Devon and Cornwall response to FoI request

[Foxyboy43]

Hot off the press - the D&C response to my FoI request following the Paul Cox incident. Attached without the D&C topping and tailing and without any comment from me (but there are a number of interesting titbits).

The Firearms Licensing Department have provided the following information:-
The answers to Q1and 2 are answered in the Force website FAQs.
“1. the start to finish process for initiating, deciding and enacting the revocation of a Firearms Certificate;
“Where a chief officer has serious concerns about a certificate holder’s continued access to firearms, prompt action is to be taken to ensure no preventable harm is caused to public safety. This may involve the certificate holder being invited to surrender their firearms voluntarily pending a review of their continued suitability. If voluntary surrender is not possible, powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) in England and Wales or, in Scotland, common law powers to seize firearms in circumstances of significant danger to the safety of the public, may allow firearms to be seized in appropriate circumstances. When firearms are surrendered or seized, ammunition and the certificate should also be seized, and a receipt and photograph provided detailing the firearms, accessories and ammunition removed.
In each case an assessment is made on whether we need to seize firearms and certificates or ask that they are surrendered, whilst we conduct a suitability case review, with public safety driving this decision. This is done by assessing the threat, harm and risk and this assessment will inform our actions.
In conducting a suitability assessment there is a wider consideration of evidence as we are operating within Civil Law and not Criminal Law. The test we apply in assessing information regarding any behaviour or allegation is whether it occurred on the balance of probabilities – i.e. whether it is more likely than not to have happened. More weight will always be given to a conviction where the evidence has been tested by a court but behaviour that hasn’t resulted in a conviction will still be a key part of the assessment particularly in offence types such as Domestic Abuse where reporting rates are low.
The credibility of the information is considered and in assessing this information we must think critically about the reliability of the source where an allegation is made against a licence holder.
Once we have revoked a licence this decision can’t be reversed by the department; this can only be done by lodging an appeal with the court. The revocation notice contains the reasons why we have felt it necessary to revoke your licence. It also contains details of your right to appeal this decision for which you have 21 days to lodge your intention to appeal. We can discuss the appeal process if you are unsure.”
2. the determining factors for involving armed police in any revocation;
“This is purely down to operational resourcing. In order to correctly handle firearms officers need to be trained to do so. The vast majority of those officers who are trained in the correct handling and storage of Firearms are our armed colleagues”
3. in the last five calendar years the number of occasions where revocation of a Firearms Certificate has been sought, broken down into those instances where revocation was not implemented and those which resulted in revocation;
Firearms Licence Revocations
2017 – 17
2018 – 5
2019 – 16
2020 – 14
2021 – 23
4. the number of FAC revocations which have been appealed against and that appeal upheld including timeframes.
Once Firearms licensing have revoked a licence this decision can’t be reversed by the department; this can only be done by lodging an appeal with the court. To answer this question it is necessary to individually review the files relating to each of the revocations.
We can confirm that for 2019, 2020 and 2021 there was 1 returned firearms license in 2020.”

Class discuss….

PS
Even a very quick look reveals that out of 53 revocations in 2019/20/21 only one license was returned - less than 2%!

 

[Tf223]

like most licensing matters, those who decide to appeal to the Courts - regardless of how they feel about whether the revocation was justified - will always be very low. That and the normal public sector approach to legal action means that of those revocations most of not all will be based on robust grounds. Public sector bodies are risk adverse whether that’s risk from poor decisions resulting in public harm or risk from litigation from an aggrieved license holder.

 

[Dave Lakes]

Hot off the press - the D&C response to my FoI request following the Paul Cox incident. Attached without the D&C topping and tailing and without any comment from me (but there are a number of interesting titbits).

