guns taken
- Thread starter tolley
- Start date
police complaints commission?
if you mean the IOPC then I think you have to first have made a formal complaint against the chief constable via the crime commissioner only after the conclusion of that can you take the complaint to the IOPC but they do not investigate the complaint, apparently they investigate the way the complaint was dealt with to reach the conclusion.
malc queen
Active Member
No a person attacked me I retaliated to protect my self he phoned police I don’t know what he said to them obviously said I own guns so when I got home from work at hospital police came aru x 3 arrested me took guns let me go after 6 hours I put in counter allegation that went to crown prosecution service they decided no charges I saw a solicitor they said wait till any charges brought Iv not seen a solicitor about guns because Iv been waiting to see what they do my firearms officer thought I would get them back but today I got in touch with firearms office after months of trying to talk to someone in there hq and they said licenses gunna be revoked and supervisor will phone me so I’m waiting. Iv had no meeting with them at all
HDShark
Well-Known Member
A solicitor won't help you at this point, if the decision has already been made to revoke your certificate. You are likely to have three future courses of action.
Your immediate option would be to try to stop the revocation from happening, by arranging a face to face meeting with the firearms licencing inspector, explaining your case with whatever supporting evidence you can muster, and hope they have a change of heart.
Failing that then you will be looking at an appeals process in the crown court, to challenge the revocation of your certificates. You will need a solicitor or direct access barrister or that, and it will be expensive if you can't have the process funded through your shooting insurance. Legal aid is not available for these matters.
Third option is to accept their reasons for the decision, cooperate with them and re apply in a couple of years, having had no further allegations of violent conduct made against you.
A bad situation to be in, I feel for you.
Your immediate option would be to try to stop the revocation from happening, by arranging a face to face meeting with the firearms licencing inspector, explaining your case with whatever supporting evidence you can muster, and hope they have a change of heart.
Failing that then you will be looking at an appeals process in the crown court, to challenge the revocation of your certificates. You will need a solicitor or direct access barrister or that, and it will be expensive if you can't have the process funded through your shooting insurance. Legal aid is not available for these matters.
Third option is to accept their reasons for the decision, cooperate with them and re apply in a couple of years, having had no further allegations of violent conduct made against you.
A bad situation to be in, I feel for you.
Your first point is correct but your second isn't - see below.
In these cases I suggest restraint in regards to comments, there is a simple formula to ascertain what happened and we don't know the answer.
What "A" says, can contradict what "B" says and what "B" says, can contradict what "A" says.
Normally somewhere between A and B is the truth of the matter.
What "A" says, can contradict what "B" says and what "B" says, can contradict what "A" says.
Normally somewhere between A and B is the truth of the matter.
Is this person known to you? How do they know you have guns? Is there any history between you, perhaps past animosity that could be used to strengthen your case?
This is the problem with anything related to firearms cert issues - it leaves the FAC holder with a choice of “do nothing” or “spend a lot of money”…..
That needs to change. If this guys really was defending himself this should have been sorted within a few days, not months and certainly shouldn’t have led to the revoking of his certs - although as said by someone else there may be another side to the story such as unreasonable force in the eyes of the police….
I know of one instance where someone was attacked, however after lamping the person back and essentially neutralising the threat they also hoofed the person when on the floor - immediately seen as unreasonable force.
Jon P
Well-Known Member
If you have a FAC or SG licence as soon as your details are received by the police you flag up as a firearms holder. I got punched in the face in work last August whilst out on a job. Police were called- no action taken against the person who punched me as only witness was assailants son who denied it happened.
8.30 am the following I have a phone call from FEO doing a check that I was “going to leave my guns in the cabinet” .
As it was a work related incident my line manager insisted police take a formal statement from me due to the physical assault- police officer taking the statement stated - I should of punched him back as you have right to defend yourself- I am glad I just took the punch and walked away now TBH if defending yourself will get your certificate revoked. Bruised face is cheaper then £10k court case.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
You simply cannot say whether or not there are any independent witnesses involved. Why would the press be involved? There should be 'minutes' of any meetings held and these (where appropriate) can be made a public record.
This does seem unfair. It would (in my opinion) be fairer and more reasonable to have any review conducted locally, with both parties represented. This is of course what happens at a Crown Court review and that is terribly expensive for any FAC/SGC holder to defend.
This is correct. Whilst it is may seem unfair, it is to stop retaliation against complainants. If Police were to disclose where and from whom they got their information, people would be at risk and people would stop giving the Police information on anything.
Not quite sure this argument holds water. If a review has taken place, then it has taken place, notwithstanding the FAC/SGC holder is not informed if the result is 'negative'. It is unreasonable to expect the Police to inform everyone that a complaint has been made against them, investigated and found to be groundless.
