baguio
Well-Known Member
The fact remains that there weren't insuring against this. What they insure is written in the policy. People who bring up BASC at every opportunity are very sad and boring people IMO! There, I've said it now!
Court case to decide if police can hide behind Public Interest Immunity in revocation cases
- Thread starter gonzo
- Start date
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
The problem with legal insurance in cases of revocation is that it doesn't seem to work. As far as I can see, the insurance companies usually find a way to wriggle out of taking a case on, and even if they are persuaded to do so, they seldom achieve a satisfactory result. You are normally better off using the in-house resources of your organisation - ie a firearms team, if it has one - to negotiate. Failing that, hiring your own legal advocate, if you can find one that actually knows about the licencing system. But it is the system itself that is the problem here, so throwing expensive lawyers at it will not necessarily achieve anything except generate fat fees for them.
Can anybody highlight some documented cases where insurance has indeed got somebody's firearms certificate back?
Can anybody highlight some documented cases where insurance has indeed got somebody's firearms certificate back?
Last edited:
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
a
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
When basc removed the legal protection, they claimed wasn't being used, value for money and they couldn't truely control wot cases they faught.
They claimed to put the money they usually spend on it plus more into a massive 'fighting fund' , and to be honest i can see the logic in it, the problem is basc dont have the balls or the fire to fight out of a wet paper bag.
How much of the fighting fund has been spent?? Be a few years of insurance premiums in there now, must be quite a fund
Ignoring wether or not these folk are even member basc should be taking a case on if they believe the evidence is strong enough to win, purely to make police, licencing authoroties, government sit up and take notice that it does have to balls/spine to fight.
Members could well complain if they took a non members case forward but if it is an easy win why not it would benefit all shooters andbasc members in the long run.
And yes other orgs could/should do similar but like it or not tey are not in the same league money wise or staff wise to do something like this, even if a few orgs clubbed together.
As dunwater says its an absoulte joke in this country now, split up wi wife/bird, speed, get drunk, fart to loud and folk are advising u to put ur guns in storage 'just in case'
I can see the polices ponit of view, its not easy for them but they do need someone to be holding them to account every now and again,
They started taking inches years ago, silence ( even from the voice) now there taking miles at a time and still silence
No one mentioned a pat on the back - however if a bunch of strangers paid my way for something I’d be keen to post an update or at the very least a thank you…not rocket science…
MAH
Well-Known Member
Just a generic thought, as I am not wanting to cast an opinion about any individual case.
"Insurance is not a substitute for good behaviour"
Consider car insurance; you might have Fully Comp insurance for your prided and joy. But if your tires are bald when you crash it, the insurance likely to claim that the owner has not taken reasonable care, and so the policy is void.
So it might be that insurance companies look at the evidence in a particular revocation case and decide that the action was justified and the case can't be won.
M
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
If it’s “ sub judice” he may have been advised not to comment on legal advice, and if he gets a privately negotiated deal to overturn the revocation with a non disclosure clause you may never find out why the certs were either removed or restored.
The whole affair will just melt away as if it never happened, until the next time it does and you go through the whole process again, and again and….you get the picture.
Your system is a mess and needs challenging, not just individual cases but the whole basis for non judicial, arbitrary and evidentially un verified revocation of firearms and shotgun certs.
To make an analogy, you have a drivers licence, it cannot be summarily revoked, the police may not arrive at your door unannounced and demand custody of your cars because they have decided to revoke your driving licence based on an unverified, uninvestigated report.
You get your day in court first, if the police can’t prove the allegation, you get a pass with no repercussions.
The legal principle is exactly the same when it comes to firearms.
You’re entitled to ask why, you’re entitled to an answer plus the evidence against you and you’re entitled to to challenge the evidence and defend yourself publicly in court.
You guys seem to have worked yourselves into a position where you believe that none of these safeguards applies to you, but they do, just as they apply to every other person in the country, having an FAC shouldn’t be a burden affecting every aspect of your life.
So how would a similar situation work in Ireland?
Cheers
Bruce
Cheers
Bruce
Siggy
Well-Known Member
Not a lawyer, but a court is bound by precedent set at a court of the same level or higher.
