Word of warning, Grant or renewal information.

[Vipa]

This is the question on the current form...
15a [FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Do you suffer from any medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug related conditions? [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]no � yes � [FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]if [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]yes [FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Times]give details [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

That would in reality leave most applications open to interpretation in any way the police saw fit!!!

 

[8x57]

But you can only get a caution if you have broken the law in the first place.
Fatty.

Technically yes but but you have to accept that you are guilty to accept a caution. There has been a case where BASC got a Chief Constable to withdraw the caution because no offence had been committed but the accused had accepted the caution without realising the severity of the caution but this was the exception to the norm. I would have thought that most shooters by now would know that they should never accept a legal caution without first seeking legal advise. BASC and the NGO always recommends that that legal advise should be from a lawyer with specialist knowledge of firearms law.

 

[Vipa]

Simon... If you are a member of BASC I would suggest contacting them ASAP..
Would also be interested to hear what David (BASC) had to contribute to this thread!?

 

[thorneyglatt]

Arent the OP and some subsequent posters talking at cross purposes here ? Surely there's a difference between the caution the investigating officer gives before taking a statement, and being asked to 'accept a Caution' (with its implied admission of guilt) as an alternative to prosecution, when all the facts have been ascertained.

 

[8x57]

Arent the OP and some subsequent posters talking at cross purposes here ? Surely there's a difference between the caution the investigating officer gives before taking a statement, and being asked to 'accept a Caution' (with its implied admission of guilt) as an alternative to prosecution, when all the facts have been ascertained.

Shouldn't be at cross purposes as the OP has confirmed that it was a legal caution, as opposed to the caution given under PACE prior to interview under caution.

Note
He confirmed it was a legal caution in post #10.

 

[HotDogsForTea]

It was a statement took after being cautioned, She did explain the right to have legal representation present but I thought - I haven’t done anything wrong so why bother !
I jokingly mentioned haemorrhoids and Yes it needs put on the form- the treatments can have side effects!
Please take heed, I presumed that I could tick the No box (as I have done many times) to the question - 15c.
It’s not my opinion as to whether my conditions are relevant or not. Apparently hay fever can cause breathing difficulties and lead to accidents out in the field, It’s the fact I didn’t disclose them because I thought they were irrelevant.
If I get to keep my Firearms and avoid a criminal conviction then every time I sneeze will be disclosed on any future renewals.

I think you were interviewed then and did not give a statement. Are you saying that you actually accepted a caution or that you think you may get one. If this is really what took place, then i think you are being blagged. I doubt the cps would run with it if you told them to shove the caution up their AR*E. (I wouldn't put my mobile tel on the site for any nutter to see either.)
Cheers,
Fatty.

 

[1066kieran]

Certain people's renewals would take weeks to complete for example some one who has had the same condition for thirty years with side affects such as arthritis and melanoma to name but two.

 

[Mungo]

Forgive my cynicism, but I don't believe a word of this.

It's either a wind up or an attempt to discredit the police.

 

[8x57]

Forgive my cynicism, but I don't believe a word of this.

It's either a wind up or an attempt to discredit the police.

I agree Mungo it does seem a bit far fetched but such things are not totally unheard of. I know for a fact that people do not realise how serious a legal caution is and the legal consequences.

 

[paul o']

if indeed true !
get hold of basc feller give them any info thay need, request that peter glens takes up your case, if you and none of can say had a stress speed wobble,next in your med file see how were you treated drugs !or off work! etc old bill are fishing. request that a copy of your file med notes be shown to you from your doctor and get a copy of what he put in his report to force , also you should send when propted by basc the info. request that force disclose any information on this issue. but do not in any way let them give you a formal slap without first getting some help. if thay wish a med report be done refuse there doctor as he is being paid by them and a conflict of intrest.
i helped a pal get his cert back after he bashed a drug dealer that attack his kid and the old bill done a forced entry and took his guns, he got them back after 36 weeks and five grand down but no crime recorded.
take to basc asap this sort of thing happends more that you would think .
i wish you well
all the best fight back thay don't expect you to!!
atb
paul

 

[Wrens Mews]

I agree Mungo it does seem a bit far fetched but such things are not totally unheard of. I know for a fact that people do not realise how serious a legal caution is and the legal consequences.

Neither the FEO nor a PC in attendance would have the power to issue a caution - reading his posts he was "cautioned" and then a statement taken - but this would have in fact been an interview under caution - personally I would have asked them to leave and sought advice, as they should have made their intentions clear from the outset and really should have invited the OP "in" for an interview under caution, giving him the change to seek legal advice prior.

There is either more to this than has been disclosed or it is a wind up, if I put down every injury since I was 16 - it would take up several pages, let alone any illness!

