Court case to decide if police can hide behind Public Interest Immunity in revocation cases

[enfieldspares]

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

Read fully what the people you've linked to say. Then what I said. Then post a reply. A Crown Court or County Court cannot set precedent.

 

[bobthedug]

The Fieldsports channel is truly turning into a audio-visual version of the Daily Mail for shooting sports.

They will churn out anything for views.

I’ve had a browse through some of their videos, some of which present a pretty poor image for us.
There was one about rabbiting at night using a shotgun. The shooter was riding a quad and shooting rabbits whilst travelling at speed!
Going by a lot of the comments made, they are certainly appealing to a certain type which is the intention I suppose. The more viewers, the more revenue it brings in

 

[kes]

Any news of shooting Orgs helping to support this case as it involves principle even though it cannot set precedent. Best to win at this level and then the costs would be borne by the 'system' if an appeal is made - which surely it will, unless some minister has a quiet word with D&C CC and offers them ' inducements'.

 

[Tikka250]

I think there's more to Mr Cox' revocation than he's letting on to.

I just watched the Fieldsports Channel video on YouTube and the letter clearly states "My reasons for taking this action are..." (Timed at 1m 32s in the video) However the video doesn't display the reasons in the letter but yet Mr Cox states that no reasons were "given whatsoever" and it was a "generic letter" for the seizure and revocation of his guns and certificates respectively.

Mr Cox mentions about his split from his former partner and states "not the best of separations", "struggled to agree on contact arrangements for the children even though there's a court order in place".


EDIT- When a separation and access to children isn't amicable and a court has to decide because the children's parents can't behave like adults and agree on visits and access something is wrong.
They should've done it long before now if they felt the need and I'm not surprised Mr Cox is aggrieved; he'd be fully expectant that everything was rosy with nothing being said/done previously.

 

[bobthedug]

I think there's more to Mr Cox' revocation than he's letting on to.

I just watched the Fieldsports Channel video on YouTube and the letter clearly states "My reasons for taking this action are..." (Timed at 1m 32s in the video) However the video doesn't display the reasons in the letter but yet Mr Cox states that no reasons were "given whatsoever" and it was a "generic letter" for the seizure and revocation of his guns and certificates respectively.

Mr Cox mentions about his split from his former partner and states "not the best of separations", "struggled to agree on contact arrangements for the children even though there's a court order in place".

Yup, on my initial viewing of the video, I thought it a rather crude, schoolboyish attempt to portray the idea that the police have simply rocked up and removed his guns and he has no idea why.
There is also the fact that many people donated to his fund and have had no response.
It would no be sub judicial or in anyway jeopardise his case to issue or have one his team issue a generic response along the lines of “thanks to everyone for their support”

 

[gixer1]

Yup, on my initial viewing of the video, I thought it a rather crude, schoolboyish attempt to portray the idea that the police have simply rocked up and removed his guns and he has no idea why.
There is also the fact that many people donated to his fund and have had no response.
It would no be sub judicial or in anyway jeopardise his case to issue or have one his team issue a generic response along the lines of “thanks to everyone for their support”

^^sound of a nail being hit on the head^^

 

[Tikka250]

Yup, on my initial viewing of the video, I thought it a rather crude, schoolboyish attempt to portray the idea that the police have simply rocked up and removed his guns and he has no idea why.
There is also the fact that many people donated to his fund and have had no response.
It would no be sub judicial or in anyway jeopardise his case to issue or have one his team issue a generic response along the lines of “thanks to everyone for their support”

100%, Bob.

His body language suggests he is only telling part of the truth and selectively with-holding other parts.
I don't think this is about injustice and an unjustified revocation. I think this is about 'you didn't do anything about it 5 years ago, and I want my guns back'.