The Firearms Licensing Department have provided the following information:-
The answers to Q1and 2 are answered in the Force website FAQs.
“1. the start to finish process for initiating, deciding and enacting the revocation of a Firearms Certificate;
“Where a chief officer has serious concerns about a certificate holder’s continued access to firearms, prompt action is to be taken to ensure no preventable harm is caused to public safety. This may involve the certificate holder being invited to surrender their firearms voluntarily pending a review of their continued suitability. If voluntary surrender is not possible, powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) in England and Wales or, in Scotland, common law powers to seize firearms in circumstances of significant danger to the safety of the public, may allow firearms to be seized in appropriate circumstances. When firearms are surrendered or seized, ammunition and the certificate should also be seized, and a receipt and photograph provided detailing the firearms, accessories and ammunition removed.
In each case an assessment is made on whether we need to seize firearms and certificates or ask that they are surrendered, whilst we conduct a suitability case review, with public safety driving this decision. This is done by assessing the threat, harm and risk and this assessment will inform our actions.
In conducting a suitability assessment there is a wider consideration of evidence as we are operating within Civil Law and not Criminal Law. The test we apply in assessing information regarding any behaviour or allegation is whether it occurred on the balance of probabilities – i.e. whether it is more likely than not to have happened. More weight will always be given to a conviction where the evidence has been tested by a court but behaviour that hasn’t resulted in a conviction will still be a key part of the assessment particularly in offence types such as Domestic Abuse where reporting rates are low.
The credibility of the information is considered and in assessing this information we must think critically about the reliability of the source where an allegation is made against a licence holder.
Once we have revoked a licence this decision can’t be reversed by the department; this can only be done by lodging an appeal with the court. The revocation notice contains the reasons why we have felt it necessary to revoke your licence. It also contains details of your right to appeal this decision for which you have 21 days to lodge your intention to appeal. We can discuss the appeal process if you are unsure.”
2. the determining factors for involving armed police in any revocation;
“This is purely down to operational resourcing. In order to correctly handle firearms officers need to be trained to do so. The vast majority of those officers who are trained in the correct handling and storage of Firearms are our armed colleagues”
3. in the last five calendar years the number of occasions where revocation of a Firearms Certificate has been sought, broken down into those instances where revocation was not implemented and those which resulted in revocation;
Firearms Licence Revocations
2017 – 17
2018 – 5
2019 – 16
2020 – 14
2021 – 23
4. the number of FAC revocations which have been appealed against and that appeal upheld including timeframes.
Once Firearms licensing have revoked a licence this decision can’t be reversed by the department; this can only be done by lodging an appeal with the court. To answer this question it is necessary to individually review the files relating to each of the revocations.
We can confirm that for 2019, 2020 and 2021 there was 1 returned firearms license in 2020.”

Class discuss….

PS
Even a very quick look reveals that out of 53 revocations in 2019/20/21 only one license was returned - less than 2%!

Well done for making an effort to dig into this. Trouble is Foxy, there’s no way to know for sure from that if the low percentage of returns was because the constabulary were completely correct in their revocation, or just because it’s far too expensive/difficult to successfully appeal. We can of course speculate….

 

[Pedro]

Very interesting. Some points stand out.

1. There's quite a significant, but not precipitous rise in revocations in 2021. It'll be interesting to know 2022 figures in due course.

2. Only 1 returned certificate in the last 3 years, of 53 certificates revoked. But it doesn't tell us how many were challenged at court. I imagine the number to be small and this will be due to cost.

3. Some of the videos in the sporting press show certificate holders assuming their guns and tickets were revoked where they might simply have been invited to surrender them. Certificate holders need to clarify what is happening if they do get a visit, the difference being they can refuse to surrender them voluntarily. Although whether this will then cause them to be revoked is down to how the police view the circumstances.

4. I don't know how many certificate holders there are in D&C, so cannot make any informed comment on what percentages are being revoked. But it doesn't seem to be a wholesale culling of shooters as maybe some might have thought. Rather a change in position by the police in that they are stricter in interpreting the circumstances and a quantity of shooters are falling into that category where certificates are looked at, where they might not have before. If this is the case, you would expect revocation numbers to settle back to where they were, more or less.

And I shouldn't wonder (when the police are doing them, that is) if grants outweigh revocations by a good amount.

 

[finnbear270]

What is a new one to me is they are supposed to give a receipt for anything removed, AND photograph the items.

