Threat of Certificates being revoked, despite being found not guilty in court !

[lincolnjefferies]

Can the police revoke your FAC and Shotgun certificates, after a malicious accusation of assault by an vindictive ex partner - despite the individual being found not guilty in court and being completely exonerated by the magistrates in their summing up. I would add that there wasn't a single mark on the lady, all he had done was hold on to her arms as she was drunkenly punching him at the top of a steep set of stairs, so he couldn't just walk away as he usually does and risked serious injury if he fell. It was just her word against his.
In court under examination she admitted to hitting him on a number of previous occaisions.

He has no criminal record and no previous whatsoever, not even driving convictions. SG holder for 20 years and FAC for 15 years entirely without incident. He has no medical record of anything. He fully co operated with the police and behaved in an appropriate manner all the way through the ordeal of the trial and bail.
Its been five months since he was found not guilty and 7 months since he surrendered his firearms.
He made an application to the firearms dept to get rifles back, but they sent him a letter saying they were considering revoking his certificates as they believed he represented a danger to the public and peace, as concerns had been raised about his behaviour and emotional state whilst at the police station. This was a complete fabrication, he had behaved perfectly normally like any member of the public, so he contacted the policeman in charge of his case who confirmed this and was willing to vouch for his good behaviour.

However they allowed him a chance to write a letter of appeal, which he did. He recently had an interview with the firearms liasion officer and now has to wait another three months before they make a descision. His certificates expired during this process, so he put the renewals in as usual.

I have a bad feeling about all this, is he better getting a specialist firearms lawyer on the case now, or should he wait the three months until they make the descision. Do they drag the process out hoping he will just give up, plus I would imagine the firearms department is overstretched staff wise as in the past there has been a long delay before new certs arrive after the expiry date of the previous certificates.

Also he has made a number of requests to have his firearms oiled as some of them are valuable. He was told on one occasion that he couldn't as they had been sealed up ??? and nobody has ever been in touch back after his other requests.

Unfortunately he wasn't a member of BASC that year, but he certainly will be in the future. LET IT BE A LESSON TO ALL TO JOIN A SHOOTING ORGANISATION.

 

[Paul at Fechan]

He certainly needs a solicitor to act on his behalf. My friend had all his gear taken pending a court case in Carlisle but when the charges were dropped it took 3 weeks to get his stuff back and that was with a solicitor acting on his behalf to sort it out.

The firearms dept need the details of the case and outcomes put right to them with some authority behind it. It sound like because of the outcome of the case they should be required to hand them back but pressing the right buttons to speed up the process is a solicitors work for sure.

 

[camo304]

He can also get is local RFD to collect them and store at is place but he may charge for storage, but they will be in safe hands thats what i did.

 

[lincolnjefferies]

Many thanks for the good advice from you both !

 

[Taff]

Afraid they seem to do as they like, a close friend of mine lost his license for three yrs, over a alleged phone call to his ex partner, no evidence, he reapplied every year, even had a meeting with the chief constable.

 

[458lott]

Afraid they seem to do as they like, a close friend of mine lost his license for three yrs, over a alleged phone call to his ex partner, no evidence, he reapplied every year, even had a meeting with the chief constable.

Your friend needs to judicially review the decision not to give him his guns back prior to this he needs to start pre action
never appeal they are allowed to do what they want review the decisions is the was forwarded cost less in long rurun also next time never give them your guns quote bill of rights

 

[bobthedug]

Your friend needs to judicially review the decision not to give him his guns back prior to this he needs to start pre action
never appeal they are allowed to do what they want review the decisions is the was forwarded cost less in long rurun also next time never give them your guns quote bill of rights

????????

 

[matt_hooks]

Your friend needs to judicially review the decision not to give him his guns back prior to this he needs to start pre action never appeal they are allowed to do what they want review the decisions is the was forwarded cost less in long rurun also next time never give them your guns quote bill of rights

In English?

Just to note that there is no such thing as a "Bill of Rights" in the UK.

If he has applied for a renewal, and they decline he then has the right to an appeal, as he would against a revocation. A decent firearms savvy lawyer is a must though!

 

[gerarddwatts]

To be pedantic there is an ancient Bill of Rights...1689 to be precise...and one of its provisions enshrines the right of 'protestants to have arms for their defence WITHIN THE RULE OF LAW' and rambles on about 'armed papists'. This ancient piece of legislation is totally irrelevant to todays fire-arm legislation. Anyone stupid enough to follow the advice given above and refuse to allow the police to seize their weapons..'give them your guns'...would never ever get them back. If the police want them ...they'll take them. If their seizure is wrong or unlawful your only recourse is the courts, you simply cannot refuse to 'give them your guns', and quote 17th century legislation at them. They'll just laugh at you while they cart your guns...and you....down the path!

