I think you are wrong in your analysis (you might be right that this is a new emerging role for juries). The structure of the court means that a jury can find someone not guilty for any reason they want. They have impunity in this matter. After all, they can’t be punished for not finding someone guilty and someone cannot be punished unless found guilty by a jury (in those areas in which people are eligible for a jury trial). This is actually a very good part of our justice system, a final check on statutary law as it basically says “if you can’t get 12 random people to agree on someone’s guilt, they aren’t guilty” regardless what the judge or whoever else thinks.

It turns up some weird outcomes. Remember the people found not of criminal damage when they damaged a power station because they argued they weren’t the aggressing party on environmental. That was an absolutely bonkers argument but a jury bought it and so they got off. But there have been a lot of good uses of this jury power in the past and so it is worth supporting, it really isn’t just about evaluating the evidence: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/03/jury_nullificat.html

1) not using strict liability in these sort of cases unfortunately allows for a greater miscarriage of justice…that of letting people who have been involved in crimes get away with committing a crime, claiming they found the weapon, nullify their own evidence of wrongdoing in the process and walk away a “hero of upholding the civic duty” by libertarians up and down the land.

The issue on how this law has to be handled to ensure the right balance between ensuring that justice can be carried out, and that innocent people don’t get punished (and the reality here is Paul Clarke is not an innocent man in his actions, he potentially endangered the public) is a very hard balance to find. Simply railing against Strict Liability, a practice that in theory is abhorrent, isn’t a good enough stance.

2) If Paul Clarke felt he was being harassed by the police then there are independent bodies he could go to for advice and action on that matter. To use that as an excuse, legitimately or otherwise, is not acceptable.

3) A jury is there to confirm guilt or not, a judge is there to pass sentence. This is because a Jury has only to work out a verdict based on the evidence in the court. They don’t need to interpret it they just need to work out if the evidence adds up to a guilty verdict (or a non-guilty verdict it could be argued in strict liability cases). The judge, rightfully, is the expert with the true knowledge about how to interpret the evidence and the proceedings to the best of his or her ability and apply their legal knowledge to come up with a sentence. No-one is independent of the law, but Jury’s do what they do, and judges do what they do. Nothing untoward happened here, a Jury is not there to feel sorry for someone and let them off accordingly.

1. ‘Strict liability’ carries a severe risk of injustice.

2. That someone should be wary of handing in a firearm because of his fears that he will be harassed by local police on account of having had an affair with a woman detective is alarming and should be prompting close investigation.

3. That a jury should risk this man going down for five years shows juries are losing that independence of spirit that underpins our justice system.

Presumably, one day someone will get the incredibly novel idea that the Police and security services are seriously in need of advice on developing better public relations.

After this case:

“An 18-month old girl who police mistakenly allowed to be taken by an impostor from a [Police] station has been found.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8423508.stm

I’m expecting to read any day about a toff who turns up at the Tower of London in a white van and says he is a friend of the Duke of Edinburgh so can borrow the crown jewels, please?

I’ll take your word regarding what the defendant said on the stand.

The defence barrister got a very good result.

Exactly my feelings.

“The only case for “something went wrong” here is if you think that without the outcry, the judge wouldn’t have made the “exceptional circumstance” finding. That’s not an insane view, but one that you’d need to back up with some kind of evidence.”

Also exactly my feelings. It’s unfortunate that some are trying to turn this into a story that it isn’t. It’s not as simple as a guy handing a gun in getting prosecuted for it, it’s an individual that the police have prior interest in collectively, an individual that sees this (rightly or wrongly) as harassment to the degree that he is liberal with what he tells them, that handled a potential piece of evidence of a crime, that carried it in public in his trousers to the station (if we’re to believe the police), and that didn’t hand it in straight away.

Of course saying “Guy that the police have prior interest in collectively, an individual that sees this (rightly or wrongly) as harassment to the degree that he is liberal with what he tells them, that handled a potential piece of evidence of a crime, that carried it in public in his trousers to the station (if we’re to believe the police), and that didn’t hand it in straight away gets prosecuted for it” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

“Suspended, but this is not “goes free”.”

It is “goes free” as long as you don’t “get found guilty of committing another crime”.

So there may actually have been justification for his suspended sentence.

Suspended, but this is not “goes free”.

“ZanuLiebour” sounds like a reasonable description of a State in which handing in a found gun to the police results in a 12 month jail sentence, yes.

The only case for “something went wrong” here is if you think that without the outcry, the judge wouldn’t have made the “exceptional circumstance” finding. That’s not an insane view, but one that you’d need to back up with some kind of evidence.

Well if Paul is characterising all those who thought the prosecution was absurd as ‘outraged nutjobs’ it seams he is the one seeing things in black and white.

Anyway Paul (if you don’t mind me stepping in) has already discussed this case in a previous post, so its not as though its inconvenient to discuss, because both LibCon and TCF have covered it.

Its just LibCon also does a good line in pointing out rightwing hypocrisy, and that’s what this is about.

He was still prosecuted AND found guilty though wasn’t he?

Or are those facts to inconvenient to discuss?