streets"

++UPDATE++  Several people have emailed constantly.furious@gmail.com to point out that Clarke's MP is not actually Anne Milton, but Crispin Blunt. He's a Conservative too, and his website says precisely fuck all about Clarke's case either. Even though his website 'strapline' is "Working for you". Clearly, that's unless 'you' are Paul Clarke.

CF's interest was piqued, however, to see a 'tweet' on Monday evening saying:

"#paulclarke Sentencing pushed back to Reading on 18th Dec. Be there to stop this misscarriage of Justice"

As far as CF (and his many ears 'n' eyes out there) knows, that's the first broadcast of that particular information.

And was this from an MP? Well, not quite, but it was from someone who'd quite like to be one.

It was from Gawain Towler, who describes himself as

"Middle age, middle class, middle brow. UKIP PPC for North Dorset"

Now there's nothing on the main UKIP website about this case, but on Mr Towler's own website he has blogged about the affair, again with the plea to "get down to Guildford High Court on December 11th".

Clearly, as soon as the date changed, Mr Towler felt obliged to inform all of Clarke's supporters, but still, the question is begged: how the fuck does he know that?

Who told Mr Towler about the changed date?

Given that UKIP leader Nigel Farage is Clarke's MEP, did he find out via UKIP?

Why is he campaigning for Mr Clarke? Is he doing this as a private individual, or as a UKIP member and PPC?

In short, have UKIP jumped in to fill the void left by the local MP's neglect?

We'd all love to know...


++UPDATE++  Holly Thompson, the reporter who was in court, has confirmed the change of date. But how did UKIP know before her?
_

More information on the Paul Clarke case, as it drip, drip, drips out.

The arresting officer has now said, regarding Clarke's visit to the police station to hand in the gun he discovered in his garden:

"Throughout this encounter Paul Clarke was calm, considered and respectful. It is clear to me now that he did come to the police station with the intention of surrendering the firearm to the police."

In spite of this, and in spite of having phoned the Chief Superintendent prior to arriving, Mr Clarke was promptly arrested, and the CPS decided to proceed with prosecution.

As was alleged yesterday, this was perhaps not the first time Mr Clarke had handed in a weapon at the police station.

A machete, planned for use by a vigilante gang in the very same Surrey village, was handed by the gang leader - 'an unnamed man' - to Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper in January of this year - the same Chief Superintendent 'phoned by Clarke regarding his most recent visit.

But is this relevant to the current case?

Well, as CF said yesterday:

"Doubtless [the police would] be extremely worried if they thought the sort of guy who could whip up a vigilante gang, and had a fucking machete, for Christs' sake, got access to any other weapons.

Doubtless, if he did, they might have reacted in a disproportionate manner. After all, fear, and particularly panic, can make anybody act very oddly.

Blogger and Liberal Conspiracy contributor Lee Griffin, tweeting as @Niaccurshi, who has been following the case online, questioning and interacting regularly, had the following point to make:

"It may be relevant if it explains police actions in avoiding HO [Home Office] Guidelines."

Indeed. A reason, if not an excuse, for what has happened.

More later..


_

Those of you who are avid readers of the Daily Mail, and have excellent memories, may remember this disconcerting story., from January this year.

Following rumours that a sex attacker was on the loose, this fine-looking mob got together, in the Surrey commuter village of Merstham.

According to the Mail:

"The men, aged 18 to 30, said they would interrogate any suspects they caught and hand out their own punishment.

Yeah, lovely.

But shortly after they'd posed for the team photo shown here, their leader was summoned by Surrey's divisional police commander, Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper, and told in no uncertain terms that vigilantes were "not welcome" on his manor,

Now, where have we heard the name Adrian Harper before, eh? Oh yes, that's right. He's the head of the nick where Paul Clarke was arrested.

After what was doubtless an enormous bollocking, the gang's leader, who would not be named, said:

"'I guess a few of the guys got a bit carried away. We have ditched the balaclavas and handed in the machete."

