Countryfile and Firearm Licensing

[kes]

Here you go, Miki:

Your practice headed paper

Patient’s address Date



Dear Patient

The police have informed us that you have applied for a firearms/shotgun licence. They have requested medical information to complete this application.

Recent BMA guidance states that GPs should engage with the firearms licencing process, and that in doing so we should levy an administrative fee for this service. The fee for providing this report to the police is £XX.

We have to reply to the police request within twenty one days of receipt of their letter to us, so please supply the fee so that we can meet this timeline.

Yours faithfully

This is clearly contrary to Guidance and seemingly officially sanctioned blackmail - I would pass this on to BASC and CA - both cant be stupid enough to ignore it. As the CA are already doing something they might well welcome sight of the actual document.

 

[Odders]

Please see Lincolnshire LMC: Firearms- Change to LMC Advice

So not only do they ignore HO guidance but they suggest an outrageously high charge for not just one but possibly TWO doctor's reports, quite possibly from a GP who hasn't seen the person in question in years.

This really does need a legal challenge before it spreads even further.

 

[David63]

Linked to this issue re TVP - https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-meets-pcc-over-thames-valley-medical-issue/

and this from a couple of months ago re Lincs: https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-rele...asks-home-office-to-reconvene-firearms-group/
David

 

[David63]

Another update https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-rele...olnshire-police-to-clarify-licensing-process/

 

[JTO]

So, why don't BASC fund an appeal by one of it's members?

 

[Miki]

Linked to this issue re TVP - https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-meets-pcc-over-thames-valley-medical-issue/

and this from a couple of months ago re Lincs: https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-rele...asks-home-office-to-reconvene-firearms-group/
David

Great couple of letters there David - can you publish the ones you sent (and the replies) to/from Police Scotland ?

 

[kes]

I am sorry to say this but the response by BASC is nowhere near robust enough in my eyes. I feel sure the word 'blackmail' has been used by one sporting organisation.
This is to me 'weasel words' and will elicit nothing more than a 'we can and will do what we want' .
It absolutely needs a test case like the NGO buzzard cull case - too little too late - is a "couple of months ago" really an adequate and timely response/follow up with no change in between.
What more important issue for shoters has held BASC's attention for "a couple of months".

 

[David63]

Highlights of all BASC does on a monthly basis are published every month on the BASC web site

Single cases do not set a precedent, hence the need to get this resolved at the highest level
David

 

[NorthDorset]

This piece in the Mail surprised me. Lots of venom.

Countryfile blasted for 'taking pro-hunting stance' | Daily Mail Online

 

[JTO]

Single cases do not set a precedent,

Unlike the rest of English Law, then.

stare decisis et non quieta movere

 

[Uncle Norm]

I am sorry to say this but the response by BASC is nowhere near robust enough in my eyes. I feel sure the word 'blackmail' has been used by one sporting organisation.
This is to me 'weasel words' and will elicit nothing more than a 'we can and will do what we want' .
It absolutely needs a test case like the NGO buzzard cull case - too little too late - is a "couple of months ago" really an adequate and timely response/follow up with no change in between.
What more important issue for shoters has held BASC's attention for "a couple of months".

I have had substantial experience on appeals to the Crown Court in firearms licensing matters. Such an appeal is a course of action that should only be taken as a last resort. An appeal should only be made when in possession of competent legal opinion advising a good chance of success. An appeal is a double edged sword. The appeal can be dismissed too.

The outcome of a successful appeal would not be binding on other Courts as 'case law', unless a further appeal to a higher court was successful too. Such opportunities are rare and expensive.

I am of the view that BASC's measured response, is the right course of action. Wise heads do not go rushing to the Courts.

Just for the record, a very good friend of mine (Lincolnshire again) is currently suffering this nonsense at renewal and has refused to pay an exorbitant charge from his GP. Consequently I am well aware of the situation.

 

[kes]

I have had substantial experience on appeals to the Crown Court in firearms licensing matters. Such an appeal is a course of action that should only be taken as a last resort. An appeal should only be made when in possession of competent legal opinion advising a good chance of success. An appeal is a double edged sword. The appeal can be dismissed too.

The outcome of a successful appeal would not be binding on other Courts as 'case law', unless a further appeal to a higher court was successful too. Such opportunities are rare and expensive.

