top lawman fined over shotgun offence

It would be unusual for the licensing authority to revoke the certificates prior to the outcome of any court proceedings. The review of suitability and any final decision is usually down "slow time" following a visit from the enquiry officer to determine the circumstances/facts/and any mitigation
 
It would be unusual for the licensing authority to revoke the certificates prior to the outcome of any court proceedings. The review of suitability and any final decision is usually down "slow time" following a visit from the enquiry officer to determine the circumstances/facts/and any mitigation

I dont think so, we are reading all the time of FAC/SGCs being revoked and guns confiscated prior to the outcome of a court case, then the difficulties of FAC/SGC holder getting their certificates back and even greater difficulties getting their guns back.

Ian.
 
it never rains but it pours.

s-ds law

you are bound to get burgled the one day you leave your gun out.

burglars get away scot free....you get done.

heed the lesson.
 
It would be unusual for the licensing authority to revoke the certificates prior to the outcome of any court proceedings. The review of suitability and any final decision is usually down "slow time" following a visit from the enquiry officer to determine the circumstances/facts/and any mitigation

Not so. The requirements are that “The licence holder is to take reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised access”. Which he did not, unless everybody in his household is a licence holder or the cellar was locked and he had sole access to the key. The grounds to revoke a licence is that the licence holder has or is likely to pose a risk to the public. By not taking reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised access you have posed a risk to the public.

His licence would have been revoked before the court case, which is a separate issue to the firearms offence as far as the police are concerned. Two different departments, firearms licensing and criminal prosecutions.

Even if they believed that there was a likelihood that a revocation will be overturned in appeal, the police will generally go for it as they are “Damned if they do and damned if they don’t”.

Please don’t take my comments as either schadenfreude or the holier than thou attitude, that some have posted in the past, it is very easy to suffer a brain fart and many of us will have escaped by the skin of our teeth.:oops:
 
Last edited:
Not so. The requirements are that “The licence holder is to take reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised access”. Which he did not, unless everybody in his household is a licence holder or the cellar was locked and he had sole access to the key. The grounds to revoke a licence is that the licence holder has or is likely to pose a risk to the public. By not taking reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorised access you have posed a risk to the public.

His licence would have been revoked before the court case, which is a separate issue to the firearms offence as far as the police are concerned. Two different departments, firearms licensing and criminal prosecutions.

Even if they believed that there was a likelihood that a revocation will be overturned in appeal, the police will generally go for it as they are “Damned if they do and damned if they don’t”.

Please don’t take my comments as either schadenfreude or the holier than thou attitude, that some have posted in the past, it is very easy to suffer a brain fart and many of us will have escaped by the skin of our teeth.:oops:

That's a good summary.

The only thing that is questionable in the media story are the words "Police investigating a break-in at his home in Edinburgh found that the weapon had been left outside a secure cabinet."

The law in England and Wales at any rate, does NOT require a shotgun to be kept "inside a secured cabinet", only that it is kept secure and that reasonably practicable steps have been taken to prevent access by unauthorised persons and that collective (layered) security measures will be considered as part of the renewal security process (and indeed first issue) as part of a security risk assessment. I know of a good few people who don't have cabinets yet do have valid shotgun certificates because they use trigger locks and secure the shotguns to a wall in a locked room using a secure cable through the trigger guards.
 
That's a good summary.

The only thing that is questionable in the media story are the words "Police investigating a break-in at his home in Edinburgh found that the weapon had been left outside a secure cabinet."

The law in England and Wales at any rate, does NOT require a shotgun to be kept "inside a secured cabinet", only that it is kept secure and that reasonably practicable steps have been taken to prevent access by unauthorised persons and that collective (layered) security measures will be considered as part of the renewal security process (and indeed first issue) as part of a security risk assessment. I know of a good few people who don't have cabinets yet do have valid shotgun certificates because they use trigger locks and secure the shotguns to a wall in a locked room using a secure cable through the trigger guards.

The obvious implication is simply that the reasonable precautions in this instance is that the owner keeps the gun in a cabinet and it wasn't in that cabinet. Of course you might well have different security arrangements. But there's no indication of that here.
 
As regards revoking certificates or taking away firearms pending any decision either in the criminal courts or a decision on revoking, such actions will be made depending on any perceived danger (be that danger from the use of the firearms or danger of them getting stolen). As has been said above, that decision may well be taken on it's own with no regard to any pending proceedings. But at the end of any court proceedings involving a certificate holder, it is normal practice for the police to address the matter of certificates and whether the holder is still a fit and proper person to have them.

It's worth noting that to convict on a criminal matter (such as a charge of not adhering to the conditions of a certificate) requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. But to make a decision on whether a holder's certificates should be revoked (either by a Chief Constable, or on appeal in the courts) the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. So it's entirely possible for someone to be cleared of a criminal charge, but still have their certificates revoked.
 
The obvious implication is simply that the reasonable precautions in this instance is that the owner keeps the gun in a cabinet and it wasn't in that cabinet. Of course you might well have different security arrangements. But there's no indication of that here.

All very true, yet there's still the niggling suggestion by the way it was worded...the inference is in fact that he did keep it in a cabinet usually, yet the story reads "....left outside A secure cabinet"
 
Back
Top