 

[Greenmist]

Your revocation system needs challenging because it totally reverses basic tenets of common law and probably denies you some of your human rights.
As currently practiced, there is no burden of evidence, no accessible appeal process, no notification of complaint prior to revocation/confiscation, no presumption of innocence, in fact theres a presumption of guilt, no formal charges of any kind are required, an unsubstantiated compliant is sufficient grounds, police may arrive at your home, demand entry and remove your legally held private property on the basis that once they arrive and demand its surrender your private property is no longer legally held.
Totally nuts.
I honestly don’t understand how both you, as individuals, and your representative bodies have become so utterly spineless and supine.
The revocation process is now effectively removed from legal oversight, the presumption is that that whatever the police decision is, it is legal and justified, its up to you to prove otherwise.
Which is bloody difficult if you don’t know what the complaint is.
Keeping your firearms is now totally dependant on the whims and policies of your local constabulary, they may do as they wish with virtually zero risk of being held to account or consequences.
No other section of society would tolerate it.

Can you apply for a job with one of the shooting organisations please

 

[baguio]

It would no be sub judicial or in anyway jeopardise his case to issue or have one his team issue a generic response along the lines of “thanks to everyone for their support”

Maybe it's just that I don't need my ego massaged as much as some of you but if there's nothing to report then I don't expect to hear it said. However, I realise that a lot of people on here say quite a lot when they have absolutely nothing to say so I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that they expect others to do the same!

 

[bobthedug]

Maybe it's just that I don't need my ego massaged as much as some of you but if there's nothing to report then I don't expect to hear it said. However, I realise that a lot of people on here say quite a lot when they have absolutely nothing to say so I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that they expect others to do the same!

I never donated so I don’t know why you quote me. I was simply addressing the point made by another poster that he could have been advised to stay silent.
And at the end of the day, if you ask for money and someone gives you some, it’s common courtesy to thank them.

 

[Dunwaters]

Can you apply for a job with one of the shooting organisations please

Thanks, but I’m retired, I still give a bit of voluntary time to a couple of our organisations but only if they ask nicely.
From reading the responses on this thread and a couple of similar ones a big part of how you got to where you are is down to lack of support.
Theres quite a few respondents taking the view that because we don’t know all the facts, we should blindly accept the official version and not worry about the process.
“There must have been a reason, the police wouldn’t have done it otherwise”.
Wrong, clarity, transparency and understanding of the process is crucial.
Why are we not allowed to know why?
You’ll never know all the facts unless they’re aired in court, that’d be the bit about justice being seen to be done. If the case is not appealed and made public then you lose the transparency and oversight which is an essential part of the justice system.
Your system of firearms cert revocation is operating almost completely ” in camera” with no independent oversight and no reference to the courts unless theres an appeal, and there appear to be very very few appeals at any level and seemingly none making it to a court of record.
Thats disturbing and the very essence of the problem. The police will continue to act in accordance with their policy and will assume that that policy is legal until or unless they are told otherwise, the problem is not necessarily a matter of law, its down to how that law is currently being interpreted and enforced.
You’ll only change the policy by successfully challenging it, not on the basis of an individual case, but by challenging it as a process which denies you fundamental legal protections and safeguards.

 

[Jeff8861]

Thanks, but I’m retired, I still give a bit of voluntary time to a couple of our organisations but only if they ask nicely.
From reading the responses on this thread and a couple of similar ones a big part of how you got to where you are is down to lack of support.
Theres quite a few respondents taking the view that because we don’t know all the facts, we should blindly accept the official version and not worry about the process.
“There must have been a reason, the police wouldn’t have done it otherwise”.
Wrong, clarity, transparency and understanding of the process is crucial.
Why are we not allowed to know why?
You’ll never know all the facts unless they’re aired in court, that’d be the bit about justice being seen to be done. If the case is not appealed and made public then you lose the transparency and oversight which is an essential part of the justice system.
Your system of firearms cert revocation is operating almost completely ” in camera” with no independent oversight and no reference to the courts unless theres an appeal, and there appear to be very very few appeals at any level and seemingly none making it to a court of record.
Thats disturbing and the very essence of the problem. The police will continue to act in accordance with their policy and will assume that that policy is legal until or unless they are told otherwise, the problem is not necessarily a matter of law, its down to how that law is currently being interpreted and enforced.
You’ll only change the policy by successfully challenging it, not on the basis of an individual case, but by challenging it as a process which denies you fundamental legal protections and safeguards.