 

[sh1kar]

Presumably this only relates to firearms and not shotguns and SGCs?
S

 

[WellieP]

Well done Foxy for taking the time.

While I would be absolutely devastated to have my certs revoked, and I cannot see how it is possible/legal for the police to revoke a cert without explaining the circumstances behind the decision and keeping the cert holder up dated on the investigation, it is highly probable that a number of these revocations were/are warranted.

Circumstances change over 5 years, mental health issues may arise, domestic abuse may come to light, a cert holder may get involved in an altercation they ought not to have. One would hope that the cases being shared on Youtube can be taken at face value and need addressing, but there will always be a number of revocations each year that make complete sense in terms of public safety (thats part and parcel of having firearms in public hands).

Some of the fall out of the Plymouth shootings may be a lower tolerance for 'ill advised' or ill tempered behaviour among firearms owners (by FLDs). This may now mean that getting into an argument with a neighbour over parking or losing your rag with a customer care assistant in a shop is considered enough to cause concern (obviously I'm speculating). D&C are perhaps in the process of following up incidents of this nature.

On balance I think we as firearms owners should be held to an uncomfortably high standard of behaviour. As an FAC holder acquaintance of mine put it 'I daren't fart in public...".

It doesn't always feel fair to be held to such high standards. However, our community needs people who are long on patience, able to stay calm when dealing with hunt sabs and trespassing dog walkers, people who operate within the law and behave ethically and most of all people who can have an articulate debate with those they disagree with (rather than nail dead corvids to their gate).

I suppose my point is, we shouldn't lose sight of the likelihood that some of those revoked licences were beneficial to shooters as a community.

I do agree wholeheartedly that the appeals process is stacked unfairly against the complainant though!

 

[Dunwaters]

The process is flawed and biased against the accused FAC/SGC holder.
You have a decision to revoke being make by the constabulary which cannot be challenged until it has been enacted and the firearms removed.
Once that happens your only recourse is via a lengthy and expensive court case even if the information which triggered the initial action is shown to be inaccurate, because the decision cannot be rescinded by the dept which made it.
The process should be challenged on the basis that it is demonstrably unfair and biased against the accused.

 

[kes]

I would suggest this is a key issue for a lot of shooters.
Yes, if the Police have a good reason to remove but this should be stated as it says in the response but wasnt in the case we are talking about. Cany be revoked by police only court, is ridiculous as there will be several senior officers who could hear an appeal and as the law used is CIVIL not CRIMINAL the testing of the initial decision (by the home police force should be mandatory (in my view) or it is an abuse of process since the remedy is beyond most people as proving innocence costs a huge amount to prove.
This could however be simply remedied by the introduction of a clause in the firearms licencing changes we are hearing so much about or in any revised Home Office Guidance which simply says there should be a review hearing at which the dispossessed shooter and a legal support could question the Police reasons and why revocation was approved - in house and prior to going to Civil Court.
Perhaps BASC could add this to their minimum requirements/red lines/ any other dodgy name and do everyone a favour by thinking what might help shooters.

That having been said and justice being served by a change in process/HO advice, there are any number of revocations each year - many marginal decision which would not stand the focus of an 'in -house' review. However there also a number where the justification clearly exists and ALL of the killings by licenced firearm holders are the cases in point but were not actioned. A new knee jerk reaction emerges but
in common with many shooters, I feel public safety is overriding but should not allow individual rights to be overridden - I wonder if we are seeing the latter since no review process exists - of course we are.
There is no good reason why an internal review with the cert holder present cannot be carried out.
It should be the law since in any civil case the Police will usually absent themselves from involvement. Criminal Law is their territory and they are conveniently bending the rules to suit their needs.

Well done for asking the question Foxy - are you a BASC member ?

