BASC Fighting Fund helps member win appeal against Kent Police
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Possibly the relatively small numbers on a newish scheme, mean the figures aren't statistically relevant or even why tell people your plans before you meet them in court.
David.
And the fact that majority of cases will probably still be ongoing. Think there was mention that this one took 16 months to resolve?
tonyshooter
Well-Known Member
A first rate result by BASC.
We done to all involved !
We done to all involved !
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
@Andyquadra @jall55 feedback on your query as follows. Each case’s costs will be determined by many factors, one cannot give a blanket figure. There have been two Fighting Fund cases taken to court so far (Cheshire and Kent). Both won with costs. Another one did not get to court but was settled in the member’s favour. Approval is only given to those cases which disclose reasonable prospects for success. No hopers are not supported. To do so would be to waste members money.
Some research suggests a Firearms Appeal costs £12k - £18k depending on which KC is used. The top barristers charge about £6k for a day in Court, which includes all their case work preparation, so the rest goes to the Solicitor.
Plus if you lose, the Police can ask for their costs back, so add another £10 - £12k.
In the Kent case I believe the Court awarded "full costs", so Kent Police have lost around £25 - £30k of taxpayers money.
Plus if you lose, the Police can ask for their costs back, so add another £10 - £12k.
In the Kent case I believe the Court awarded "full costs", so Kent Police have lost around £25 - £30k of taxpayers money.
Each side has to submit their costs to the Court prior to the Costs and Reasons hearing (which is some weeks after the verdict). The judge / panel award either full or partial costs, so if full costs are awarded then they loser pays the lot!
Full is full as I understand it, but I grant you may know better.
Full is full as I understand it, but I grant you may know better.
Expect tumbleweeds on that mate, questions like that don’t suit the bash
Excellent result, however it is still a win for Kent police, as taxpayers have picked up their costs and the Judge has taken away any further responsibility from the Chief Constable should the **** hit the fan in the future.
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
From my experience your estimations are way out.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC will likely do a follow-up update with more detail and insight, and I will share that on here when published. As regards the successful appeal outlined in the OP, Kent Police currently has more revocations than all the other forces in the South East combined. Further appeals are scheduled, and BASC will continue to fight vigorously in its members’ interest where it considers there has been an injustice.
Whilst I appreciate there is interest in the monetary side of things let's also consider the personal/human impact of such cases and here is the feedback from the member impacted in this case:
"After being made to feel like a criminal and with many false accusations made against my character, it was a huge weight lifted off my shoulders that the police, the firearms officers, and then ultimately the court, all agreed unanimously that my version of events was the truth.
“The police admitted as much in court which begs the question as to why it took 16 months and a court hearing to settle it.
“BASC was brilliant. I’m so grateful for its financial support, but more importantly the support it gave me beyond that was invaluable. Just the reassurance that I was in the right gave me the strength to continue to fight this injustice.
“I’m also grateful to all my friends and character references who supported me. Shooting is my passion, and it feels good to be totally vindicated and be able to continue to enjoy it with my friends and hold my head up high again.”
Lloyd90
Well-Known Member
A BASC member has won an appeal against the revocation of his firearm and shotgun certificates by Kent Police thanks to support from BASC’s Fighting Fund.
The judgment marks a further success for BASC's Fighting Fund, which in March 2024 helped a BASC member win an appeal against the revocation of his certificate by Cheshire Constabulary.
Click the link below for more information on the Kent case
BASC Fighting Fund helps member win costs against Kent Police
A BASC member has won costs against Kent Police, thanks to financial support from BASC's Fighting Fund.basc.org.uk
This is what I want to see as a BASC member.
Thanks Connor.
I by chance today renewed my membership and I am glad that I did.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your continued support as a BASC member.
Thanks also to everyone else responding positively to this update, whether members or not, and perhaps now is the time for us all to join or re-join BASC.
ContinShots
Well-Known Member
This is my issue with it all. I'm delighted to hear that another unjust and completely unsubstantiated refusal/revocation has been quashed, and hopefully Kent will learn from it that treating all FAC/SGC holders as criminals is completely unacceptable and they need to understand that FLO customers are just that, customers, not criminals. It's reassuring to see BASC working behind the scenes like this, but I do think they need to publish the criteria they applies to applications for support, who and how they make the decision to help and how members can appeal against any refusal to give support.
This this is a member benefit, paid for by our subs, we need to know what the governing framework is. At the moment, it's all a little unclear and most members didn't ever realise BASC were supporting anyone until the first news article came out a few months back, and I don't quite understand why after many weeks since people first started asking for such details on various platforms there's still none published.
When BASC used to offer insurance, and as per other organisations who still do, you could read the insurance cover documents before you joined so you knew what was covered and what wasn't, and how it was all managed, but there doesn't seem to be anything like that for BASC's new 'in house' revocation support. It surely wouldn't take much to put something together and publish it under 'membership benefits' etc.?
Last edited:
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
Most members will have received copious comms from BASC about support for legal challenges. I know I have, for some time. And BASC has a long history of supporting legal challenges that benefit the shooting community as a whole - dating right back to the case that established that handguns could be still be held on a FAC for humane dispatch.
We had lots of info at the time about why BASC dropped its short-lived experiment with legal fees insurance. As for such insurance from other orgs, SACS dropped their legal fees element but, unlike BASC, didn't make any public announcement. The NGO (of which I am also a member) has a bolt-on, costing about £28. Fair enough. The BDS made much of its legal insurance until recently, and then dropped it. So did the CCC, in a very hasty manner which left some of its longstanding policy holders in the lurch - though I believe that both it and the BDS now offer the same bolt-on as the NGO, at about the same additional cost.. The CPSA include legal insurance, but for SGCs only, and when I asked them about any court successes, they couldn't name a single one!
If I recall correctly, the legal insurance were doing much the same as BASC do, judge each case on its merits, and only taking the ones they thought they had a strong chance to win. Difference now I guess is, rather than any unspent money going off the fatten the insurer's wallet, it's sitting in BASC's bank account (acruing interesting) and can actually be used as and when needed to pay straight to the lawyers?
I seem to recall the criteria being mentioned in one of the pod-casts but have not had time to check them all again.
It was something like:
It was something like:
- There has been an injustice
- There are implications for the wider membership
- The barristers believe there is a good chance of winning
Similar threads
