Accompanied condition - explained

Si

Well-Known Member
Reason for "Accompanied Condition" when deer stalking.
The six species of deer found in this country form an important and valued element of our flora and fauna. They are all, however, thriving and surveys conducted by various societies have shown them to be increasing in both numbers and geographic spread. In order to ensure the welfare of deer, protecting them from starvation due to overgrazing, and from road traffic accidents, it is important that they are managed.
It is equally important to protect other creatures sharing their habitat from the results of overgrazing, as well as to prevent the deer from causing unacceptable damage to crops and trees. Usually the management of deer means that they have to be 'culled' and it is important that the cull be carried out efficiently and humanely, by people who understand exactly what they are doing.
The law requires that any business or recreational activity is carried out safely in all respects: deer stalking is no exception, and the deer stalker has a legal responsibility to ensure their actions pose the minimum risk to anyone.
The laws concerning deer stalking are many and complex for a novice and having the correct permissions and the correct calibre of rifle on your Firearms Certificate is just the beginning.
To minimise the risk to public safety, Chief officers of police are empowered to impose conditions on firearms certificates and the condition applied in the case of a novice deerstalker that he must be accompanied by an experienced deerstalker is one such condition.
This condition is only temporary and relies on the novice gaining experience by accompanying an experienced deerstalker and gaining the confidence and experience of using his own personal rifle and learning new techniques over a period of time.
Once his mentor is satisfied that he has gained the necessary knowledge and is competent enough to go deer stalking without supervision he can put this in writing and inform the licensing authority that in his opinion the condition can safely be removed from the firearm certificate.
The Deer Management Qualification deer stalking level 1 certificate assesses the under-pinning technical knowledge and marksmanship skill expected of an unsupervised deerstalker and is a good starting point for novice deerstalkers to begin their training.

An example of an experienced deerstalker is a person who has gained his deer stalking experience over a number of years and does not have any land restrictions on his deer stalking condition. Preferably a person who has completed the Deer Management Qualification deer stalking level 1 and 2 certificates.
 
Is the restriction put on for other animals or just Deer also what can be done if you do not have contact with an expearienced deer stalker.
 
Dunno mate, this was an e-mail attachment sent to me when I challenged the condition on my FAC.... Sounds like an advert for DSC1 & 2 to me :rolleyes:
 
I feel that BASC and other Associations should take a hold of this situation and get it sorted once and for all.
 
Last edited:
with DMQ being registered at Marford mill I can just imagine they want to sort it out and do themselves out of business :-|
Though that explanation was probably one of the better ones for not enforcing DSC's
 
They should.... but they won't.

Thing is, I've already done the paid stalks and the accompanied stalks using estate rifles. I am by no means an expert but I have shot 5 in the last 3 outings using other peoples equipment... now that I have my own ground and my own rifle I am restricted.
 
I feel that BASC and other Associations should take a hold of this situation and get it sorted once and for all.

BASC and other Associations are unable to sort it!

We stalkers have to realise that unless you are a domestic landowner with deer present and the ground is suitable for stalking and you alone stalk , any other stalking under lease, verbal agreement or business arrangement is classed as an 'undertaking' and is subject to the Health & Safety legislation that exists in the UK. In this respect, the undertaker (Stalkers, Game Shoots etc) have to demonstrate competence either by experience and knowledge or passing accepted/approved courses relevant to the matter in hand, which the DMQ Level 1 and 2 are for deer stalking!

In this instance, it would appear that the Police are now merely extending this legislation and applying this in the Granting or Conditional Granting of the FAC based on the applicant's submitted information.

Si- I would suggest that the Police consider that your booked days are with a guide who takes you out and does all the safety stuff, work etc based on their experience/qualification and that there may be no instruction and training given, where as a Supervisors roles is to train and educate you to ensure you know the rudiments and do not endanger the Public.

This is why the likes of the FC and other forest management companies are demanding risk assessments, method statements, DSC Level 1 or 2 etc etc as it is a legislative requirement which in the past may have been overlooked by Land owners granting permission to stalk, but with increased firearms incidents is becoming more of a focus and derriere covering exercise. The same applies to Shoots (Pheasant, Duck, Partidge etc) , Foxing and Vermin Control where they are present on others ground and should comply with H&S legislation and the owners in reality should be checking that procedures are in place. Ignorance of the law has permitted these activities to go on and is only highlighted or resolved after an incident or court case.