 

[Foxyboy43]

I would suggest this is a key issue for a lot of shooters.
Yes, if the Police have a good reason to remove but this should be stated as it says in the response but wasnt in the case we are talking about. Cany be revoked by police only court, is ridiculous as there will be several senior officers who could hear an appeal and as the law used is CIVIL not CRIMINAL the testing of the initial decision (by the home police force should be mandatory (in my view) or it is an abuse of process since the remedy is beyond most people as proving innocence costs a huge amount to prove.
This could however be simply remedied by the introduction of a clause in the firearms licencing changes we are hearing so much about or in any revised Home Office Guidance which simply says there should be a review hearing at which the dispossessed shooter and a legal support could question the Police reasons and why revocation was approved - in house and prior to going to Civil Court.
Perhaps BASC could add this to their minimum requirements/red lines/ any other dodgy name and do everyone a favour by thinking what might help shooters.

That having been said and justice being served by a change in process/HO advice, there are any number of revocations each year - many marginal decision which would not stand the focus of an 'in -house' review. However there also a number where the justification clearly exists and ALL of the killings by licenced firearm holders are the cases in point but were not actioned. A new knee jerk reaction emerges but
in common with many shooters, I feel public safety is overriding but should not allow individual rights to be overridden - I wonder if we are seeing the latter since no review process exists - of course we are.
There is no good reason why an internal review with the cert holder present cannot be carried out.
It should be the law since in any civil case the Police will usually absent themselves from involvement. Criminal Law is their territory and they are conveniently bending the rules to suit their needs.

Well done for asking the question Foxy - are you a BASC member ?

Thank you - Countryside Alliance - a condition of our lease so nae say.

 

[Tf223]

I would suggest this is a key issue for a lot of shooters.
Yes, if the Police have a good reason to remove but this should be stated as it says in the response but wasnt in the case we are talking about. Cany be revoked by police only court, is ridiculous as there will be several senior officers who could hear an appeal and as the law used is CIVIL not CRIMINAL the testing of the initial decision (by the home police force should be mandatory (in my view) or it is an abuse of process since the remedy is beyond most people as proving innocence costs a huge amount to prove.
This could however be simply remedied by the introduction of a clause in the firearms licencing changes we are hearing so much about or in any revised Home Office Guidance which simply says there should be a review hearing at which the dispossessed shooter and a legal support could question the Police reasons and why revocation was approved - in house and prior to going to Civil Court.
Perhaps BASC could add this to their minimum requirements/red lines/ any other dodgy name and do everyone a favour by thinking what might help shooters.

That having been said and justice being served by a change in process/HO advice, there are any number of revocations each year - many marginal decision which would not stand the focus of an 'in -house' review. However there also a number where the justification clearly exists and ALL of the killings by licenced firearm holders are the cases in point but were not actioned. A new knee jerk reaction emerges but
in common with many shooters, I feel public safety is overriding but should not allow individual rights to be overridden - I wonder if we are seeing the latter since no review process exists - of course we are.
There is no good reason why an internal review with the cert holder present cannot be carried out.
It should be the law since in any civil case the Police will usually absent themselves from involvement. Criminal Law is their territory and they are conveniently bending the rules to suit their needs.

Well done for asking the question Foxy - are you a BASC member ?

Legally the decision cannot be appealed internally. The Police are not bending rules, they are applying them as intended.

A delegated decision of the authority is the decision, the certificate is then revoked. A revoked licence cannot be reinstated by the authority as it no longer exists legally.

The only proper and legal course of redress is the courts - the right of appeal costs next to nothing. It does not require a solicitor etc. However it is at your risk if you lose because you fail to represent yourself well or your argument does not outweigh the Police case. You may also have to pay some or all the police costs if you lose - but not in all cases.

The right of appeal through the Courts also fulfils the right to a fair public hearing, and natural justice, under the human rights act. An internal appeal will be biased by nature.

The court appeal process also holds the authority to account in the event of wrong decision making and incorrect process, whereas an internal appeal process may create other problems such as revocations on shakey/weaker grounds - on the basis that it’s ‘only’ an internal appeal.

 

[T.eddie]

Believe the countryside alliance along with others is involved in the licensing fee discussions etc so could be shared with them and discussed also, plenty of orgs involved

 

[Crowstalker]

There is a reason why firearms are siezed, I would guess violence has happened or threatened, then I would fully expect the police to act. Domestic abuse will be a massive issue. You don't get your guns taken for no reason.