So an unnamed vigilante leader in Surrey hands in a weapon to Adrian Harper down his local nick, and is sent on his merry way (albeit with a bollocking).

But he was unknown only to us. Doubtless the local police know exactly who this man was.

Doubtless they have kept an eye on him ever since January.

Doubtless they'd be extremely worried if they thought the sort of guy who could whip up a vigilante gang, and had a fucking machete, for Christs' sake, got access to any other weapons.

Doubtless, if he did, they might have reacted in a disproportionate manner. After all, fear, and particularly panic, can make anybody act very oddly.

Doubtless you are all putting two and two together, right now..


The plot continues to thicken.  

And, there's more to come.




Hat-tip to the inestimable Dick Puddlecote, who is clearly extraordinarily well-connected and has broken this on his blog too.
_

The Paul Clarke story will not lay down and die.  For anyone who has been living under a rock for 7 days, 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.


Want more information? Jack of Kent's excellent post from yesterday will fill in all of the details for you.

But there's more.

CF was contacted late last night, and informed that there will be a major announcement on this story today; another new twist. This 'pre-leak' has come from two apparently independent sources, both of whom have promised to give CF early sight of the news.

If anyone else has an 'in' on this news, email on constantly.furious@gmail.com , contact ConstantFury on Twitter, or Constance-Lee Fury-House (yeah, yeah) on Facebook.

As soon as CF receives full, confirmed, details on this next twist, you'll see them right here.

Watch this space...




(And by the way, numerous 'anonymous' commenters, this news is not that the Law Lords have decided that Clarke should be sent to prison "because he's an arsehole".  Sorry to disappoint all of you.)

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.


_

Lionel Blackman is Paul Clarke's lawyer.

Who's Paul Clarke? Where have you been? Over the 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.

Mr Blackman spoke to Eddie Mair on yesterday's PM program on BBC Radio 4:



The sometimes-tenacious Eddie Mair didn't really seem to be able rev up his indignation much - maybe BBC lawyers were waving through the glass at him -  and seemed to be itching to move on to something 'lighter', perhaps about a skateboarding duck.

It has to be said, Mr Blackman didn't substantially add to the sum of existing knowledge in this dismal case, other than to reveal, somewhat vaguely, that Mr Clarke had previously been caught in possession of a cattle prod. A cattle prod?

This does lend a tiny, tiny amount of weight to the sadly-common argument "'eee deserved it - eee's a shitbag / a repeat offender / a moron".

But, again, do any of those faults merit 5 years in prison? CF doesn't think so.


++ update ++ comments at the original story have been disabled for 'legal reasons' . Hmmmm....


_

At the risk of this becoming, temporarily, a single-issue blog, CF has more to share. Over the 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.

Holly Thompson, the journalist who was actually in court for this case, and who wrote the original Surrey Mirror piece, pointed some of the people asking her endless twitter-questions at the Home Office's 'Firearms Policing Guidelines'

Since this is a PDF file of some 212 pages, CF has not quite finished reading it but Paul Walter over at Liberal Burblings has done his homework.

He found - on page 129, dear god - this highly relevant passage:

"Anyone surrendering an illegally held firearm should be questioned discreetly with a view to establishing its history but, unless circumstances exist to give serious cause for concern as to its provenance (for example, if it appears to have been stolen), the person handing it in should not be pressed.

The emphasis should be on creating an environment in which people hand in illegally held firearms"

So, given that, taken from an official fucking Home Office guidelines document, the perennial question "What The Fuck Is Going ON?" can only be raised once more.

In other relevant news, Stu at Sharpes's opinion can just be heard - over the deafening din of reverse gear being engaged - asking whether:

"..Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper who Paul Clarke met with before being arrested is the same Chief Superintendent Adrian Harper who was suspended for alleged dishonest conduct in May 2009?"

Well, unless there are several 'Chiefs' in Surrey with the same name, it would seem so.


The plot continues to thicken.

_

This 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.

One of the many mysteries around this grim tale is why it's been so very poorly covered in the mainstream media.