We may not like it, however, the current legislation has been in place certainly since 1974 (not old enough to remember the Factories, Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act) and we have to get our house in order if we are to ensure our continued participation in the sport/work/activity and possession of an acceptable FAC.
 
In this instance, it would appear that the Police are now merely extending this legislation and applying this in the Granting or Conditional Granting of the FAC based on the applicant's submitted information.

I'm not sure that I quite understand what the word 'merely' is meant to indicate in the above sentence.

From the paragraph Si has submitted, one might be forgiven for thinking that the police are jumbling up a number of matters concerning trendy eco-babble, animal welfare and their actual firearms licencing duties in order to produce what somone unused to recognising fallacy in arguments might mistake for a justification under current firearms law of 'mentoring conditions'.

If I were Si, I think I'd be tempted to write to them in order to ask them specifically what their worries are with respect to the safety of the public as a result of his stalking on his own. As they themselves have pointed out in their flannelly essay in self-justification, the CCs discretionary conditions relate only to the safety of the public. It is a FAC, not a DSC, that they are issuing.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that I quite understand what the word 'merely' is meant to indicate in the above sentence.

From the paragraph Si has submitted, one might be forgiven for thinking that the police are jumbling up a number of matters concerning trendy eco-babble, animal welfare and their actual firearms licencing duties in order to produce what somone unused to recognising fallacy in arguments might mistake for a justification under current firearms law of 'mentoring conditions'.

If I were Si, I think I'd be tempted to write to them in order to ask them specifically what their worries are with respect to the safety of the public as a result of his stalking on his own. As they themselves have pointed out in their flannelly essay in self-justification, the CCs discretionary conditions relate only to the safety of the public. It is a FAC, not a DSC, that they are issuing.

Dalua- the law of the land guides the Police in their duties and in this case, due to the circumstances presented to them they appear to be applying them as Part of the Firearms Certificate process as a condition where the applicant had not demonstrated his competency and there is a concern that this inexperience has a Public Safety issue..

I cannot comment with Authority on the opening paragraphs of the Explanation as I am not in the FLO business, to me it would appear that the Police are attempting to substantiate the need for deer stalking to ensure their Political Correctness and to prevent antis/animal welfare do gooders from calling them into question. Rather than the eco-babble flannel as you suggest

In respect of the condition, the Police were obviously not satisfied with the experience or knowledge that was inserted in the Application and on this basis have inserted the 'mentoring condition' in order to comply with the obligation placed on them and their duty to protect Public Safety and comply with Health & Safety legislation required under Section 27 of the Firearms Act. Until such times as Si can demonstrate to them that he has the requisite competency (not saying he does not already but this requires to be shown) their risk assessment will continue to show a high risk, till this is reduced through certified and supervised experience, training and knowledge.

I have been out on bought days and apart from a shooting test to demonstrate capability of hitting a defined target, there has been no instruction on rifle safety, safe backstops, humane shot distance etc, therefore, IMHO would not consider this as evidence of competency to own/use a high powered rifle which has ability to fatally impact on public safety in inexperienced hands.

I don't hear people complain when they require a qualified driver to sit beside them to permit them to drive a car on a Provisional Licence; nor the need to sit their theory test (same as DSC L1) and driving test (DSC L2)- exact same for shooting!!! Only it has become accepted in the course of time for drivers. Before I get barraged, I fully accept that there is a multitude of stalkers out there that have a vast amount of knowledge and experience gained without DMQ and which far outweighs various Level 1 and 2 holders, but they had to start somewhere and no doubt under father, uncle or keeper supervision.

Again in my view, the closing paragraphs of the explanation are not stating that DMQ is mandatory more that this is what the CC would consider is a route to demonstrating overall competency. The only requirement they are placing under the Condition is that a mentor has to sign off that he considers the FAC holder is competent after a period of supervision (a la driving!)
 
Good post firsttimer.... the only part I disagree with is where you say "the risk assessment will continue to show a high risk"
If this was the case then surely they would have insisted on evidence of supervised experience before allowing a .243 rifle? Which is sat there in my cabinet until I can arrange for an accomplished deer stalker to meet me at my stalking ground and act as my mentor.
 
If this was the case then surely they would have insisted on evidence of supervised experience before allowing a .243 rifle?

Quite: before. The Law is quite clear on this.

