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

[ContinShots]

My only two gripes with the Police are:-
1. My local Police service were the first one's to instigate " No medical cert, No fac".
2. They don't all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Apart from that never had any problems from the far North to the South West and even the South part across the water.

In your point 2, while there won't ever be a single English force, one of the benefits of Scotland moving to a single force is that firearms licencing has become much, much more consistent. I actually think its pretty decent in Scotland now, and while local divisions do the processing, there's one centralised way of doing things overseen by a leadership team that are shooters themselves for the most part. I still think they can be a bit OTT in calibre restrictions, but generally I'm fairly happy and much happier than I was with eight seperate forces, some of which were very poor and one of whoms huge failures led to Dunblane.

We also have a single computer system in Scotland for firearms licencing, which seems to work well. I think having one system has been a real improvement, certainly in terms of what can be done by police without primary firearms statute law changes (forms are garbage and we need an online system, but that'll need Westminster to legislate as its all specified by legislation). So, for England & Wales, while I can't see there ever being on police force, I do think a single computer system (en route) and a standard way of processing, with clear and consistent guidance would make a massive difference. There's no way that in 2022 individuals English forces should be able to run firearms licencing in substantially different ways to each other. That's asking for inconsistency and problems, and so far as we can see, that's a big part of what led to the Plymouth shooting: there's no way that guy would have had an SGC in Scotland and Police Scotland were already doing far more considered medical checks that D&C were clearly doing (or rather, D&C don't seem to have been doing any at all unless the applicant disclosed something).

What the UK needs is an overhauled, modernised and streamlined system, not one devised in 1968, but my main concern with any major move to overhaul it all is the extent to which the 'antis' would use it as an opportunity to try to push for more ineffective, but loved by politicians, bans and restrictions on the back of it. I almost feel as it the shooting community should steal the march and write a draft new firearms act and put it to government, that way we control the narrative and set the discussions off in the right direction? Perhaps that's just wishful thinking?

 

[ContinShots]

Just a word of caution: we haven't go the full facts here.

I sent a friend who is a solicitor the film clip on this latest case. Obviously, he doesn't know the details. We only have one side of the story. Of course, it would be very worrying if legal precedent was about to be set. However, I am told this does not seem to be the case here, despite what has been suggested by Fieldsports TV.

As far as we can tell, this chap isn't a member of any organisation. In the absence of the risk of a legal precedent being set by his case, I am not sure why any member-funded organisation should spend its members' money on a non-member. I do know that BASC acts for its own members on a regular basis on firearms issues. I myself know of just such a case last year in Northern England: the chap got his guns back without going to court and is full of praise for the help he got. I am sure the same could be said of one or two other orgs. Understandably, such members don't necessarily want to broadcast the details of how they got into trouble; everybody wants a quiet life, don't they? Often, there are private domestic or neighbour issues at play.

Again, I don't know the details of this latest case, and nor did the lawyer, but I am told that not revealing certain details of evidence in advance, or in public, is normally connected with protecting the identity of a witness who may be vulnerable to intimidation, or a police informant, or undercover work, or something of that ilk. Furthermore, I gather that only the court can decide whether this particular evidence - or rather, the source - can be protected. So it is the court, not the police, who make the decision and they have to provide their justification.

Yes, the police can make mistakes and over-react. Witnesses can lie, or be mistaken. These things can be contested in court. The bigger problem, to my mind, is that you cannot get your costs back even if you eventually win. That really does seem unfair.

I'd tend to agree with this. For example, the current head of firearms at SACS was, until relatively recently, running firearms licencing at Police Scotland. He knows the key figures running firearms licencing in Scotland, both professionally and personally. You have a far better chance of getting your guns back if you enter into discourse before things get formal, and so long as the police don't issue a full revocation before you've had a chance to discuss, so long as you have a genuine case to present, there's every chance you'll make positive progress. I do rather suspect that for some of the folk claiming to 'have no idea' why their guns have been removed, there's a bit more to it. In mean, if drink driving issues come out, or undeclared mental health issues, or even declared health issues that have recently changed, they may be perfectly 'safe' or legitimate reasons for the police to act, even if it's a disappointment or pain in the backside to those affected. Whether it's right for the police to be able to revoke or suspend longer term based on claims and whispers, rather than solid proof and fact, is another matter, but for the time being it is something that's somewhat supported via Home Office guidance as part of their belt and braces approach to firearms appraisals.