​

 

[paul o']

no feo can give anything like a caution as he is a civy and in paid employment he carrys no warrent card he is an out off office pen jocky with eyes
in fact he can not see you med file !! ONLY THE POLICE MED DOCTOR CAN ! he then can give an opinion on the contences of your med file, is not somthing to be bonded around the office for all to see.
this may be useful to you from.
Law regarding the granting of a Firearm Licence Paul Rooney

©QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers

1-2 Laurence Pountney Hill, London EC4R 0EU

DX 858 London City Telephone 020 7933 8855 Fax 020 7929 3732

barristers@qebhw.co.uk QEB Hollis Whiteman

aggressive and antisocial behaviour

Is the applicant of sound mind?

Whilst the judgement as to whether a person is fit to be entrusted with firearms rests in law

with the police, officers should not conduct an isolated assessment of an applicant’s mental

health. Any concerns should be supported by medical evidence provided by the applicants

GP. It is a requirement that all applicants provide the contact details of their GP and agree

to have their records examined. It is important to note however that Home Office Guidance

states that an agreement to have medical records examined does not mean that this should

be done in every instance but rather GPs should only be consulted when there are
“genuine

doubts or concerns about the applicant’s medical history that may have a bearing on the

applicant’s suitability to possess firearms”
2

Mental illness not an automatic bar to holding a license:

Paragraph 12.10 of the 2002 Home Office Guidance states:

“It should be remembered that simply because a person has received treatment in the past

for certain illnesses or conditions, such as depression or stress, it does not automatically

follow that they are unfit to possess a firearm. It is simply one of the factors to be

considered”

Paragraph 12.16 encourages a holistic approach to assessing an applicant’s fitness adding:

“Decisions on applications and revocations should be made on
an assessment of all the

relevant information and must be made on the individual merits of each case
. Evidence of

previous convictions or intemperate behaviour, for example, might not result in an

automatic refusal if, since the conviction, the applicant has led a law-abiding life and shown

a capacity to be entrusted to possess a firearm.”
[TABLE="class: cf hr"]
[TR]
[TD="class: hw"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Neither the FEO nor a PC in attendance would have the power to issue a caution - reading his posts he was "cautioned" and then a statement taken - but this would have in fact been an interview under caution -

 

[spforrest]

The FLO interviewed me after cautioning me (that is she said "you have the right to remain silent, If you give up this right then anything you do say can and will be used in a court of law" and so on).
I originally thought something must have happened on my shoot that I was a suspect in but it was a failure to disclose information for the purpose of obtaining a Firearm. (upon renewal).
The evidence against me was various medical conditions that are previous and minor complaint’s that are on-going (Hay fever , Abscess and occasional back pain).
This information was provided by my GP. I’m not sure if and when it will be used as evidence against me. The FLO informed me that it was a serious criminal offence to give false or withhold information, for the purpose of obtaining Firearms.
I was asked to explain my previous and current conditions and I had to accept that I had been reckless in filling the form out (by ticking NO to the medical questions).
The truth is I just didn’t feel they were relevant. I would not deliberately try to mislead the Police.
I may have been foolish by not disclosing absolutely everything, and I accept that this is the case.
I am in no way trying to discredit the Police and I have the upmost respect for them.
If I was depressed, violent, suicidal or misused substances then of course I’m not suitable to possess firearms.
Indeed it’s not the fact that I have minor aliments (and who hasn’t) but the fact I didn’t disclose them. Understandably this could be seen as a breach of trust and the FLO wanted clarification.
I asked what would happen next, her reply was that the information I provided would be considered by the Superintendent and either a criminal prosecution would follow or an Official caution.
Yes seeking legal advice would have been a good idea but it was spur of the moment and I wasn’t aware I had done anything wrong. My constabulary has been fair and efficient whenever I’ve had dealings with them. I’ve every confidence that this ‘oversight’ will be seen for what it was. There was no deliberate attempt to miss lead the Police and if going through your medical file removes even one gun from a un suitable holder, then I’m in full support of this.
I will post the outcome of their enquiries in due course.

 

[paul o']

if what you are saying is that you have been cautioned due to not ticking a box allowing the gp med report then its wrong thats why you have a choice!! also i think there is a time bar on ilness's think its 10yrs. think some one is overstepping there remit here call them and get a copy of interveiw ! except none of the above if it was that bad your fac would be pulled and rifles etc gone i smell FISH Tell them you request you are delt with in a court of law !! talk to basc

 

[Greymaster]

The form (West Midlands at least) asks the following questions:

15a Do you suffer from any medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug-related conditions? If Yes give details.
15b Have you now, or have you ever had epilepsy? If Yes give details.
15c Have you ever attended your present or a previous General Practitioner (GP) for treatment for depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder? If Yes give details.

.

15a: If you do not currently suffer from any medical condition or disability, inc drugs and alcohol related, then "NO" is the correct response.
15b: If you have now or ever had epilepsy then "YES" would be correct. But you would have said YES to 15a too. Else "No".