The suggestion that the Police are subject to any H&S Act obligation under the Firearms Act can in my opinion at best be considered mischeivous. These quite genuine obligations are, as far as I can see, entirely with the FAC-holder.

The often-raised difficuties faced by those who have used .22LR, or even .223, being required to have a 'mentor' for a subsequently-granted .243 for deer seem to me clearly to demonstrate the misunderstanding by the Police concerning the use of firearms and risk to the public.
If one is considered safe using a .22LR, with its ricochet risk and mile of lethality, is one likely to be unsafe with a .243?
If one is considered safe using a .223 to shoot foxes, does one suddenly become a potential danger when shooting deer with a .243?

I suppose that there might be cases where the answer to these questions is 'yes': but if that (for whatever reason) is so, the Police should ensure that they have adequate evidence that the problem is sorted out before granting the variation
 
Quite: before. The Law is quite clear on this.

The suggestion that the Police are subject to any H&S Act obligation under the Firearms Act can in my opinion at best be considered mischeivous. These quite genuine obligations are, as far as I can see, entirely with the FAC-holder.

The often-raised difficuties faced by those who have used .22LR, or even .223, being required to have a 'mentor' for a subsequently-granted .243 for deer seem to me clearly to demonstrate the misunderstanding by the Police concerning the use of firearms and risk to the public.
If one is considered safe using a .22LR, with its ricochet risk and mile of lethality, is one likely to be unsafe with a .243?
If one is considered safe using a .223 to shoot foxes, does one suddenly become a potential danger when shooting deer with a .243?

I suppose that there might be cases where the answer to these questions is 'yes': but if that (for whatever reason) is so, the Police should ensure that they have adequate evidence that the problem is sorted out before granting the variation

Si- The Police based on the information and investigations carried out during your application have deemed you fit and having good reason to possesss a Section 1 firearm, however, you have a 243 sitting in your gun cabinet because on your own you are deemed a 'high risk' in using it and the 'control measure' to reduce the risk is to place an obligation on you not to use it till you have a mentor-otherwise you would be using it illegally. The 'high risk' will be removed through time as you gain experience and your mentor confirms to the FLO that in their opinion you are competent to be let out alone! Out of interest, is it only bought days that you have experience of or have you kept your shining light under a bushel and have years of deer stalking????

Dalua- Not Quite- As the Police are the party responsible for issuing Firearms Certificates in the UK, which forms part of their 'Work', they have to comply with the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Under Section 3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.

(1)It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
(2)It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
(3)In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.

Consequently under Section 3 (1) the Police have a duty when issuing FACs to ensure that the Public Safety is protected in accordance with health & safety legislation and in this instance have assessed the 'risk' and placed the 'mentor condition': and under Section 3 (3) they have provided an explanation to Si on the reasons for the condition.

I agree that there appears to be inconsistency over calibres and dependant on which force, apparent lack of knowledge of ballistics, however, to suggest that they need to sort it out before granting the variation would result in increased application fees and extended times in Granting due to the additional workload involved in resolving which would impact on all. Remember the onus is on the Applicant to prove to the Police that they are fit, have good reason and need to possess a rifle.

Life is never perfect and we need to be compliant with legislation and where we are justifiably aggrieved due to misapplication then we fight our corner not the otherway round.
 
Dalua- Not Quite- As the Police are the party responsible for issuing Firearms Certificates in the UK, which forms part of their 'Work', they have to comply with the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Under Section 3 General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.

(1)It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
(2)It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
(3)In such cases as may be prescribed, it shall be the duty of every employer and every self-employed person, in the prescribed circumstances and in the prescribed manner, to give to persons (not being his employees) who may be affected by the way in which he conducts his undertaking the prescribed information about such aspects of the way in which he conducts his undertaking as might affect their health or safety.

Consequently under Section 3 (1) the Police have a duty when issuing FACs to ensure that the Public Safety is protected in accordance with health & safety legislation and in this instance have assessed the 'risk' and placed the 'mentor condition': and under Section 3 (3) they have provided an explanation to Si on the reasons for the condition.

I have no expertise when it comes to the law.
However, as far as the H&SW Act goes, do the use of the word 'undertaking' as well as the title of the Act not suggest that the Act is concerned with the health and safety of those doing the work associated with issuing the certificate and those who might be affected by the actual doing of that work; and the 'other persons' referred to are therefore those who might be affected by activities associated with the doing of that work? This might include a passer-by injured by a paperclip falling from a window of the FLD, for example.