Holly Thompson, the reporter who was actually in court and wrote the original piece in the Surrey Mirror said earlier today,when told that there was little or no national press coverage:

"..it was in the nationals. Was sourced exclusively to the Sun who had it as a page lead on Thursday"

CF is not actually as subscriber to that august journal, but Dick Puddlecote is, and produced the following scan:

So that at least puts to bed the wild theory that this was all some kind of bizarre hoax, and that the Surrey Mirror was not really a newspaper at all.

But, but, but, why did this story not make it to the Sun online? Everything else they publish, all the other crap, seems to.

And, given the MSM's notorious willingness to pinch content from both bloggers and rivals, why is it not featured in any other online MSM site? Just try searching Google News - nothing. Nada. Zip.

What's the fuck is going on?

_

This 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.

This morning, a slightly bewildered-seeming Holly Thompson twittered this:

I'm the journalist who wrote the #paulclarke story. Wow. What a response.

Since the Surrey Times had the comments on the story switched off all weekend, she, and they, were probably unaware of the 'storm' until this morning.

Naturally, she's been deluged with questions, mostly from people seeking 'more facts', 'more facts'.

So far, the following has been revealed by Holly:

Ms Thompson was in court "For the full two days". She has "also spoken to Mr Clarke a lot during and after the trial"

 [Paul Clarke] didn't tell police he had a gun. He said: "I've got something to give you". He admits that was mistake but didn't know the law

"Mr Clarke didn't take the stand. His written statement was read out in court and not disputed by the prosecution."

When told that there were many 'disbelievers' out in Twitterland and in the blogosphere:

"I'm sorry to disappoint anyone but all the facts are there. We wouldn't have printed it unless we knew that for certain"

When told that there was little or no national press coverage:

"it was in the nationals. Was sourced exclusively to the Sun who had it as a page lead on Thursday"

When told that even that hadn't made it online:

".. its weird. Can only assume the nationals are just as dubious of my court copy as many other tweeters seem to be!"

CF has asked Holly to do a guest post here, and she has agreed. However, it wouldn't be astonishing if the Surrey Mirror (or someone else, eh conspiracy theorists?) prevented her from doing so.

Watch this space...

_

Well well. Another Twitter storm. But one that CF played his small part in, this time.

CF posted yesterday morning on Paul Clarke, the bloke who faces a five year jail sentence for handing in a gun he found at his local police station.

The mainstream media have yet to pick up on this, and facts are thin on the ground, but the story looks and smells a lot like, at best, the misfiring of a broken justice system.

Gradually the story spread over Twitter, and one commenter, Benjamin Glass, created a Twitter tag, #paulclarke.

Suddenly, around noon, a tipping point was reached. By mid-afternoon, there were two storms raging - one all over the South of England, and one all over the Twittersphere. #paulclarke was 'trending'. This 'umble blog received more hits in 10 hours than it did in the whole of October.

With a controversial story like this, for every 50 people, there are at least 75 different opinions.

Stu at Sharpe's Opinion got all contrarian, posting that it served Clarke right, which caused further outrage in some quarters, including from our humble Devil, who begged to differ.

Mark 'Reckons' Thompson pointed out at that in October, a bloke was told by the police to do exactly what Paul Clarke was arrested for - 'bring it in, mate'. Jack of Kent took a more balanced view of the whole affair.

Hundreds of others blogged their two penn'orth, and many, many more sounded off in comments. CF wasn't quite subjected to a torrent of abuse, but there were many, many dissenters. Let's answer some of them, shall we?

'Clarke did a stupid thing' was a frequent critique. Well, duh, yeah, he did. Carrying a gun through town is not the brightest thing to do. (Possibly) damaging criminal evidence ain't that clever either. No arguments there.

But, but, but, hang on a fucking minute, when did stupidity become a criminal offence? When did being 'a bit silly' start to attract a prison sentence of five fucking years?

'You don't know the law' was a common cry (often appended with '..and I do'). Well, again, yeah. CF has never claimed to be a legal expert. CF doesn't know enormous amounts about vineyards and oenology either, but that doesn't prevent him realising when he's glugging down a particularly agreeable red.

