Refusal advice

[SC3]

Thanks everyone for your advice so far. I'll speak to the FEO first, there is also an email address I've found for appealing to the Police, even though the letter state appeals must go to Crown Court.

 

[SC3]

Trying to take a neutral stance, but you are coming across as a victim, as well you may be, I cant feel you have an other agenda.

Hmmm, that has been mentioned in the past by friends and family, they noted that if anyone was at the hand of DV, it was me. But as far as courts etc are concerned, men can't be.

 

[Lancaster]

Life experience has shown me that "A" says one thing, "C" says another thing and between them "B" is often the truth, I appreciate that this doesn't help the OP, but if you feel you have grounds for appeal discuss with local Licensing and with whichever body, SACS, BASC, NGO etc you belong to and get their view.
If not a member of any organisation speak to a legal practice with expertise in this field, first consultation is normally free, but be absolutely open and honest, otherwise it will bite your arse later when the full facts emerge.

 

[SC3]

Currently I'm not a member of any organisation, as I wouldn't have the need to without first having a certificate. My intention indeed was to become a member, once I have my certificate, I wanted to take each stage step by step. I hadn't even been gun shopping, which my FEO said I could do so and put a deposit down if I saw something I liked, then return once I have my certificate. Good job I didn't do that then!

 

[Greenmist]

No, my ex is a very toxic person, I want nothing to do with her, so we don't speak.

You may find that if they do look into it further

Not true. Non-conviction information may be considered in order to determine an applicants suitability. Same as other forms of licensing where suitability is assessed.

However, if no substance, no evidence to support the allegation, not pursued by victim/police/courts, then you may have grounds to appeal or challenge.

Start by speaking with the FEO about the determination, and the basis for the concern.

The OP wasn't even questioned by the police over the allegation, I'd say that was a rather strong reason to question the decision made

 

[Heym SR20]

Surely the Police took the view based upon the ex's allegation to them, albeit they did not investigate it at the time, rather than the judge's findings - which I'd be surprised if they had access to

I suspect they took both into account. Court Judgements will be available- they are a matter of public record, unless closed by the judge.

 

[TringSaint]

Only the OP knows the full details of this case. He will have, or should have, a copy of the Judge’s findings in the family court.

The police will take a view on those findings, especially as to when during the enquiry process they came to light. Were they openly disclosed, or did the police only find post interview?

The Police have to work on balance of probabilities and if there is any question or doubt, they will decline.

Thing with family courts is that a judge will make findings often without real evidence (wife has worked in the system for years) so just because there are findings, they are simply based on probability and not necessarily underpinned by evidence.

In reality, if the OP had conducted a campaign of coercive control and the police felt it met the threshold for prosecution then they would have involved the CPS and he would have been charged and possibly tried in the criminal courts.

So it could well be worth pushing the matter with the police as if they don’t see any evidence of such behaviour then their decision to refuse would then seem a little unjustified.

 

[Bowland blades]

I'd write to the firearms manager an explain the details, include dates and the outcomes. As you weren't convicted there should be no case to answer.

Intelligence about a persons past wrongdoings are all they need , association with wrongdoers likewise . No case to answer because it is not a Court who grants its the police . Of course you can appeal as a first time applicant its worthwhile but will you fund it ? Look into the costs , hopefully your already a BASC member ? And BTW its not all free from them now and the Coppers know this . I do know of a pretty serious ex- criminal who won his case for a FAC self representing
Not sure if the court can refuse a grant and then make you pay police costs ? Many appeals will not reach the court if the police have a weak case but it will go to the court steps
Seek advice time and make your choices

 

[Bowland blades]

No, my ex is a very toxic person, I want nothing to do with her, so we don't speak.

Sorry to say it but regards police they can say no on allegations made if they deem it credible

 

[gixer1]

Sorry to say it but regards police they can say no on allegations made if they deem it credible

No sir, they cannot….imagine the pandemonium if people could have rights taken away with allegations alone? You can be detained, but if no charges are brought and no conviction is applied then you have a clean sheet in the eyes of the law.

let’s say a jealous/vindictive builder was to call the police and say a competitor builder was stealing - would that be enough to put them out of business if the police didn’t investigate or charge the person? No, of course not as you would have people making allegations constantly.

