I wouldn't argue with what you say per se in fact I think way more people are killed with knives than guns but it is a fact that centre fire fac is much harder to get granted than .22 or shotgun. I had centrefire .222 and .308 about 20 years ago and let them go after a serious accident put me out of the game) but kept .22 and shotgun (which I've held for over forty years now) yet when I reapplied I had to be mentored for five years with a .243. My FAO was the guy that gave Jake Davidson his shotgun grant.
Firearms Grant Refusal - Appeal
- Thread starter GMan14
- Start date
You are aware you just made a social media post about you shooting, aren’t you?
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
'No results found' returned from a search for this case.
Only appeals from Crown Courts to the High Court are recorded on BAILLI (which is free).
This is from the latest Home Office Guidance to Police (November 2022) . . .
20.10 As a general rule, no order for costs should be made against the police where an applicant is successful on appeal, unless, as an exception to the general rule, the police’s decision was unreasonable, or the police have acted in bad faith, in which case costs can be awarded against the police in those limited cases.
The main concern of the police should always be public protection. In these cases the following case law applies:
• Oldring v Chief Constable of Hampshire (2003) –
Costs should only be awarded against the police where their decision was “Wednesbury unreasonable;” meaning so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have arrived at it. The question of whether or not the police’s decision was reasonable should be judged on the basis of the material that was before the police at the time they made the decision.
• R (On the application of Chief Constable of Sussex) v Chichester Crown court (2003) –
Provided the Chief Constable reasonably comes to the conclusion that there are grounds to revoke and can maintain that view before the court, there can be no injustice to the appellant in denying them the ability to recover their costs even though they have succeeded on appeal.
20.11 Ultimately, the courts retain discretion over what to decide on the issue of costs, but the court will be bound to follow the applicable case law.
This is an internet forum, by Social Media I was referring to Facebook.
This forum is social media, as is Facebook, Instagram, twitter, etc etc etc.
All the same thing.
And anyone who knows how can find you, your real name, address etc, via your social media posts (including posts on here). It's pretty scary how easily it can be done.
Jagare
Well-Known Member
Yet here you are posting on a deer stalking forum. Perhaps SD is not really social media?
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Internet forums are social media….
Our views differ on this. We are going off topic here…..
So, if you don't consider a publicly viewable Internet forum, on which people socialise, follow one another and "like" various posts, to be social media, what the heck is?
Interesting, thanks for posting.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Just what is this exactly? Where does it come from? A phone screenshot is about as useful as a used bus ticket. It proves nothing without context.
The published FOI results from the Scottish Information Commissioner, and Police Scotland's 'Disclosure Log' 2022-2023 doesn't show anything related. Post the link you're using so everyone can see what these figures relate to. Every SIC request has an official reference number to follow.
Decisions | Scottish Information Commissioner
To find a specific decision, enter the first part of the decision number in the first box below and select the year, then click Filter. You can also use the boxes to find decisions by year, exemption/exception, or outcome. If you have enquiries about decisions or would like any assistance in...
www.itspublicknowledge.info
What's the difference ?
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
The other case was Ross v Met Police but i can't remember the date but it was over 5 years ago. I don't know where you get the idea that these would become case law, both cases were ordinary appeals under the Firearms Act which didn't get beyond the Crown Court. So not unreliable nor unlikely and not bull****. You won't find these judgements unless you apply to the courts involved.Frank, if you'll take my reply to this on board in the spirit it's offered, there are exceptions to every general rule. However, all important cases from Crown Courts are reported in the legal press in the interests of open justice. Believe me, firearms appeals where costs are awarded against a Chief Constable (CC) are so rare they are hot news, and become part of case law. Judges in lower courts then follow them, and every KC relies on them on behalf of their clients.
You've made a vague claim of two instances where costs were awarded to successful claimants. I believe this only occurs where the court rules that a Chief Constable acted unreasonably, or 'perversely' as Uncle Norm so neatly put it. If you care to quote the name of appellant, and the approximate year then if I can I'll find the judgment, and post a link to it so everyone can re-assess their chances. Your post sounds very unlikely in view of #51 above.
The case cited below is a High Court appeal from a decision of a Crown Court (you may need to cut & paste the whole link). There are many other cases like it, and transcripts for all of them are available. This case illustrates the legal principles a court follows in determing whether refusals and revocations of firearms certificates by a CC are justified, and how to decide related issues like costs. It might be of interest to some on TSD to see many of the factors involved, and inform themselves generally.
I can do similar searches, but if you've already got a link to your instances then please post it to save me time. If you can't supply enough basic facts to enable a search of the law databases online then your assertions are hearsay so unreliable. I won't use the term bull**** because it's easy to misinterpret judgments, which don't always say what they seem to.
Sinistral
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