This is the first time I have seen anyone bring H&SW Act into this, and I suspect that if there were some validity to this argument, the Police would have trotted it out well before now.

I do hope I'm right, otherwise we must surely be in a whole new world of woe, and not only because of the effects on firearms licensing.

Any other views?
 
I don't hear people complain when they require a qualified driver to sit beside them to permit them to drive a car on a Provisional Licence; nor the need to sit their theory test (same as DSC L1) and driving test (DSC L2)- exact same for shooting!!! Only it has become accepted in the course of time for drivers.

No, you won't hear people complain because both of the misleading examples you quote above are requirements in law - it's not something that has become 'accepted in the course of time' by drivers! If the Firearms Act primary legislation made it a requirement for 'mentoring', DMQs or any other fanciful condition to be imposed by CCs to satisy public safety criteria before the issue of an FAC, then it would be unlikely that anyone would have grounds for complaint.

If instead they are seeking to link their administration of the Firearms Act to the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974, then how will they make it stand up in court when they face a claim arising from removal of a mentoring condition on the say-so of said unqualified and unofficial mentor? As has already been stated, "the deer stalker has a legal responsibility to ensure their actions pose the minimum risk to anyone", it's the individual stalker who has the responsibility for their actions, not the police.

The only requirement they are placing under the Condition is that a mentor has to sign off that he considers the FAC holder is competent after a period of supervision (a la driving!)
Again, it's not an equivalent - a Driving Test Examiner is an officially approved and qualified person employed by the DSA who carries out a state examination..................... a 'mentor' is who exactly?

The 'deer welfare gobbledygook' information posted by Si at the head of this thread can easily be taken apart if the applicant already has and uses a CF rifle for other quarry species without any such unwarranted conditions attached. Hopefully at least some of the organisations will take it up - Si, are you with SACS?

I'm with Dalua on this - the HSW Act Section 3(1) cannot be applied to the issue of an FAC, and if the police were reliant on it then why are they not applying it to all firearms, not just deer stalking calibres?
 
Last edited:
When I applied for my FAC they wanted to put me under supervision order even though I had been shooting for a number of years using an estate rifle function. I spoke to my licensing officer and provided evidence to show this, I just gave em a load of photocopied cull forms and he put the FAC through with no supervision restriction. Seems to me they should advise when applying to provide as much evidence as possible, had I known when applying I could of sorted this out as it was it slowed down my FAC app by a month or two while the records were found.
 
I will hopefully try to answer all the questions in one post....

I first applied for .223 and .243 in 2009 (held .22rf before and shotguns for 15yrs) FEO granted .223 but told me to get some stalking experience and show him a reciept then apply again for .243 in 12 months.... So, I have spent the last 14 months doing exactly what he said, I went on a paid stalk Nov 2009 and since then have been on 3 stalks by invite, got my own ground and sent in a letter of permission from landowner to shoot roe and fallow on his land along with my stalking reciept.
My total tally to date is 3 reds, 2 roe does and 1 fallow. I know that does not make me an expert but I feel confident enough to go it alone, I just need to convince the FEO.

Oh and I am a member of BASC too.
 
Si, reading through this again I found it amazing how many holes can be found in it:

Reason for "Accompanied Condition" when deer stalking.
The six species of deer found in this country form an important and valued element of our flora and fauna. They are all, however, thriving and surveys conducted by various societies have shown them to be increasing in both numbers and geographic spread. In order to ensure the welfare of deer, protecting them from starvation due to overgrazing, and from road traffic accidents, it is important that they are managed.
It is equally important to protect other creatures sharing their habitat from the results of overgrazing, as well as to prevent the deer from causing unacceptable damage to crops and trees. Usually the management of deer means that they have to be 'culled' and it is important that the cull be carried out efficiently and humanely, by people who understand exactly what they are doing.

All irrelevant to the issue of an FAC.

The law requires that any business or recreational activity is carried out safely in all respects: deer stalking is no exception, and the deer stalker has a legal responsibility to ensure their actions pose the minimum risk to anyone.
Any specific 'law'? Is the 'law' alluded to applicable to individual stalkers carrying out a private recreational activity or are they referring to business leisure activities? Is it of any relevance to the administration of the Firearms Act and can we have a reference if it is?

