The Eastern Region triumvirate stance is probably a reaction to the fact that the HO are preparing a response to the Plymouth Coroner's Prevention of Future Deaths report. The Coroner has the ability to issue such reports. They aren’t binding as the post above suggests - but they carry weight. Optics of not doing anything will be the driver here. Plus there is the Scottish Administration review of licensing underway, which again isn’t binding - as it’s not a devolved matter - but again will carry weight with the HO.
So, why continue on one path when you may need to switch it pretty quickly in a few weeks? The HO response is due in May.
This is standard HO practice following such events - they are possibly getting ready for immediate change to HO guidance; and legally, the police organisations probably can get away with it, as it is unlike Co-vid when they suspended new grants, which was basically, open ended.
A copy of the Coroner’s report can be viewed here:
https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/KEYHAM-INQUESTS-Combined-PFD-reports-1.pdf
The main findings are summarised as:
1) That there should be “root and branch reform” of firearms legislation. The Coroner expressed the view that the Firearms Act 1968 is out of date and not fit for purpose, and contributes to a situation which endangers public safety.
2) That the Home Office’s statutory guidance on firearms licensing, as currently framed, is “at best confusing and at worst misleading”. Its suggestion that licensing staff should not take into account allegations which have not been proved on the balance of probabilities, when deciding whether an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm, is “premised on a misunderstanding of the underlying legal position”.
3) That there is an urgent need to develop and maintain a national accredited training regime for licensing staff. The Coroner noted that this recommendation has been made on numerous occasions since the Dunblane massacre, but that “over the past 27 years, there has been an abject failure” by successive governments to implement it.
4) That the Lord Chief Justice should ensure that adequate training on firearms licensing is made available to Crown Court judges as a matter of urgency, and that only judges who have undergone this training should be authorised to hear appeals against licensing decisions under s.44 of the 1968 Act.
5) That all 43 Chief Constables in England & Wales should carry out an urgent review of cases where a person currently holds a gun which has been returned to them after an earlier refusal or seizure by the police. There is a concern that in many cases, individuals who pose a danger to the public may be in possession of firearms which have been returned to them following an inadequate risk assessment.
6) That there should be a mandatory requirement to place a warning marker on all medical records, not just GP records, so that health professionals can contact the police whenever a certificate holder reports symptoms (particularly mental health symptoms) that might affect their suitability to possess a gun.
7) That application fees should be set at a level which adequately funds the whole of the firearms licensing system. The inquest heard evidence that at present, the taxpayer subsidises most of the cost of firearms licensing, with the resulting risk that licensing departments are routinely underfunded.
So, there is nothing massively new here - rather a need for the whole licensing system to be brought into the 21st Century. I personally have absolutely no issue with that.
Systemic failure in licensing process has seemingly been at the root of all tragedies since Hungerford. I agree it’s lack of leadership and direction from all key decision makers. Central Government down. This includes police organisations - and yes I am ex-job. I really hope this will bring about major change.
Nothing in the recommendations actually worries me or makes me think that my good reason for the possession and use of licensed firearms will be altered to any significant degree that would preclude me using them. More hoops, probably; more cost, inevitably: but that’s the price of a modernised licensing system, instead of one that’s grown piecemeal over 50 odd years, and is not fit for purpose in how it is delivered.
So, why continue on one path when you may need to switch it pretty quickly in a few weeks? The HO response is due in May.
This is standard HO practice following such events - they are possibly getting ready for immediate change to HO guidance; and legally, the police organisations probably can get away with it, as it is unlike Co-vid when they suspended new grants, which was basically, open ended.
A copy of the Coroner’s report can be viewed here:
https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/KEYHAM-INQUESTS-Combined-PFD-reports-1.pdf
The main findings are summarised as:
1) That there should be “root and branch reform” of firearms legislation. The Coroner expressed the view that the Firearms Act 1968 is out of date and not fit for purpose, and contributes to a situation which endangers public safety.
2) That the Home Office’s statutory guidance on firearms licensing, as currently framed, is “at best confusing and at worst misleading”. Its suggestion that licensing staff should not take into account allegations which have not been proved on the balance of probabilities, when deciding whether an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm, is “premised on a misunderstanding of the underlying legal position”.
3) That there is an urgent need to develop and maintain a national accredited training regime for licensing staff. The Coroner noted that this recommendation has been made on numerous occasions since the Dunblane massacre, but that “over the past 27 years, there has been an abject failure” by successive governments to implement it.
4) That the Lord Chief Justice should ensure that adequate training on firearms licensing is made available to Crown Court judges as a matter of urgency, and that only judges who have undergone this training should be authorised to hear appeals against licensing decisions under s.44 of the 1968 Act.
5) That all 43 Chief Constables in England & Wales should carry out an urgent review of cases where a person currently holds a gun which has been returned to them after an earlier refusal or seizure by the police. There is a concern that in many cases, individuals who pose a danger to the public may be in possession of firearms which have been returned to them following an inadequate risk assessment.
6) That there should be a mandatory requirement to place a warning marker on all medical records, not just GP records, so that health professionals can contact the police whenever a certificate holder reports symptoms (particularly mental health symptoms) that might affect their suitability to possess a gun.
7) That application fees should be set at a level which adequately funds the whole of the firearms licensing system. The inquest heard evidence that at present, the taxpayer subsidises most of the cost of firearms licensing, with the resulting risk that licensing departments are routinely underfunded.
So, there is nothing massively new here - rather a need for the whole licensing system to be brought into the 21st Century. I personally have absolutely no issue with that.
Systemic failure in licensing process has seemingly been at the root of all tragedies since Hungerford. I agree it’s lack of leadership and direction from all key decision makers. Central Government down. This includes police organisations - and yes I am ex-job. I really hope this will bring about major change.
Nothing in the recommendations actually worries me or makes me think that my good reason for the possession and use of licensed firearms will be altered to any significant degree that would preclude me using them. More hoops, probably; more cost, inevitably: but that’s the price of a modernised licensing system, instead of one that’s grown piecemeal over 50 odd years, and is not fit for purpose in how it is delivered.
Last edited:
.