This is an unhappy truth. It is all about managing risk and the way to minimise that risk is to turn up without an appointment. As for removing scopes etc., provided the 'rails' can be manage, I see no reason why this cannot be facilitated.
Additionally, I know of cases where FAC/SGC holders have placed their firearms with an RFD - in anticipation of Police investigations.
As above, I think this is unfair on the FAC/SGC holder. I can understand why the Police would like to pass the risk over to a Crown Court, but it strikes me as unfair that the costs of defending yourself at such a review are so onerous.
I would be very interesting to hear suggestions from others about how this issue could better be managed - because there is certainly room for improvement.
malc queen
Active Member
Ya daughters x boyfriend
I think it’s important to remember we are grown men (and women) if the price of keeping my guns is letting someone punch me and not being able to defend myself I’d just as soon they take the guns….the important part is ensuring you don’t go the other way and become the aggressor.
doric_prince
Well-Known Member
A bit of a curved ball, but try and put in a FOI request in writing (it’s free, easy to do you just need to write a letter and quote the FOI act) asking for information held about you between x and y dates regarding z be disclosed to you. This is your right under the freedom of information act- Police will redact sensitive info and / or names of any other individual involved but you might get details of why you are being revoked. Just a thought.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
The OP should consider doing a Subject Access Request to his police force. These are free of charge.
HDShark
Well-Known Member
Well, just because he is doing nothing about the problem, doesn't mean his only choice is to 'do nothing'. I'd humbly suggest that he takes my first piece of advice and makes a significant effort to hold a meeting with his licencing department, before the revocation is set in stone. They likely have extremely limited information surrounding the circumstances, and the police officers who have already been involved in the matter, will have no duty or interest in arguing his case for him.
This really is the best option for the chap, at this point. Time to explain the matter, to the people making the decision, not to strangers on a forum!
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the reply.
The system is totally biased against the firearms certificate holder and they are being denied very basic legal rights, it needs to be challenged and reviewed, not just as an individual case, the process itself is fatally flawed and unconstitutional.
The difficulty would be that you are not dealing just with legislation, you're dealing with policy, procedures and interpretations of legislation. The police will insist that their policy and procedures are fully backed by legislation and will fight any challenge.
Why wouldn’t they? Currently they can pretty much do as they wish with virtually no risk of consequences even if they get it wrong.
Push for a judicial review or refer it to the House of Lords, there are more than enough grounds for doing so.
The only solution that I can see is a judicial review of the process
Swedish
Well-Known Member
You make a very good point. Holding a FAC/SGC should not automatically qualify one to become a defenceless punchbag. The seemingly 'standard' procedure of removing firearms from the certificate holder's possession simply because they have been involved in a fracas seems odd. Why stop there? Why not remove peoples' cars, kitchen implements, tools, shoelaces, lead piping, big dogs, stones from the garden etc? What is the real, tested rationale behind the procedure?
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
Absolutely outrageous that anyone should be denied the basic right to defend themselves without running the risk of being unfairly deprived of other rights . . . .
I was researching this a bit last night. The legislation, though granting the CC some considerable leeway on these decisions, does not justify the approach which is perceived to be being taken by police. I say perceived as we are only seeing one side of it. Nonetheless, there is "no smoke without fire" and the number of seemingly arbitrary revocations is a concern.
Revocation requires the CC to be "have reason to believe" (in the case of a FAC) or be "satisfied" (in the case of a SGC) that the holder cannot be permitted to retain their license without a risk to the public. In the case of a FAC, reason to believe the person is of unsound mind, of intemperate habits or unfitted to holding a license will also suffice.
Neither of those requirements mean the CC needs to be confident beyond reasonable doubt or, even, on the balance of probabilities that someone is unsuitable. I would think it is more a case that they consider plausible evidence exists of wrongdoing that causes them to question suitability. It is also appropriate (and there is case law on this) that the CC can consider any relevant evidence, i.e. they are not stuck with convictions, cautions or other "tested" evidence. That gives them a pretty wide discretion. However, the key word here is "discretion" which implies a decision in good faith taken after the consideration of available evidence.
What is most concerning is that CCs seem to be applying a blanket policy that could be described as "an abundance of caution". In doing so, they risk ignoring the hierarchy of evidence and taking any evidence at face value. Without testing this evidence, or giving the license holder an opportunity to reply to it, they chose to revoke as it is the safest option and the one which will avoid any public criticism. I do not doubt that the cost of an appeal would weigh in this process, and make them think they are safe in 9/10 cases as they will simply not be challenged.