The police need to justify decisions the same as any other authority, and I find too many are put off or can’t be bothered writing a letter nowadays due to the hearsay of “it’ll cost you a fortune”….the authorities are not always behind a shield of finance….granted, it can be a lengthy process sometimes but it doesn’t need to be cost prohibitive.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[Liveonce]

I am not in a financial position to fight this in a court. Family court was a few hundred pounds, literally, but this would run into the thousands, with the prospects of me having to foot the bill of the Police if I do lose.

Sadly they know that and most of us will be in a similar position to you and as has been said in a previous post even if you win you will very likely foot the bill. It’s a win win situation for the police in so many ways.

Good luck in what ever you decide to do.

 

[SC3]

Thing with family courts is that a judge will make findings often without real evidence (wife has worked in the system for years) so just because there are findings, they are simply based on probability and not necessarily underpinned by evidence.

In reality, if the OP had conducted a campaign of coercive control and the police felt it met the threshold for prosecution then they would have involved the CPS and he would have been charged and possibly tried in the criminal courts.

So it could well be worth pushing the matter with the police as if they don’t see any evidence of such behaviour then their decision to refuse would then seem a little unjustified.

Exactly, in Family Court, balance of probability is used, rather than evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The balance of probability here is that as she made the allegations to the Police, then it probably happened. She made the allegations once she knew I was taking her to court.

No evidence was needed or used, even though I'd asked where do these allegations come from - who controlled what and how? No interest from the judge, the female Judge didn't want me questioning her judgement.

 

[Tf223]

No sir, they cannot….imagine the pandemonium if people could have rights taken away with allegations alone? You can be detained, but if no charges are brought and no conviction is applied then you have a clean sheet in the eyes of the law.

let’s say a jealous/vindictive builder was to call the police and say a competitor builder was stealing - would that be enough to put them out of business if the police didn’t investigate or charge the person? No, of course not as you would have people making allegations constantly.

The police need to justify decisions the same as any other authority, and I find too many are put off or can’t be bothered writing a letter nowadays due to the hearsay of “it’ll cost you a fortune”….the authorities are not always behind a shield of finance….granted, it can be a lengthy process sometimes but it doesn’t need to be cost prohibitive.

Regards,
Gixer

This is simply wrong. They may consider non conviction information. It is not all about recorded convictions.

A criminal conviction relies on the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ test for conviction. Many cases are not pursued because, whilst it may pass the civil test, it would not pass the criminal.

Imagine someone alleged to have committed a serious offence but not convicted due to insufficient evidence or one of the other many reasons that prosecutions are dropped … imagine that case were a taxi driver and a serious sexual assault allegation… would you then give that driver a licence which may involve the transportation of lone potentially vulnerable females (quite possibly intoxicated on a stereotypical Saturday night).

Would you err on the side of caution, as the law permits, and not grant because you cannot be satisfied of fitness - Or would you quite happily put your teenage daughter/granddaughter alone in a vehicle with that driver knowing history?

Same applies to firearms licensing, they need to be satisfied, and if they cannot then they should not grant. They must err on the side of caution in protecting public safety - and the OP has the right to challenge the facts in court who will act as the final decision maker with all the facts being presented.

You can imagine the outcry of it was just granted and something happened - ‘well he did go on to shoot X people, and yeah there was an allegation of XYZ, but we granted it anyway’.

The police are learning from their mistakes from cases like in Plymouth - and this does mean occasionally people who would safely use guns may get a refusal due to their history or circumstance. But that is the very nature of needing to err on the side of caution

I have no doubt the police will have their reasons and suspect that we only have a part story here

 

[SC3]

I have no doubt the police will have their reasons and suspect that we only have a part story here

I think the Police reasons are erring on the side of caution, using home office advice. I've given the story regarding those allegations, as I say, I knew nothing about them, until I took her to court and the Police didn't deem them serious at the time to come and visit me.

 

[gixer1]

This is simply wrong. They may consider non conviction information. It is not all about recorded convictions.

A criminal conviction relies on the ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ test for conviction. Many cases are not pursued because, whilst it may pass the civil test, it would not pass the criminal.

