More Paul Clarke case information
Tweet
Paul Clarke’s solicitor, Lionel Blackman, was interviewed on Radio Four’s PM today. You can listen to the piece here from 45.50 to 49.44.
Some snippets from Mr Blackman’s answers:
- The minimum sentence the charge for which Paul Clarke has been found guilty is indeed five years unless the court finds there are “exceptional circumstances”.
- There is no proscribed list of “exceptional circumtances”.
- There was no defence in law to the charge because of the “strict liability” clause.
- The case has not concluded because sentence has not been passed.
- The prosecution did not contest the statement that Clarke found the gun and ammunition.
- Clarke phoned the police the morning after he found the gun and arranged an appointment which was a day or two later.
- It was revealed to the court that Clarke had previously been found in possession of a cattle prod.
Related posts:
- Paul Clarke case – curiouser and curiouser
- Younger-Ross: brilliant statement on LibDem attitude to Simone Clarke
- Simone Clarke, the BNP’s ballet dancer – fair game!
- Intriguing comments by Councillor Richard Barnbrook about Simone Clarke
- How much tax payers' money is being used to update Wikipedia with suspect information?
2 Responses to “More Paul Clarke case information”
Leave a Reply
Burbler-in-chief
“Clarke phoned the police the morning after he found the gun and arranged an appointment which was a day or two later.”
That may be the significant factor as regards charging. IE he didn’t just find the weapon but found and kept it (albeit for a short while).
Probably shouldn’t attract a mandatory 5 year sentence but that’s an argument against mandatory minimums rather than the decision to charge in this case.
“Probably shouldn’t attract a mandatory 5 year sentence”
Probably shouldn’t result in charges being pressed — after all, notifying the police the morning after finding the gun is pretty swift — but in any case, this is immaterial to the most worrying issue at stake here — that the Police were trusted with full discretionary powers as to whether or not to press charges, but the courts were trusted with no discretionary powers. This indicates an astonishing lack of faith in our justice system that is, sadly, all too believable.