I asked for some prliminary advice on a possible Judicial Review over medicals and conflict with Guidance, so far this is what I have received.
I write in response to your enquiry (omission) regarding a possible judicial review of the way in which the firearms legislation is administered and the associated guidance is implemented on behalf of the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police. You raised particular concerns about the apparent requirement for firearm and shotgun certificate applications to be supported by GP reports, even in cases where no relevant medical conditions have been disclosed by applicants.
I assist (Name), who specialises in firearms matters and who is also the honorary solicitor for the CPSA. Unfortunately (name) is on leave this week and next week looks like being particularly busy on her return, so I am sending this brief response now in her absence. If (Name), whose experience of judicial reviews will exceed my own, wishes to add anything further on her return, I am sure that she will contact you.
As you are aware, guidance was provided to police forces by the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) on the subject of medical evidence; GPs were similarly provided with guidance by the medical authorities. This was done in the hope of ensuring uniformity of practice, but some police forces and GP practices have since drifted away from the recommended course and implemented different or additional requirements.
Lincolnshire Police is not the only force to have strayed from the NPCC’s guidance, but there is no reason why you should not write to the Chief Constable seeking an explanation for why they have done so.
It is worth remembering that the law requires the Chief Officer to grant or renew a shotgun certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant represents a danger to public safety or to the peace; it does not require the applicant or his or her GP to prove that no such danger exists. Similarly, as you will be aware, any decision to refuse an application or to revoke a certificate may be appealed at the Crown Court; those hearing such cases will hopefully consider when reaching their own judgement whether the practices which led to the refusal or revocation decisions were reasonable.
One other factor which may influence your decision on whether to defer any potential judicial review for the time being is that, as recently as last week, the Home Office announced a consultation paper regarding proposed amendments to the guidance relating to the administration of the firearms legislation. One of the proposals is that no certificate application should be processed without an accompanying report from the applicant’s GP.
I have attached below a link to the consultation paper and you will see that responses will be accepted from individuals as well as from organisations, so that may provide an additional forum in which to raise your concerns.
Statutory guidance to police on firearms licensing
So the change we do not want is coming as we all suspected - the opportunity for JR is all but lost - it would require a new case quickly brought. Sad to see the change from the underlined to the last line has been resisted by - no-one. it has been condoned and even welcomed for a quid pro quo which never materialised. This a fundamental loss of right and " the voice of shooting" complains that any objection to their consistent failure to deliver, is BASC-bashing. I leave you all to judge but the case is made and the organisation convicted for me. Seems the political route was never an option.
N.B. The response does not say that a JR would be pointless - just (in all but words) pointless now - as I have already said - this change is to legitimise what could have been the subject of a JR when the first case arose in England - if not Scotland - I need to look at the Scottish system to see if the political landscape militated against a challenge there - I will be back.
I write in response to your enquiry (omission) regarding a possible judicial review of the way in which the firearms legislation is administered and the associated guidance is implemented on behalf of the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police. You raised particular concerns about the apparent requirement for firearm and shotgun certificate applications to be supported by GP reports, even in cases where no relevant medical conditions have been disclosed by applicants.
I assist (Name), who specialises in firearms matters and who is also the honorary solicitor for the CPSA. Unfortunately (name) is on leave this week and next week looks like being particularly busy on her return, so I am sending this brief response now in her absence. If (Name), whose experience of judicial reviews will exceed my own, wishes to add anything further on her return, I am sure that she will contact you.
As you are aware, guidance was provided to police forces by the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) on the subject of medical evidence; GPs were similarly provided with guidance by the medical authorities. This was done in the hope of ensuring uniformity of practice, but some police forces and GP practices have since drifted away from the recommended course and implemented different or additional requirements.
Lincolnshire Police is not the only force to have strayed from the NPCC’s guidance, but there is no reason why you should not write to the Chief Constable seeking an explanation for why they have done so.
It is worth remembering that the law requires the Chief Officer to grant or renew a shotgun certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant represents a danger to public safety or to the peace; it does not require the applicant or his or her GP to prove that no such danger exists. Similarly, as you will be aware, any decision to refuse an application or to revoke a certificate may be appealed at the Crown Court; those hearing such cases will hopefully consider when reaching their own judgement whether the practices which led to the refusal or revocation decisions were reasonable.
One other factor which may influence your decision on whether to defer any potential judicial review for the time being is that, as recently as last week, the Home Office announced a consultation paper regarding proposed amendments to the guidance relating to the administration of the firearms legislation. One of the proposals is that no certificate application should be processed without an accompanying report from the applicant’s GP.
I have attached below a link to the consultation paper and you will see that responses will be accepted from individuals as well as from organisations, so that may provide an additional forum in which to raise your concerns.
Statutory guidance to police on firearms licensing
So the change we do not want is coming as we all suspected - the opportunity for JR is all but lost - it would require a new case quickly brought. Sad to see the change from the underlined to the last line has been resisted by - no-one. it has been condoned and even welcomed for a quid pro quo which never materialised. This a fundamental loss of right and " the voice of shooting" complains that any objection to their consistent failure to deliver, is BASC-bashing. I leave you all to judge but the case is made and the organisation convicted for me. Seems the political route was never an option.
N.B. The response does not say that a JR would be pointless - just (in all but words) pointless now - as I have already said - this change is to legitimise what could have been the subject of a JR when the first case arose in England - if not Scotland - I need to look at the Scottish system to see if the political landscape militated against a challenge there - I will be back.