The laws concerning deer stalking are many and complex for a novice and having the correct permissions and the correct calibre of rifle on your Firearms Certificate is just the beginning.
The 'laws' concerning deer, (note not 'deer stalking'), are relevant to the issue of an FAC in that they specify which calibres are permitted for shooting and will therefore dictate the calibre applied for. A correct permission is a requirement in order to establish 'good reason'. Neither have any direct relevance to the public safety issue that is being put forward via 'mentoring'.

To minimise the risk to public safety, Chief officers of police are empowered to impose conditions on firearms certificates and the condition applied in the case of a novice deerstalker that he must be accompanied by an experienced deerstalker is one such condition.
The HO Guidance quite clearly states that it is not mandatory to impose conditions - the opposite should be the case; also that any application should be considered on it's own merits - this appears to be a blanket policy that is being imposed by this particular police force. Is there a 'Mentoring' condition contained in the HO Guidance? If not, where does it come from?

This condition is only temporary and relies on the novice gaining experience by accompanying an experienced deerstalker and gaining the confidence and experience of using his own personal rifle and learning new techniques over a period of time.
'Experienced deerstalker? (see below) No mention of safety with firearms other than the experience of using your own rifle which could be just as easily undertaken on your own if you were already using a firearm, just 'gaining experience' and 'new techniques' - what do they mean? This needs to be more specificly focused towards firearms safety otherwise it could easily be taken to mean stalking techniques etc.

Once his mentor is satisfied that he has gained the necessary knowledge and is competent enough to go deer stalking without supervision he can put this in writing and inform the licensing authority that in his opinion the condition can safely be removed from the firearm certificate.
:rofl:
This is really laughable! This cannot be policed. What checks and balances are in place to stop abuse? A N Other mentor could make a tidy packet by 'signing off' any number of tyros for a consideration. It's not an official system so there wouldn't be any sanctions in place to prevent it.

The Deer Management Qualification deer stalking level 1 certificate assesses the under-pinning technical knowledge and marksmanship skill expected of an unsupervised deerstalker and is a good starting point for novice deerstalkers to begin their training.
No suggestion that it's yet mandatory, so all to the good but they mention 'training' without tying it into the use of firearms. So are we back to stalking training of itself being pushed? IMHO the DSC1 via it's basis in WSCC/NSCC is good for what it was originally designed for - a voluntary test of one's skill and knowledge. To be relied on by the police as a basis for making a decision on public safety is dangerous as it's quite possible for an individual to pass without having seen a live deer or handled a firearm.

An example of an experienced deerstalker is a person who has gained his deer stalking experience over a number of years and does not have any land restrictions on his deer stalking condition. Preferably a person who has completed the Deer Management Qualification deer stalking level 1 and 2 certificates.
So it's completely arbitary who would make an acceptable mentor then! Someone who might have held an open FAC conditioned for deer for a number of years, yet only shot 2 or 3, can decide when a relative novice but with more experience that themselves is permitted to fly solo? What's next an 'Approved Mentor' qualification?


The whole thing smacks of more restrictive practice by licence administrators who are unable to make decisions off their own backs. How do those forces who either make no mentoring stipulation, or more likely those who remove the condition when challenged, sleep at night then? ;)
 
Last edited:
Thing is orion, I've done everything he asked me to do.... but now he's moved the goalposts, and he never contacted me with regard to imposing this condition, my certificate just came back with it on. However, I found out that he contacted the landowner and told him that he would insist that I have a mentor.
I suspect that by the time this is sorted, I could have done as they suggest... providing I can find an accomplished stalker in West Sussex who is willing to give up his time to act as my mentor.
 
:eek::doh:

And what have BASC said about the situation?

Should he have even been discussing that aspect of your application with the landowner - especially as he chose not to do so with you? See other threads about complaints to Professional Standards Departments.

BTW. You can have a mentor based anywhere, who's to say where you go stalking - even someone down here in the West Country or up in Scotland could legitimately sign you off if that's the games they want to play!

The system is bonkers :D;)
 
Last edited:
That's just it, I could get someone to write me a dodgy letter and I'm sure I wouldn't be the first... But that's not my style, I want to do things above board. My career is based on trust, I sign MoT certificates to say that vehicles meet the required standard of roadworthiness, so why should my recreational activities be any different?
 
Back
Top