15c Is the only question relating to past medical history (except having had epilepsy in 15b). It applies if you have attended a GP (current or previous) for depression or any other mental disorder.

So no massive list of past ailments is required. If you are afflicted currently (at date of form) then respond with details at 15a.

It seems to me that history only relates to epilepsy, depression, mental and nervous disorders.

 

[8x57]

The FLO interviewed me after cautioning me (that is she said "you have the right to remain silent, If you give up this right then anything you do say can and will be used in a court of law" and so on).
I originally thought something must have happened on my shoot that I was a suspect in but it was a failure to disclose information for the purpose of obtaining a Firearm. (upon renewal).
The evidence against me was various medical conditions that are previous and minor complaint’s that are on-going (Hay fever , Abscess and occasional back pain).
This information was provided by my GP. I’m not sure if and when it will be used as evidence against me. The FLO informed me that it was a serious criminal offence to give false or withhold information, for the purpose of obtaining Firearms.
I was asked to explain my previous and current conditions and I had to accept that I had been reckless in filling the form out (by ticking NO to the medical questions).
The truth is I just didn’t feel they were relevant. I would not deliberately try to mislead the Police.
I may have been foolish by not disclosing absolutely everything, and I accept that this is the case.
I am in no way trying to discredit the Police and I have the upmost respect for them.
If I was depressed, violent, suicidal or misused substances then of course I’m not suitable to possess firearms.
Indeed it’s not the fact that I have minor aliments (and who hasn’t) but the fact I didn’t disclose them. Understandably this could be seen as a breach of trust and the FLO wanted clarification.
I asked what would happen next, her reply was that the information I provided would be considered by the Superintendent and either a criminal prosecution would follow or an Official caution.
Yes seeking legal advice would have been a good idea but it was spur of the moment and I wasn’t aware I had done anything wrong. My constabulary has been fair and efficient whenever I’ve had dealings with them. I’ve every confidence that this ‘oversight’ will be seen for what it was. There was no deliberate attempt to miss lead the Police and if going through your medical file removes even one gun from a un suitable holder, then I’m in full support of this.
I will post the outcome of their enquiries in due course.

You have misled us Sir. You have not been cautioned you have been interviewed under caution. There is quite a difference.

Paul I am not quite sure about the actual circumstances here but it is possible that a civilian FEO holds a warrant but that would normally be in relation to explosives.

 

[spforrest]

Think your 'spot on' paul o'. I'm going to contact BASC's legal team and get some advice. I've held a shogun for 25 years and a firearm for 10+ years. This is the first time I've had any problems whatsoever. The FLO did say I could expect a reply by the end of the week and I also took the assumption that my guns would have already been removed if deemed serious enough. I guess only time will tell.
I don't want to concern anyone unduly, I just wanted to share my experiences with other forum users. I am not legally qualified, and no expert in gun law. It’s entirely your own choice what to disclose and what to withhold, just be aware that medical records (in my case anyway) are being checked more thoroughly now.

if what you are saying is that you have been cautioned due to not ticking a box allowing the gp med report then its wrong thats why you have a choice!! also i think there is a time bar on ilness's think its 10yrs. think some one is overstepping there remit here call them and get a copy of interveiw ! except none of the above if it was that bad your fac would be pulled and rifles etc gone i smell FISH Tell them you request you are delt with in a court of law !! talk to basc

 

[paul o']

think your also right feller
Police forces employ police staff who perform many functions to assist officers and support the smooth running of their police force. They do not hold the office of constable. In England & Wales ! So a caution was unlikely given unless the old bill was on site aswell
atb
paul

You have misled us Sir. You have not been cautioned you have been interviewed under caution. There is quite a difference.

Paul I am not quite sure about the actual circumstances here but it is possible that a civilian FEO holds a warrant but that would normally be in relation to explosives.

 

[Dalua]

You have misled us Sir. You have not been cautioned you have been interviewed under caution. There is quite a difference.

With respect, Sir: I think you have mislead yourself.
In the original post, the reference to the caution was such that it seemed to me likely to be the pre-interview caution.
The reference to 'a legal caution' in post 10 is perhaps also a symptom of a lack of clarity on the OPs part as to the difference between the two kinds of cautions, both of which can in a broad sense reasonably be called 'legal'.

 

[8x57]

I suggest that it may be advisable for you speak to your shooting organisation, especially as you have mentioned the dreaded caution word. I don't know if you have used this term merely as a means of suggesting a ticking off or if you mean it as a legal caution which is something entirely different and is actually a formal admission of guilt to an accusation. In any case a chat with the firearms department of yourshooting organisation may clarrify a few things.

Dalua with respect Sir I thought I made myself quite clear in post #4.​