Imagine someone alleged to have committed a serious offence but not convicted due to insufficient evidence or one of the other many reasons that prosecutions are dropped … imagine that case were a taxi driver and a serious sexual assault allegation… would you then give that driver a licence which may involve the transportation of lone potentially vulnerable females (quite possibly intoxicated on a stereotypical Saturday night).

Would you err on the side of caution, as the law permits, and not grant because you cannot be satisfied of fitness - Or would you quite happily put your teenage daughter/granddaughter alone in a vehicle with that driver knowing history?

Same applies to firearms licensing, they need to be satisfied, and if they cannot then they should not grant. They must err on the side of caution in protecting public safety - and the OP has the right to challenge the facts in court who will act as the final decision maker with all the facts being presented.

You can imagine the outcry of it was just granted and something happened - ‘well he did go on to shoot X people, and yeah there was an allegation of XYZ, but we granted it anyway’.

The police are learning from their mistakes from cases like in Plymouth - and this does mean occasionally people who would safely use guns may get a refusal due to their history or circumstance. But that is the very nature of needing to err on the side of caution

I have no doubt the police will have their reasons and suspect that we only have a part story here

If no conviction or charges are held or in process then a person is innocent - simple as that. Authorities cannot penalise based on allegations and hearsay, they either charge the person or not.

Erring n the side of caution would be circumstance such as a pending charge or conviction - the OP has stated this is not a recent thing and therefore there is no state of limbo or delay prior to charges being brought.

The Plymouth situation was gross misconduct by the police - it is nothing like this case as this applicant has no previously charges or convictions.

 

[Tf223]

Intelligence about a persons past wrongdoings are all they need , association with wrongdoers likewise . No case to answer because it is not a Court who grants its the police . Of course you can appeal as a first time applicant its worthwhile but will you fund it ? Look into the costs , hopefully your already a BASC member ? And BTW its not all free from them now and the Coppers know this . I do know of a pretty serious ex- criminal who won his case for a FAC self representing
Not sure if the court can refuse a grant and then make you pay police costs ? Many appeals will not reach the court if the police have a weak case but it will go to the court steps
Seek advice time and make your choices

If you win you will not pay the others costs. However even if you win it would be rare for the courts to grant an award of costs against the Police or other licensing body, that is unless they have made a gross error. This is because it is a public body, who are acting in the public interest.

So it should be assumed that even if you win you will still likely have to shoulder your own legal costs.

In the one case I/we have lost for the refusal of a taxi drivers licence no costs were awarded against us, as whilst they came to a different decision the courts advised that our decision was not ‘wrong’. One we won, but the courts didn’t award costs to us either as they agreed with the result, but disagreed with our process. However apart from these we win each case, and normally get a percentage of the costs of defending such an appeal - never normally covering the true cost to the public purse.

 

[Tf223]

If no conviction or charges are held or in process then a person is innocent - simple as that. Authorities cannot penalise based on allegations and hearsay, they either charge the person or not.

Erring n the side of caution would be circumstance such as a pending charge or conviction - the OP has stated this is not a recent thing and therefore there is no state of limbo or delay prior to charges being brought.

The Plymouth situation was gross misconduct by the police - it is nothing like this case as this applicant has no previously charges or convictions.

A person is not innocent merely because they weren’t convicted in court.

 

[TringSaint]

Exactly, in Family Court, balance of probability is used, rather than evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The balance of probability here is that as she made the allegations to the Police, then it probably happened. She made the allegations once she knew I was taking her to court.

No evidence was needed or used, even though I'd asked where do these allegations come from - who controlled what and how? No interest from the judge, the female Judge didn't want me questioning her judgement.

Let me ask my wife her view on whether you can request a further fact finding hearing.
She was a 16.4 guardian for over 10 years and attended many hearings, acting as the expert witness for the judge wrt the wishes and feelings of the child in private court matters.

Afaik, no findings in the family courts that she attended ever involved police or criminal sanction afterwards as the bar is so much lower.

Will let you know.

 

[SC3]

A person is not innocent merely because they weren’t convicted in court.

Well in my case, nothing went to court over the allegations, there wasn't even a charge. As I said, I didn't even know about it until it was brought up when I took her to family court.

 

[gixer1]

A person is not innocent merely because they weren’t convicted in court.

They are providing no charges and no conviction has been brought against them.