I am of the view that BASC's measured response, is the right course of action. Wise heads do not go rushing to the Courts.

Just for the record, a very good friend of mine (Lincolnshire again) is currently suffering this nonsense at renewal and has refused to pay an exorbitant charge from his GP. Consequently I am well aware of the situation.

Thank you for your considered response. My concern is that the medical 'issue' goes back as far as the attempted renegotiation of licence periods, i think thats before the last revision of the Guidance but could be wrong. Too long equates, in my view to the fact that the problem has merely spiralled out of control in the eanwhile with little input from those affected.
I hope you friend succeeds where other have not been so lucky and had to pay - would you please keep us informed?

 

[JTO]

The outcome of a successful appeal would not be binding on other Courts as 'case law', unless a further appeal to a higher court was successful too. Such opportunities are rare and expensive.

That's why we pay BASC to do it.

 

[teabag_46]

Here you go, Miki:

Your practice headed paper

Patient’s address Date



Dear Patient

The police have informed us that you have applied for a firearms/shotgun licence. They have requested medical information to complete this application.

Recent BMA guidance states that GPs should engage with the firearms licencing process, and that in doing so we should levy an administrative fee for this service. The fee for providing this report to the police is £XX.

We have to reply to the police request within twenty one days of receipt of their letter to us, so please supply the fee so that we can meet this timeline.

Yours faithfully

It says quite clearly that THE POLICE have requested the information - surely it should be the police that pay?

 

[TreeWorks]

It says quite clearly that THE POLICE have requested the information - surely it should be the police that pay?

Excellent point, teabag_46.

 

[Uncle Norm]

That's why we pay BASC to do it.

Quite so JTO. We also expect them to manage member's money in a professional manner and only go to the courts with cases based on sound, competent legal opinion.
Ten years ago the 'starting price' for a judicial review was £50K and £250K doesn't go far in the higher courts today. Negotiating and lobbying is the best option until all avenues have been explored and exhausted, at the highest levels.

I agree with KES that the whole question of medical involvement has gone on far to long. The resolution is not within the gift of BASC but other organisations over which they have no control.

I think it reasonable to add, that none of the other shooting organisations have been able to resolve this either.

It is however invariably BASC that seems to attract the main criticism for the present situation, which in my view is unfair.

 

[mealiejimmy]

This is what it says on the FAC/SGC application form:

I give the police permission to contact my GP and/or specialist to obtain factual details of any medical history in relation to my suitability to possess a firearm and/or shotgun. This authority is valid for the life of the certificate(s). I understand that my GP may share sensitive personal data with the police concerning my physical and mental health for the purpose of enabling the police to make a fully informed decision on my application or continued suitability, and I hereby consent to this processing of my personal data.
Applicant’s name (please print)……………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……

If the police have this authority why is there a need for the initial doctors letter and all the variability between police forces as to it's importance and requirement before an application can be progressed.
The FEO can simply call the GP and demand the GP provide him with an applicant's medical information information - so why don't they?

Cheers

Bruce

 

[JTO]

So BASC tell us not to pay, but will not put our money where their mouth is.
A GP can only make a charge for a report that shows he has concern about a person owning a firearm, and that person is expected to pay for that report.
Yeah right!
If he doesn't pay, the GP will not issue the report and some police forces will not renew certificates.
If he does pay, the GP will issue a report that says he has concerns about the person owning a firearm, so the police will not renew certificates.

Is that how it is?

 

[JTO]

Quite so JTO. We also expect them to manage member's money in a professional manner and only go to the courts with cases based on sound, competent legal opinion.
Ten years ago the 'starting price' for a judicial review was £50K and £250K doesn't go far in the higher courts today. Negotiating and lobbying is the best option until all avenues have been explored and exhausted, at the highest levels.

Who is talking about a judicial review?
A chap I know has recently won an appeal at Crown Court against his certificates being revoked and it cost less than £2000. BASC recommended the barrister, but that was all.

 

[Orion]

It is however invariably BASC that seems to attract the main criticism for the present situation, which in my view is unfair.

They do themselves no favours by ‘welcoming’ every new imposition on shooters. Whoever writes their PR cannot have an idea how that sticks in the craw of firearms owners who’ve suffered adverse legislation again and again.