What I found more comforting is that the Court process (an appeal to a Circuit Judge in the Crown Court, not a judicial review) is expected to form its own view as to whether the license should be revoked. It is not merely a review of the CCs decision to check it is lawful and reasonable (in the legal sense which means "not very unreasonable").
The kinds of judges who will hear these appeals will be well versed in evidence and will be used to criminal proceedings, where there is a tendency to be wary of any evidence which is not tested through cross-examination. A case from the High Court that I read (a review of a Crown Court decision) made clear that while any evidence can be considered, hearsay was not to be given as much weight as tested evidence or a conviction and that the license holder should expect to be able to see the evidence against them in order that they can look to rebut it or explain it. Rules of natural justice should apply.
This did leave me thinking that if you can fund an appeal to the Crown Court, a revocation taken off the back of a single incident, where the applicant is of good character and where the evidence is based on allegations which are not backed by good evidence would be at real risk of being overturned. the abundance of caution approach would likely be seen as a derogation from proper decision making. Nonetheless, I would not expect a Judge to interfere with a decision where it is finely balanced either way, they would probably accept that was for the CC to call.
Of course, it may be that many CCs are quite happy with this approach. If the decision is overturned by a Judge there will be no costs order against the police unless they have been unreasonable or wholly unreasonable and, by having a Judge overturn the decision, the CC will have "covered their backside" in the event that the license holder does do something stupid - they will just blame the Judge.
If there is a solution, I think it lies with forcing CCs to be a bit more transparent about their reasoning and creating an expectation on them to properly decide on the evidence available. Going straight to revocation as the safe option needs to end. The orgs would do well to be on the lookout for winnable appeals to fund.
Revocation requires the CC to be "have reason to believe" (in the case of a FAC) or be "satisfied" (in the case of a SGC) that the holder cannot be permitted to retain their license without a risk to the public. In the case of a FAC, reason to believe the person is of unsound mind, of intemperate habits or unfitted to holding a license will also suffice.
Neither of those requirements mean the CC needs to be confident beyond reasonable doubt or, even, on the balance of probabilities that someone is unsuitable. I would think it is more a case that they consider plausible evidence exists of wrongdoing that causes them to question suitability. It is also appropriate (and there is case law on this) that the CC can consider any relevant evidence, i.e. they are not stuck with convictions, cautions or other "tested" evidence. That gives them a pretty wide discretion. However, the key word here is "discretion" which implies a decision in good faith taken after the consideration of available evidence.
What is most concerning is that CCs seem to be applying a blanket policy that could be described as "an abundance of caution". In doing so, they risk ignoring the hierarchy of evidence and taking any evidence at face value. Without testing this evidence, or giving the license holder an opportunity to reply to it, they chose to revoke as it is the safest option and the one which will avoid any public criticism. I do not doubt that the cost of an appeal would weigh in this process, and make them think they are safe in 9/10 cases as they will simply not be challenged.
What I found more comforting is that the Court process (an appeal to a Circuit Judge in the Crown Court, not a judicial review) is expected to form its own view as to whether the license should be revoked. It is not merely a review of the CCs decision to check it is lawful and reasonable (in the legal sense which means "not very unreasonable").
The kinds of judges who will hear these appeals will be well versed in evidence and will be used to criminal proceedings, where there is a tendency to be wary of any evidence which is not tested through cross-examination. A case from the High Court that I read (a review of a Crown Court decision) made clear that while any evidence can be considered, hearsay was not to be given as much weight as tested evidence or a conviction and that the license holder should expect to be able to see the evidence against them in order that they can look to rebut it or explain it. Rules of natural justice should apply.
This did leave me thinking that if you can fund an appeal to the Crown Court, a revocation taken off the back of a single incident, where the applicant is of good character and where the evidence is based on allegations which are not backed by good evidence would be at real risk of being overturned. the abundance of caution approach would likely be seen as a derogation from proper decision making. Nonetheless, I would not expect a Judge to interfere with a decision where it is finely balanced either way, they would probably accept that was for the CC to call.
Of course, it may be that many CCs are quite happy with this approach. If the decision is overturned by a Judge there will be no costs order against the police unless they have been unreasonable or wholly unreasonable and, by having a Judge overturn the decision, the CC will have "covered their backside" in the event that the license holder does do something stupid - they will just blame the Judge.
If there is a solution, I think it lies with forcing CCs to be a bit more transparent about their reasoning and creating an expectation on them to properly decide on the evidence available. Going straight to revocation as the safe option needs to end. The orgs would do well to be on the lookout for winnable appeals to fund.
Similar threads