The Doctrine of Legal Precedent: When is a Court decision binding? | LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
City of London Litigation Lawyers. Advice on all litigation matters: professional negligence, insolvency, debt recovery, HMRC tax disputes and more. Call 02071830529
lexlaw.co.uk
Utectok
Well-Known Member
That’s my understanding too I think it’s a myth that if you join a shooting org they will splash the cash on lengthy court cases. In reality they might lobby for you or send a few correctly worded letters to the right people…. Which often works.
The sad fact of the matter many revocations sound unjust but often there are undisclosed issues that cause them in the first place?
Or so I have been reliably told.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Not knowing the details but could it be that the "evidence" they had to revoke came from a source that can't be revealed? Possibly an informant or because the information came to light because of an unrelated investigation which could be jeapodised?
Otherwise it seems like a case for the police to lose straight away if this goes to court and they don't have any good reason at all. It's not like they have a surplus of money at the moment to waste on a case they'd lose.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I’ve never heard of the Gardai arriving at someone’s home and demanding that their firearms are handed over unless there has been a serious incident directly involving the certificate holder.
If the garda superintendent has reason to revoke your certs you will be told why and in most cases you can arrange an interview to discuss the matter. You may also appeal the decision to the district court and unlike the UK most of our national bodies will be happy to represent you.
Something you might not be aware of but BASC have funding for appeals etc where a president or other important aspect needs challenging .
The biggest issue previously was from what i here defending folks that BASC should not have gone near , after paying a
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
Yet again more useless information based on third hand rumours and BS. Be careful re these stories from Fieldsports Britain and other places they tend to be one sided hence the Cox fiasco. Licensing departments don't score brownie points or are subject to any performance indicators. Re the public immunity aspect again aload of rubbish. To be revoked or to voluntary surrender there needs to be a reason. For example the initial letter will state that there are reasons intelligence data etc what calls into question your suitability to posses firearms/shotguns hence I require you to VS if you don't we will have to revoke. However if you are are embroiled in an ongoing incident drunk fighting domestic violence the priscedure will be different to a point. legislation is there to assist your appeal. You appeal all the evidence facts data reports statements are sent to you're barrister. You then have the opportunity to provide contradiction to thier report. The judge then decides. There is no cloak and dagger **** no conspiracy crap.
Sounds wonderful costs the Police SERVICE (never force) nothing to revoke. Costs you min £20k to contradict their report.
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
Costs depends on who you use, barristers are not cheap. However there is no issue with you representing yourself. If your confident you have done no wrong and you have the evidence go for it. If that is the case the licensing department also have to pay for a barrister. That barrister doesn't want to lose if there is any doubt they will inform the department to reconsider.
Thank you for that. A few points:
Given you don't know the circumstances any better than us you are in no position to comment on whether "our" system is a mess. It may well be operating in the best interests of everyone. We just don't know. Personally FWIW I am not too perturbed that this geezer no longer has his guns. Based on the same lack of evidence that you have used to come to your conclusions, I just think he looks shifty on the video. Who knows?
Your analogy is weak. The public risk of the misuse of a firearm is not comparable to the misuse of a motor vehicle. In the rare cases that there may be parallels you may well find the individual arrested on conspiracy or terrorism charges.
"We" have not "worked ourselves" into any position. If the Police are misusing/abusing their powers then we have courts, just like yours, that can challenge the process. Given the unusual set of circumstances that has led us to these seizures it is perhaps not unexpected that the exact scope of powers needs to be tested in Court. Expect the Police to argue that they are acting to protect the public. Terrible attitude (sic).
Last edited:
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
There is no none disclosure clause, this the UK not the states. As for driving licences yes cars dont get sized but your licence doe's This is mainly down to health matters and fitness to drive so your gp can instigate this and the police however its the dsa that actually revoke your licence and as with fac it's down to you to appeal and supply the relevant evidence.
Firearms Licensing departments have got better things to do then spend time on costly and inconvient revocations.
So back to the real world if you drop the ball expect the letter if you think they have no case and your confident take it to court. Let the bench decide and again be cautious regarding these tails of unlawful revocations they do no good.
Similar threads