And, on a similar basis, while CF is not fully versed on the details of Strict Liability or of Section 5 of the Firearms Act, this doesn't prevent him wrinkling his nose up at the foul stench of something going pretty fucking wrong.

Let's go through this again: a bloke finds a gun, takes it to a police station, gets arrested, goes to prison for five years.

What particularly subtle legal point - totally missed by CF - makes that OK, for fucks sake?

What particular Latin phrase - of which CF is clearly unaware - explains that sequence of events?

'We don't know all the facts' was another bleat. Well, for the third fucking time, yeah.

But what missing 'fact' could possibly, possibly justify this? What hidden information could be revealed to make us all simultaneously say 'Oh. Well in that case, fuck him; bang him up.'?

No, regardless of the legal niceties, regardless of whether Surrey Today has reported this wrongly, regardless of whether the armchair lawyers of the blogosphere are poorly informed, regardless of whether this Paul Clarke is a good citizen or a nutter, this is not right.

We need to stay angry about this, stay focused on this. Something has gone wrong. Badly wrong.

Whether it went wrong at the police station, with the CPS, with the judge, with the jury, with our legal system or somewhere else, it went wrong.

This is not right.

_

++ Important updates on this story here ++

There's a term in law known as 'Strict Liability'. This is official, formal legal shorthand for 'You know what? I really don't care why you were doing it, mate'. 

Strict Liability applies to offences like speeding. So, if you're caught breaking the speed limit, you can't just claim that you didn't know, or that you had to get home to see the end of X-Factor, or you were fleeing violent axe murderers. Speeding is speeding. You cannot exceed the limit for any reason.

Now, this might not seem too unreasonable, really. A bit crude, a bit simplistic, but you can sort of see where the legislators are comin' from, eh?

However, what happens when lazy or inept legislators, rushing to put together yet another knee-jerk set of laws, use this as their own little shortcut?

Paul Clarke of Reigate can tell you.

Mr Clarke found a discarded shotgun and - rather than blagging a bank, or shootin' up some boyz in da 'hood - decided that he should hand it in at the local police station.

After all, possession of an unlicensed firearm is an offence, innit?

Oh yes. It is. But, unfortunately for Paul, it's a 'Strict Liability' offence. Remember them? No excuses.

So, when Mr Clarke arrived at the local nick - having had the courtesy to 'phone ahead to announce his intention - was he offered a cup of tea and the thanks of several beaming Bobbies?

Was he fuck. He was promptly arrested, and thrown into a cell.

When the case came to court, was he given an apology for the misunderstanding and sent away, without a stain on his character?

Was he fuck. 'Strict Liability', see?

The judge, directing the Jury, sealed his fate, saying,

"This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

The Jury, not really knowing what the fuck was going on, and probably slightly disappointed that this was not really like on the telly at all, took a scant 20 minutes to go along with the Judge's direction, and find the poor sod Guilty. Guilty. For fuck's sake.

So, will the judge now unravel this mess, and sentence Mr Clarke to something proportionate and tolerable: "you will be taken from this place and given a cup of tea and your cab fare home" ?

Will he fuck. He can't, even if he wants to.

There's a minimum sentence for the crime of possessing a firearm. A mere judge can't be trusted to know what's appropriate, so he's given guidelines from on high.

So - and here comes the sit down and brace yourself bit - when Paul Clarke is sentenced, on December the 11th, he must be sent to prison for a minimum of five years. Five fucking years. Five years in prison, for doing what pretty much every last single fucking one of us would have done in the circumstances.

What the flying, gibbering, fuckity fuck have we come to?

It's an over-worked phrase, but could you make this shit up? No, you fucking could not.

What kind of insane, kafka-esque fucking mess do we live in?

Really, really, really. What the fuck?

++UPDATE++  The reporter who was in court, speaks here. More facts begin to emerge.

++UPDATE++  The above was CF's most visited blogpost ever, and attracted huge volumes of criticism and comment. Some responses are here

_