Yet another reason to join a decent shooting orgaization!

 

[matt_hooks]

Sorry, yes of course you are correct. I was forgetting my ancient history.

Also, as you say, it is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of our ability (or supposed "right") to own, keep, use or otherwise bear arms.

 

[Gazza]

No judgement on your friend but lets look at this type of situation from a Police point of view.

Domestic violence is huge and it is well recognised that much of it goes unreported or even unsuspected for whatever reason. It occurs throughout the social scale and in some instances the Police have had no previous dealings whatsoever with those involved. Statistics show that murders within domestic situations is high. Proving or disproving cases can be difficult as in some situations it is word against word. That is the background on which Police have to make a judgement on whether a person is suitable to hold a SGC/FAC when domestic violence is the allegation. We all know of Court cases where a person has been found not guilty either on a point of law or lack of evidence or in Scotland a verdict of Not Proven has been the judgement. Being found not guilty or not proven is no guarantee that the accused did not commit the crime.

With the above in mind IMO the Police have acted properly. The quite rightly took his firearms in the first instance. Following the Court case he has been interviewed and having done so the Police must now make a decision based on fact and probably subject to appeal whether he is a suitable person to hold a SGC/FAC. Three months may seen a long time to wait on this decision but IMO the Police are looking to see what happens within that period and so possibly forms part of the interview. It is not unknown for persons involved in relationships where there is domestic violence to get back together only to await the next blow out.

The Police will have a policy/process in handling these situation and as long as that is based on law and sound thinking there would not be much a solicitor or shooting organisation could do but keep an eye on progress and gee it along where necessary.
I don't think your mate has had his certificates revoked as such but more suspended until a decision is made.

 

[lincolnjefferies]

No judgement on your friend but lets look at this type of situation from a Police point of view.

Domestic violence is huge and it is well recognised that much of it goes unreported or even unsuspected for whatever reason. It occurs throughout the social scale and in some instances the Police have had no previous dealings whatsoever with those involved. Statistics show that murders within domestic situations is high. Proving or disproving cases can be difficult as in some situations it is word against word. That is the background on which Police have to make a judgement on whether a person is suitable to hold a SGC/FAC when domestic violence is the allegation. We all know of Court cases where a person has been found not guilty either on a point of law or lack of evidence or in Scotland a verdict of Not Proven has been the judgement. Being found not guilty or not proven is no guarantee that the accused did not commit the crime.

With the above in mind IMO the Police have acted properly. The quite rightly took his firearms in the first instance. Following the Court case he has been interviewed and having done so the Police must now make a decision based on fact and probably subject to appeal whether he is a suitable person to hold a SGC/FAC. Three months may seen a long time to wait on this decision but IMO the Police are looking to see what happens within that period and so possibly forms part of the interview. It is not unknown for persons involved in relationships where there is domestic violence to get back together only to await the next blow out.

The Police will have a policy/process in handling these situation and as long as that is based on law and sound thinking there would not be much a solicitor or shooting organisation could do but keep an eye on progress and gee it along where necessary.
I don't think your mate has had his certificates revoked as such but more suspended until a decision is made.

Thats an interesting reply, though I can't see how he can be found not guilty by the courts, yet still be considered by the police to be a "danger to the peace and public safety".
The magistrates in their summing up stated, "Domestic violence is traditionally associated with the male, yet in this instance it was clearly the female and that he had used the absolute minimum appropriate restraint" i.e just gently holding on to her until she calmed down.
She then drove off in her car drunk, waited until she sobered up and went to the police station, concocted up a tale of various nasties saying he took drugs, was mentally ill, had regularly attacked her in the past, subjected her to inhuman sexual practises, various financial misdoings etc, etc etc. All with the intent of making him lose his good character and gun licences.
The lady in question was getting dismissed from her job as a bank manager at the time, due to errors during her probationary period at work. She subsequently lost her position and was demoted. Her sister had been doing similar things to her ex partner at the time just prior to this.
Its been five months since the not guilty verdict. What factors will they take into account in making the decision ?

 

[bobthedug]

I think Gazza is pretty much on the money with regards to the reason as to why the police have taken the position they have.

What I would say is that you have mentioned numerous allegations made against your friend by this woman. Unlike the alleged assault, these allegations are against his character or "lifestyle" and would involve enquiries being undertaken to establish if there is indeed any evidence.

I would assume that all the information regarding the lady in question and her sister has been passed on to the police.

If a person is found to be of "intemperate habits" that is reason enough for the refusal or revokation of a FA or SGC. It would not require the evidence of a court conviction to revoke a certificate.