You seam to paint a picture that the person ordering the revocations isn't subject to scrutiny. The decision is made in conjuction with a team lead by a manager. The decision to revoke is based on the offences the nature and background of the subject. Before the person is revoked it assessed by another manager/ranking officer who isn't connected with the licensing department. In addition the the decision maker has a force legal team including solicitors barristers to call on for help and advice.
There are not many appeals could that be down to the subject being guilty of not being a fit and proper person to hold a certificate or is it financial. From my expierence I would go with the guilty aspect.
Re the appeal its not technical it's not cloak and dagger it is straight forward there are no conspiracies.

 

[mealiejimmy]

I think there may be some confusion here by some commenters.
This thread started with a shooter in D&C challenging a revocation by asserting their legal right to an appeal in which the Police are claiming Public Interest immunity so that they do not have to present the reasons for the revocation in open court.
At some point in the thread, the case of Paul Cox was mentioned and comments relating to that case have been made.
AFAIK, these are DIFFERENT cases so, if you comment, please state which case you are commenting on because comments relating to one case may or may not be relevant to the other

Cheers

Bruce

 

[paultap]

Didn’t BASC remove their legal protection insurance, they claimed no one ever used it, so it wasn’t value for money for the members.

Despite the fact that I personally know of loads of cases that they could have challenged but BASC never bothered.

Basc claimed that this part of the insurance wasn’t being used very often, and so didn’t offer good value for the members, so without consulting its members, they dropped this part of the legal insurance.

Did they correspondingly drop the cost of BASC membership as a result of offering lesser insurance? NO THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT!

In effect, they are still charging the same membership fee for a lesser service. Many people only joined Basc for this part of the insurance in the first place. So much for the poor excuse of not offering Basc members value for money.

They only winners are Basc (by pocketing the difference in the insurance premiums) and the police, who now are emboldened to act almost with impunity. (although I am not commenting on the merits of this particular case)

The police know very well that the average shooter can’t afford the huge cost of challenging a revocation or refusal to grant a certificate in court. It has played right into their hands.

If Basc had bothered to consult it’s members and proposed a REASONABLE increase on the membership cost to keep this part of the insurance, I’m sure most members would have agreed to pay the increase in cost.

Basc seem to be very good at not standing up for shooters rights. Just like they meekly rolled over on the cartridge lead ban without even properly consulting their members (who pay their wages) or proper consultation with the cartridge manufacturers.

 

[timbrayford]

Basc seem to be very good at not standing up for shooters rights. Just like they meekly rolled over on the cartridge lead ban without even properly consulting their members (who pay their wages) or proper consultation with the cartridge manufacturers.

Neither is anyone else!

 

[paultap]

Neither is anyone else!

But Basc are after all - the self proclaimed voice of shooting!

 

[baguio]

But Basc are after all - the self proclaimed voice of shooting!

 

[timbrayford]

But Basc are after all - the self proclaimed voice of shooting!

So are they doing more or less than you are?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Latest information on BASC's insurance is here:

BASC member insurance

BASC membership comes with insurance you can rely on.

basc.org.uk

2020 update on BASC's firearms licensing legal expenses insurance is here:

Important notice regarding firearms licensing legal expenses insurance - BASC

BASC announces changes to membership package.

basc.org.uk

BASC's 2021 annual review on the Association's work is here:

BASC Annual Review - BASC

BASC Annual Review BASC Annual review 2022 Download

basc.org.uk

BASC Council makes policy decisions for BASC and BASC Council members are elected by BASC members. More information here:

BASC Council elections and AGM

Two new members of BASC Council were elected at the Association's AGM on 18 May 2024.

basc.org.uk

 

[Woodsmoke]

Latest information

Never, in the field of human conflict, has so much been said by so few, that means so little to so many . . . . .