Court case to decide if police can hide behind Public Interest Immunity in revocation cases

[gonzo]

In an item on the Fieldsports Channel last night:
A shooter in the D&C police area is going through the courts to challenge his FAC and SGC being revoked.

D&C are claiming Public Interest Immunity to avoid having to disclose why they reviced his certificates. Obviously making it difficult to counter their decisions.
This point is being tested in the crown court, and so has the potential of making it into case law.
If he wins, then all police forces will nolonger be able to hide behind this. And will be under more scrutiny. Hence less likely for a civilian dept manager to think they can get away with penalising one of us, just because it's an easy option, or get brownie points from their bosses.

The guy fighting this current case can't afford the costs, so is trying to crowd fund it.
There is a write up, and links to the funding page:
Police plan to price shooters out of gun certificates

It's only just gone live. So only just getting going.

 

[mealiejimmy]

I would have thought that in such an appeal if the appellant claims there are no good reasons for his certificate to be revoked and the police fail to bring forward any evidence for the revocation, the surely the judge has no option but to allow the appeal.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Apthorpe]

I would have thought that in such an appeal if the appellant claims there are no good reasons for his certificate to be revoked and the police fail to bring forward any evidence for the revocation, the surely the judge has no option but to allow the appeal.

Cheers

Bruce

Well, it seems like the Police will be busy manufacturing evidence for the next year.

 

[gixer1]

I would donate to the crowd fund usually but after that insufferable thunderc*nt Cox didn’t give any feedback or responses to people that wedged up a heap of cash I’m afraid I’m once bitten, twice shy… I wish him all the best though.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[enfieldspares]

This point is being tested in the crown court, and so has the potential of making it into case law.

Not correct. A Crown Court or County Court cannot set precedent. A decision can only be "persuasive". The case has to be at least at Court of Appeal level for precedent to be set. I'd also say as has another that Mr Cox has very much queered the pitch in terms of any willingness to Crowd Fund this. Is the person affected not a member of any shooting organisation? Or is it a case of "I don't need to join an organisation that offers insurance/legal assistance against revocation as if it happens I'll Crowd Fund it"?

 

[YoungGun]

I would donate to the crowd fund usually but after that insufferable thunderc*nt Cox didn’t give any feedback or responses to people that wedged up a heap of cash I’m afraid I’m once bitten, twice shy… I wish him all the best though.

Regards,
Gixer

Strong words - what did I miss ?

 

[gixer1]

Strong words - what did I miss ?

See here - Paul Cox vs Devon and Cornwall Police

 

[Lloyd90]

Not correct. A Crown Court or County Court cannot set precedent. A decision can only be "persuasive". The case has to be at least at Court of Appeal level for precedent to be set. I'd also say as has another that Mr Cox has very much queered the pitch in terms of any willingness to Crowd Fund this. Is the person affected not a member of any shooting organisation? Or is it a case of "I don't need to join an organisation that offers insurance/legal assistance against revocation as if it happens I'll Crowd Fund it"?

Didn’t BASC remove their legal protection insurance, they claimed no one ever used it, so it wasn’t value for money for the members.

Despite the fact that I personally know of loads of cases that they could have challenged but BASC never bothered.

 

[enfieldspares]

Despite the fact that I personally know of loads of cases that they could have challenged but BASC never bothered.

You ate correct. 100% Which is why ,y words were chosen carefully. "Or is it a case of "I don't need to join an organisation that offers insurance/legal assistance against revocation as if it happens I'll Crowd Fund it"?" Which as you rightly say is now not BASC. But at least if that is the case and you can no longer shoot you've a glossy magazine to look at and discounts of cars, wine and etc., etc.. to spend the money on that you're now not spending on shooting!

 

[Benelli m2]

Must be a lot of sleepless nights in that area wondering if they will get a bang on the door

 

[Woodsmoke]

after that insufferable thunderc*nt Cox didn’t give any feedback or responses to people that wedged up a heap of cash I’m afraid I’m once bitten, twice shy…

I'm exactly the same. He can have my best wishes. I'll keep hold of my cash though, just the same

 

[cjm1066]

Ditto, equally I would like to see other scoures on info, as FieldDports channel isn't my favourite.