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

+1 i also think Gazza is on the money with regard to firearms being removed in these circumstances

However a not guilty finding by the courts is just that and imo warrants the immediate return of firearms especially in cases where it has been found the other person is not credible.

My last time in court saw the case thrown out but i still recieved a letter from Chief Officer stating this is not the behaviour expected of a fac holder and any further issues would see my licence revoked - so with the case against me thrown out i still get a black mark against my ticket...

 

[Gazza]

Thats an interesting reply, though I can't see how he can be found not guilty by the courts, yet still be considered by the police to be a "danger to the peace and public safety".
The magistrates in their summing up stated, "Domestic violence is traditionally associated with the male, yet in this instance it was clearly the female and that he had used the absolute minimum appropriate restraint" i.e just gently holding on to her until she calmed down.
She then drove off in her car drunk, waited until she sobered up and went to the police station, concocted up a tale of various nasties saying he took drugs, was mentally ill, had regularly attacked her in the past, subjected her to inhuman sexual practises, various financial misdoings etc, etc etc. All with the intent of making him lose his good character and gun licences.
The lady in question was getting dismissed from her job as a bank manager at the time, due to errors during her probationary period at work. She subsequently lost her position and was demoted. Her sister had been doing similar things to her ex partner at the time just prior to this.
Its been five months since the not guilty verdict. What factors will they take into account in making the decision ?

What you must appreciate and again this is no judgement or reference to your friend is that a not guilty verdict or a decision by the prosecution that there is no case to answer may not be a defined result of he/she did not do it. It can in some instances only means that in law there is insufficient evidence to convict (not proved guilty) or as in the case of no case to answer to place before a court.
When the gloves are off both males and females are capable of making up/revealing horrendous stories about their partners. What is the truth? I have known pillars of society, whose friends would have sworn blind that they were perfectly law abiding and normal people but behind closed doors another character lurked. Would you wish to rush into handing back a firearm?
As said, having interviewed your friend I would suspect that the Police are now sitting back to see what happens.

 

[patrickt]

Has your friend received a sec 12 letter from the Police ? (a letter revoking his his certificate/s), if so he has only 28 day to lodge a letter of appeal both to the Crown Court & POlice, setting out his general grounds against revocation, if how ever the Police are "considering" revoking his certificate, and invited him to an interview, they will use that interview, and his responses to decide whether or not to send him a sec 12 letter as above.

My advice is to contact his local firearms dept and seek clarification, and refer to the seeking of legal advice (which will have cost implication) in order to bring the matter to a head. I would advise anyone being "invited" to an interview to take a legal advisor (who knows what they are talking about) to an interview, but better, do not attend an interview, send a letter instead setting out the fact that you will appeal any revocation, and looking forward to receiving a sec 12 letter, in order to trigger disclosure of the POlice's case for the revocation of his certificate/s. In my view this should concentrate the minds of the FA Dept, and if the matter proceeds, then your friend can rely on his correspondence when the matter comes before the Crown Court.

This is not the first time I have heard about the "invitation" to be interviewed followig the seizure of firearms, and I believe this will become more prvelant, due to recent tragedies with fireams being used THIS IS A SALUTORY LESSON TO US ALL, JOIN BASC, NGO, BDS, OR OTHER RECOGNISED BODIES.....NOW......

 

[OSS32]

Patrick knows what he's on about... Good advice.

 

[lincolnjefferies]

Hi Gentleman, Many thanks for the good advice. I'm actually the person involved, I was just writing in the third person singular to keep the thread more factual.
At the moment they are considering revoking the certificates, quote.

"Whilst it is noted you were found not guilty of battery in court, concerns have been raised over your behaviour and emotional state to such a degree that officers suggested you be provided with details of the Samaritans.

In view of the current emotional pressures, I do not feel that at the moment you should be in possession of a certificate. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that you cannot be permitted to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. I am therefore considering revoking your firearm and shotgun certificate. However I am prepared to allow you or your legal adviser the opportunity to make representations on your behalf before I confirm my decision"

The above is absolutely incorrect and without any basis of truth or evidence. From the best viewpoint, there must have been some serious confusion here between the police departments.
After receiving this letter I phoned the police officer in charge of the case who interviewed me and he confirmed my behaviour was perfectly good and normal while being interviewed.
The Samaritans part can only come from the standard paperwork they give you after being taken into custody - The form being headed "Advice For Every Person Released From Police Custody In Dyfed Powys", which gives details of the Samaritans, homelessness, substance abuse, medical care etc.