 

[Apthorpe]

It doesn’t look like there is either an excessive number of these events, nor enough data to justify any comments about trends. This year’s figures may be very different, but I doubt there were widespread failures in licensing previously which would lead to a big uptick now.
The system was too heavy on pointless admin and unnecessary restrictions and a few police staff are now being scapegoated for a failure in a pretty silly system. Judging by the current recruitment advert, FEOs are paid well under median wage for doing a job which is supposed to require some skill, knowledge and judgment. If the Chief Constables offer peanut wages and insist on loads of pointless extra restrictions, then it’s no surprise if a monkey makes a mistake from time to time.

 

[HDShark]

I cannot see how it is possible/legal for the police to revoke a cert without explaining the circumstances behind the decision and keeping the cert holder up dated on the investigation, it is highly probable that a number of these revocations were/are warranted.

They may very well be unwarranted in the generally accepted social sense, however ''possible/legal'' you would be hard pressed to argue. Section 30 (1) (a) of the firearms act is the relevant piece of legislation, with particular emphasis on "or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm". There is no strict legal frame work in place to determine what this amounts to, and it is solely up to the opinion of the chief officer. Effectively, the mere suggestion that someone is unsuitable to possess firearms, is enough to warrant revocation, whether that revocation was based on correct or incorrect information.

 

[Tf223]

They may very well be unwarranted in the generally accepted social sense, however ''possible/legal'' you would be hard pressed to argue. Section 30 (1) (a) of the firearms act is the relevant piece of legislation, with particular emphasis on "or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm". There is no strict legal frame work in place to determine what this amounts to, and it is solely up to the opinion of the chief officer. Effectively, the mere suggestion that someone is unsuitable to possess firearms, is enough to warrant revocation, whether that revocation was based on correct or incorrect information.

A revocation will not occur on mere suggestion. It’s based on ‘the balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ test.

The police will need some evidence/intel to support potential appeal, but the threshold is reasonably low as it takes a precautionary approach to protecting the safety of the public like many licensing regimes.

I have no issue with the police and revocations. Other than the slow service, I am reasonably happy with the way they deliver the service within the context of the legal framework.

Sure there may be an odd case that could fail on an appeal, but I strongly doubt there would be a single one with absolutely no form of justification behind it.

 

[Greenmist]

Perhaps another FOI request could be made
1. Reason for revocations
2. Historic reason or current

 

[Tf223]

further FOIs will be a waste of time and a waste of public resources IMHO.

Without specific detail the reason will be given as ‘public safety’, to gain any real insight you would need a full redacted file for each case to understand the circumstances and form any balanced opinion. Even then I doubt anything will be gleaned other than the fact there will have been X,Y, or Z grounds to seeking the revocation.

Second question doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Liveonce]

A revocation will not occur on mere suggestion. It’s based on ‘the balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ test.

however should it be the police to reach the conclusion and final decision or should that not be for the courts to decide?
no legal expert, but could the police for example take away your driving licence or does that decision have to go before a court?

 

[Tf223]

however should it be the police to reach the conclusion and final decision or should that not be for the courts to decide?
no legal expert, but could the police for example take away your driving licence or does that decision have to go before a court?

Legally yes it is for the Police.

Could the law be changed and it be done another way, yes. Would the courts and government see justification in further increasing the backlog within the court service, no - mainly because there appears to be nothing to show that the police are failing in their role as licensing authority with this regard. There can also be delays in getting things in court, and this may risk public safety too.

Typical of most licensing regimes, the licensing authority make the decision being the ‘expert’ with knowledge of the regime and the public safety considerations. The Courts act as the final arbitrator in the even of dispute or disagreement.

other than perceptions against the police, where is the evidence to show that the police in the whole are not capable or cannot be trusted to make appropriate revocation decisions - comment obviously pending the report into the Plymouth shootings. Also where is the evidence that lay magistrates will make better decisions.

Personally I understand your thoughts, but don’t see the case to justify it. But do enjoy debating these things!