If it is illegal to have a gun on your property then how would he have benefited from getting the police to collect it from his house? Surely they could have arrested him for posession just as easily.

Under such zealotly applied “Strict Liability” it appears the only way he could have avoided prosecution was to either illegally hide the gun on his property until the next amnesty or move it onto public land and wait for someone else to report it to the police, or take it – which would be both irresponsible and criminal.

It seems the moment somebody throws a gun onto your property you are, by default, a criminal. So – should you discover a gun in your garden one day, what action will you take to avoid going to jail or breaking the law?

“If you find a weapon in your garden, the correct thing to do is surely to leave it alone.”

You want to see what the thing is though. Maybe it’s a toy or replica. Are you such an expert you wouldn’t need to pick it up and have a good look?

The ‘authorities’ now appear to be in a state of perpetual frenzy as they look to criminalise ordinary people for doing nothing more than going about their business.

The current crime wave includes people: feeding ducks in a park, redecorating their house and threatening to smack their naughty child.

Meanwhile, a Malaysian woman who tortured and killed a toddler is given a get-out-of-jail-free card and £4,500.

It’s broken. Seriously broken. Let’s have no more excuses for the diabolical state of British ‘justice’.

But it’s a strict liability offence. We’ve seen that offered as a defence to this barmy state of affairs.

So, legally, how do they get around this?

It worries me that people with such a casual attitude towards this sort of outrageous totalitarianism even exist in the UK.

I could add much, but there’d be nothing The Devil hasn’t already addressed with aplomb.

I recall the former Mayor and Newt Fancier held a few, along with the late, unlamented Ian Blair, in Brixton and other vibrant places.

So, do they have to get some kind of ‘suspension’ law passed for the duration, or is it more of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ kind of thing not to peek when they are dropping their used MAC-10s in the box?

John, clearly not, but that’s a rather different situation.

JuliaM, that could explain why the police arrested him, yes. The thot plickens, as they say. And, once arrested, the facts of the case are that he was guilty of the offence he was charged with, and the rest of what has happened follows inexorably on from that.

Iiiiinteresting.

And when he called the Superintendent to say he was coming in he clearly didn’t tell him he was going to bring a sawn-off shotgun he’d found in his garden with him. Had he done that, the Superintendent would have told him to leave it at home and wait for firearms officers to arrive. Then there wouldn’t have been a problem.

So, I don’t entirely disagree with you. But the guy broke the law. Judges and police are there to uphold the law. The Jury are there to decide if he had broken the law or not. He had.

If you cannot see what the outrage is about then, under your measure, you too deserve five years in clink.

There is a more fundamental point about the role of the police that you have missed (along with the facts that you, apparently, couldn’t be bothered to read) but I have addressed that over at The Kitchen.

DK

Stu, you are quite right to question this story. I reckon there is more to it. Why did the police charge him in the first place? What was their advice to him when he rang up them beforehand? They will not lock up a truly innocent man for five years, even if guilty in the strict sense of the law.

Strict liability is an interesting topic as it is an afront to our civil liberties. It may be expedient for those that govern us, but its use should be restricted in the interests of fairness in my opinion.

But the question, as I see it, is not “why did he pick it up”, but “why is the penalty for picking it up 5 years inside”.

Especally when you look at what other, deliberate, pre-meditated, serious crimes can be committed repeatedly and only attract a “community” sentence.