Note. In the summing up the magistrates said words to the effect that "That domestic violence is traditionally associated with the male, but in this case the aggressor was clearly the female, and that the defendant had used the minimum appropriate restraint"

The incident happened at the top of a very steep flight of stairs, that building regulations would never allow now. She was raining blows down on me in a rage. If I hadn't held onto her, I would very likely have fell down these stairs and seriously injured myself. There wasn't the tiniest mark on her arm and shoulder where I held her. She rides horses and is very athletic. Last year somebody slipped down them and fractured their wrist or finger.

As it stands now, I have made my representation in a letter and have been interviewed by the local firearms liason officer, who in fairness seemed very impartial and took notes. There is now a three month wait until they make the decision. That will be eight months since the not guilty verdict.

What I am worried about is - That if they can be so factually incorrect at this early stage, what hope do I have of a fair hearing and a just outcome.
Will legal representation benefit me at this stage. Or should I wait and see what happens and go through the crown court appeal if the worse comes to the worse.

 

[palmer_mike]

Hi Gentleman, Many thanks for the good advice. I'm actually the person involved, I was just writing in the third person singular to keep the thread more factual.
At the moment they are considering revoking the certificates, quote.

"Whilst it is noted you were found not guilty of battery in court, concerns have been raised over your behaviour and emotional state to such a degree that officers suggested you be provided with details of the Samaritans, In view of the current emotional pressures, I do not feel that at the moment you should be in possession of a certificate. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that you cannot be permitted to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. I am therefore considering revoking your firearm and shotgun certificate. However I am prepared to allow you or your legal adviser the opportunity to make representations on your behalf before I confirm my decision"

The above is factually incorrect and without any basis of truth or evidence. At best here must be some confusion here between the departments. After recieving this letter I phoned the police officer in charge of the case who interviewed me, he said my behaviour was perfectly good and normal, (as it was and always is) and he would confirm this fact if necessary. The Samaritans bit comes from the standard paperwork they give you after being taken into custody - The form being headed "Advice For Every Person Released From Police Custody In Dyfed Powys"

As it stands now, I have made my representation in a letter and have been interviewed by my the firearms liason officer. There is now a three month wait until they make the decision.

What I am worried about is that if they are so factually incorrect at this early stage, what hope do I have of a fair hearing and a just outcome.

I am in no doubt that if you can possibly afford to you should without delay seek specialist legal advice. Either through BASC or whatever organisation you might belong to, if you are not a member of any of these organisations you might have to bite the bullet and pay for a consultation.
Of course this should not be necessary given the facts of the case, but it might prove expedient in the long run.

​Mike

PM Sent

 

[pheasant sniper 1]

Hi Gentleman, Many thanks for the good advice. I'm actually the person involved, I was just writing in the third person singular to keep the thread more factual.
At the moment they are considering revoking the certificates, quote.

"Whilst it is noted you were found not guilty of battery in court, concerns have been raised over your behaviour and emotional state to such a degree that officers suggested you be provided with details of the Samaritans.
In view of the current emotional pressures, I do not feel that at the moment you should be in possession of a certificate. In view of these facts, I have reason to believe that you cannot be permitted to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. I am therefore considering revoking your firearm and shotgun certificate. However I am prepared to allow you or your legal adviser the opportunity to make representations on your behalf before I confirm my decision"

The above is absolutely incorrect and without any basis of truth or evidence. From the best viewpoint, there must have been some serious confusion here between the police departments. After receiving this letter I phoned the police officer in charge of the case who interviewed me and he confirmed my behaviour was perfectly good and normal while being interviewed. The Samaritans part can only come from the standard paperwork they give you after being taken into custody - The form being headed "Advice For Every Person Released From Police Custody In Dyfed Powys", which gives details of the Samaritans, homelessness, substance abuse, medical care etc.

As it stands now, I have made my representation in a letter and have been interviewed by the firearms liason officer, who took notes. There is now a three month wait until they make the decision. That will be eight months since the not guilty verdict.

What I am worried about is - That if they can be so factually incorrect at this early stage, what hope do I have of a fair hearing and a just outcome. Will legal representation benefit me at this stage. Or should I wait and see what happens. I would ideally prefer to avoid the cost of legal fees, but will do so if necessary.

I am an absolute believer in representing yourself when you have suffered an injustice..

This might not be good advice as some on here will no doubt disagree but on the times i have needed to i have gone to extreme lengths studying the laws and time spent with paperwork covering the whole lounge. And won against baristers and solicitors


In using a representative it may be that you are not allowed to speak. The person speaking for you may however have a case load of files for the same day, may be a replacement for somebody held up in another court case and the first time he or she reads your file might be the time their sat next to you.

Good luck for a happy outcome