 

[Dunwaters]

Your revocation system needs challenging because it totally reverses basic tenets of common law and probably denies you some of your human rights.
As currently practiced, there is no burden of evidence, no accessible appeal process, no notification of complaint prior to revocation/confiscation, no presumption of innocence, in fact theres a presumption of guilt, no formal charges of any kind are required, an unsubstantiated compliant is sufficient grounds, police may arrive at your home, demand entry and remove your legally held private property on the basis that once they arrive and demand its surrender your private property is no longer legally held.
Totally nuts.
I honestly don’t understand how both you, as individuals, and your representative bodies have become so utterly spineless and supine.
The revocation process is now effectively removed from legal oversight, the presumption is that that whatever the police decision is, it is legal and justified, its up to you to prove otherwise.
Which is bloody difficult if you don’t know what the complaint is.
Keeping your firearms is now totally dependant on the whims and policies of your local constabulary, they may do as they wish with virtually zero risk of being held to account or consequences.
No other section of society would tolerate it.

 

[One on top of two]

In the very distant future, they will look back at this time in history and ask why did the people put up with it .
We will end up as nothing more than a history paper titled “ taking it up the bum “ the truth behind the 21st century.

 

[baguio]

Didn’t BASC remove their legal protection insurance, they claimed no one ever used it, so it wasn’t value for money for the members.

Despite the fact that I personally know of loads of cases that they could have challenged but BASC never bothered.

Seriously? This thread has absolutely nothing to do with BASC? Nothing at all!

 

[baguio]

Isn't it nice to see how supportive our community is when fellow shooters are in need eh?

 

[Foxyboy43]

Utterly incredulous that D&C are resorting to this unless of course the (ex) FAC holder was a top spy/rocket scientist turned by those nasty russian johnnies?
For interest read this:-
“Public-interest immunity (PII), previously known as Crown privilege, is a principle of English common law under which the English courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. This is an exception to the usual rule that all parties in litigation must disclose any evidence that is relevant to the proceedings. In making a PII order, the court has to balance the public interest in the administration of justice (which demands that relevant material is available to the parties to litigation) and the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of certain documents whose disclosure would be damaging. PII orders have been used in criminal law against large organised criminal outfits and drug dealers where the identity of paid police informants could be at risk.”.
Sooo what on earth could said ex-FAC holder have possibly been up to for heaven’s sake and what possible evidence has the force got to merit this level of “protection”? You don’t think D&C are simply trying to hide behind this extraordinary action, really, surely not, perhaps, maybe ………..?

 

[Lloyd90]

Seriously? This thread has absolutely nothing to do with BASC? Nothing at all!

A shooting organisation, which states it represents the aims of, and supports the rights of shooters … who specifically claim to be the “voice of shooting”…

Add that to a court case, which has the potential to impact severely on shooting and shooters as a whole …

The “voice of shooting” organisation not fighting the case, or similar cases, and specifically cancelling their legal insurance that is supposed to be used to fight such cases …

Do you seriously think the two are entirely unrelated?

Seriously?

You can’t see any link between the two?

 

[gixer1]

Isn't it nice to see how supportive our community is when fellow shooters are in need eh?

Did you send money to Paul Cox’s crowd fund? How’s that working out for us all?

I’m not sure I’ve read of many cases of “XYZ challenged the police revocation, won and was handed all their firearms back with an apology”…..

And the BASC link is absolutely relevant as they are as much use as ti*s on a bull when it comes to this - and it’s the same with the other organisations, in fact I’d give BASC more points for representing themselves on the biggest stalking forum the U.K. has, the others don’t bother at all.

If it wasn’t for the need for insurance really there is very little other benefit to our shooting org’s….I’m not saying they should be the same senseless rabid dog attitude as the NRA in the USA but it would be nice to see them really fight a case for once when an unjust revocation is observed,

We are at the point now where one speeding conviction can have your firearms removed…ridiculous.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[baguio]

Did you send money to Paul Cox’s crowd fund? How’s that working out for us all?

Yes I did. I wasn't waiting or expecting a pat on the back for doing so though. I was simply helping out a fellow shooter. I don't know how he's getting on. These things usually take time!