Though Cowards Flinch

I’m not intending for all my contributions at TCF to become about how utterly stupid rightwing blogs are, as there are better things to do.

But the way some of the more foam-mouthed rightwing blogs react to this story, of a soldier found guilty of firearms possession under what appears to be ‘strict liablility’ for this charge,  provides so much handy evidence that leftie bloggers are more interested in actual facts than their rightwing counterparts, that I just couldn’t resist.

Unity’s post at Liberal Conspiracy is quizzical, and through the comments it becomes clear that there may, though not for sure, be more to this story than meets the rightwing blogger eye.  Tom Freeman simply asks the question and seeks information.  Fair enough.  I gave him some as best I could.

Likewise, Jack of Kent, whose blog I’ve never seen before, makes some sensible points without trying to claim he knows everything about the case, and appears to be sane.

I commented as follows on Tom and Unity’s posts, in what i though a reasonable attempt to cast some light on what might be happening:

‘Yes, I think there may well be more than this than meets the eye from the initial report. It’ll be interesting to see what the more foaming rightwing blogs make of it in the next day or two, as matters of detail are not really there forte.

But assuming Mr Clarke’s intentions were as pure as he suggests (and there is no real reason to doubt this yet), the key to the matter may be that of ’strict liablity’ (though I accept what Jack of Kent says of the inadvertent dangers of walking across town with a gun).

When I was a magistrate I faced the odd ’strict liability’ issue in respect of other more minor issues, including driving without insurance.

In circumstances where it was very clear that the driver was ‘innocent’, usually because he worked for a company and simply assumed that the company insured the vehicle, the concept of strict liability also applied.

What had to be done, in the eyes of the law, was for the defendant to plead guilty and then immediately receive an absolute discharge, thus acquiring no criminal record.

The difficulty of course was getting people to understand this strange convolution of pleading guilty in order to found innocent; one clerk of the court round my way used to seem to take a slightly odd pleasure in making it all a bit tricky, rather than just encouraging the chair of the bench to say ‘Listen mate, plead guilty, ‘cos you have to and the law’s maybe a bit stupid/hard to understand about this, but if you do you’ll be out of here 30 seconds without a blemish to your name.’ (Of course that’s difficult, technically, for a magistrate to do before a plea is made.)

The fact that the jury took 20 minutes to decide (which is absolutely the minimum given that they all go to loo and have a cup of tea) suggests that we may be talking a straightforward case. The fact that it has been adjourned for sentence in 4 weeks may suggest a more complex story than we’re first getting, or it may simply be a bureaucratic silliness before an absolute discharge is announced.’

Pretty reasonable stuff, I contend, with a few insights thrown in from my quasi-legal experience.  This is how a well-know Libcon semi-troll responds to this attempt to shed light:

Why did you suggest that it would be the ‘foaming rightwing blogs’ that would be interested in making something of this story?

One would have thought that the prospect of an innocent man being jailed for five years would have exercised those who consider themselves to be liberals.

Or is that indicative of how far along this dark authoritarian road we have sleep-walked?’

Oh clever stuff.  Just ignore totally what I’ve said and pretend I’m a wannabbee authoritarian.  Great technique.  Maybe he’s been learning from Spectator columnists.

Except that this time, given the speed which rightwing foamers have picked up this story, the evidence that he is talking utter shite is just a couple of clicks away.  So I respond:

‘I didn’t say I was interested whether right wing blogs would make something of this story; I said I’d be intererested in what they made of it.

Posts like this from Unity, and from Jack fo Kent, and from Tom Freeman, all make something of it in that they think there may be something more to the story than meets the eye. You yourself have researched and found something, and this ‘antecedent’ may be behind at least in part tghe judge’s decision to dealy sentence. In addition, there may possibly be a case for a Newton hearing, a fairly recnt development where a ‘mini-trial’ may be held after a jury vedict based on strict liability where the issue is not so much the verdict but the level, if any, of sentence. 

We know none of these things, but at least Unity et al. are prepared to be open to new facts as they emerge.

Compare what we get from Devil’s Kitchen (just a taster):

I can only echo the anguished and furious cries of bloggers such as Constantly Furious and Dick Puddlecote: seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this country?’

‘This is, of course, utterly irrelevant: the jury, had they had any balls whatsoever, should have returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict—and they would have been perfectly within their rights to do so. They chose not to.

And now this man faces a minimum of five years in gaol—and not only was he doing ‘the right thing’ but he had not initiated force or fraud against anyone. Do you see?’

As for Devils Kitchen’s notion that it’s because of cowardly jury, has s/he never actually heard of the notion of common law precedent?

I’ve not bothered with Constantly Furious and Dick Puddlecote – you click if you want to – but here’s Charlotte Gore, who is supposed to be on more sensible side of the right.

‘It’s a clear miscarriage of justice. The man’s life is ruined because he tried to do the right thing. What reasonable person would believe this is the correct outcome in this case?

In what way exactly is this a ‘clear miscarriage of justice’? He’s not been sentenced yet, and as I’ve said there remains scope for an absolute discharge, if the facts and Mr Clarke’s motivations are in fact as the initial story suggests.’

Yes, there may be an issue to look at as to why the CPS proceeded to prosecution, but that’s quite a different matter than assuming that civilisation as we know it has come to an end because there’s such a thing as strict liability in law, and has been for quite a while.

Oh, and I see Alex Massie at the Spectator joined in. Now there’s a surprise.  He reckons it’s the ‘most enraging story of the year’ to date that he’s simply regurgitated from his wingnuts links. 

There you have it then, members of the jury.  I submit to you, based on the evidence presented to you today, and in light of the disclosed antecedents in this case, that rightwing bloggers are simply not interested in facts.