Police (Scotland) warning...?
- Thread starter Mossypaw
- Start date
the_greenman
Well-Known Member
You don't get given a list of solicitors. The custody will pick the next duty one on their list and keep going through it until one is available to attend. They are all criminal law trained. Its a requirement. The only problem with them is they often want the business afterwards so are known to try and delay the process by just saying no comment...you get bailed...you go and see them later they take on your case..if you have your own solicitor (criminal law trained) then use them.
This is the whole reason I stopped drinking in pubs, as soon as I got involved in shooting I stopped drinking with my friends just in case this type of thing happened.
As previously said a above, get a lawyer just to cover you posterior!
Good luck
I stopped practicing law in Scotland a number of years back so my advice is a little out of date but based on fact as I it was.
1. Say NOTHING until you've spoken to a lawyer. Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 permits that.
2. Do not be perturbed by a duty solicitor. You won't get some kind of family law specialist. When I was in practice, only those who did criminal work were on the list in the Sheriffdom I was in. A duty criminal solicitor is better than the guy who did you last divorce but knows you.
3. The police have to act in the interests of public safety. You're accused of committing a violent act, you have firearms; their options are limited. I would suggest that they should have asked questions first but the current mood in Scotland is hardly "pro gun".
4. See comment 1.
5. Under Cadder v HMA 2010 they wold struggle to use anything in court that was obtained with legal advice... more or less. This got rid of the interview without a lawyer that used to exist.
If you're still up in the NW (based on your profile), I don't know anyone in practice there. I can ask a few contacts though.
With regard to a warning, they could mean either a warning from the Procurator Fiscal or a police caution. Accept neither... again see point 1.
1. Say NOTHING until you've spoken to a lawyer. Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 permits that.
2. Do not be perturbed by a duty solicitor. You won't get some kind of family law specialist. When I was in practice, only those who did criminal work were on the list in the Sheriffdom I was in. A duty criminal solicitor is better than the guy who did you last divorce but knows you.
3. The police have to act in the interests of public safety. You're accused of committing a violent act, you have firearms; their options are limited. I would suggest that they should have asked questions first but the current mood in Scotland is hardly "pro gun".
4. See comment 1.
5. Under Cadder v HMA 2010 they wold struggle to use anything in court that was obtained with legal advice... more or less. This got rid of the interview without a lawyer that used to exist.
If you're still up in the NW (based on your profile), I don't know anyone in practice there. I can ask a few contacts though.
With regard to a warning, they could mean either a warning from the Procurator Fiscal or a police caution. Accept neither... again see point 1.
It is funny how it works and it is all down to the individual constable , I recently had someone on here make a complaint to the police about one of my reviews, albeit I was all legal and above board they DID NOT respond the way you have described with me in fact it was all very polite and no-one at all has been to arrest my firearms, anyways long story short I contacted BASC and even in BASCs eyes I have none nothing wrong so I have not heard anything.
I gave up working the doors and security for this very reason, being cautioned for an offence is not necessarily admission of you committing that offence, it is just part of the procedure that the police follow before they can make an application to the Procurator Fiscal for official charging.
In process consult BASC or your representative body SACS etc. get their advice and ask if they are willing to give you support , if your with BASC Dr Colin Sheddon is fantastic and I always find him very approachable. The fact they have already taken your firearms without charging you or without even having in for a formal interview yet suggests that their evidence for seizure is stronger than you may think. Trust me you can never know what an officer is thinking and a lot of the time his personal thoughts are irrelevant.
BASC etc then Solicitor if need be but also pick a solicitor that knows about firearms.
I gave up working the doors and security for this very reason, being cautioned for an offence is not necessarily admission of you committing that offence, it is just part of the procedure that the police follow before they can make an application to the Procurator Fiscal for official charging.
In process consult BASC or your representative body SACS etc. get their advice and ask if they are willing to give you support , if your with BASC Dr Colin Sheddon is fantastic and I always find him very approachable. The fact they have already taken your firearms without charging you or without even having in for a formal interview yet suggests that their evidence for seizure is stronger than you may think. Trust me you can never know what an officer is thinking and a lot of the time his personal thoughts are irrelevant.
BASC etc then Solicitor if need be but also pick a solicitor that knows about firearms.
One more thing, almost every weekend a firearms holder has his firearms removed because of incidents in pubs almost all the time they have their guns back quite quickly . My suggestion is take this as an experience to learn from.
Over the years I have advised fellow shooters who work in front line jobs to either quit shooting or quit their job, I have a friend who is a CP officer that recently had his guns removed because he was doing his job. When it comes to an incident where you are involved in things at work all parties are charged and it is up to the courts to decide whether you were lawful or not.
Over the years I have advised fellow shooters who work in front line jobs to either quit shooting or quit their job, I have a friend who is a CP officer that recently had his guns removed because he was doing his job. When it comes to an incident where you are involved in things at work all parties are charged and it is up to the courts to decide whether you were lawful or not.
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
I don't know if the law is different in Scotland but in England there is no power to seize firearms unless they revoke your certificates or you willingly surrendered them.
F
F
The police, predictably are being ultra cautious and have took your guns. Pretty much always a precaution that is not needed, but they will argue it only takes one time, which you really can't argue with. Basically, they'll see this as an (extended) domestic incident and will be considering not only what is to be done about this incident, but also what might happen in the future. If things are as you say and you merely restrained your son's ex, then likely, if the evidence supports this, there'll be no further action. But, like many public bodies, statistics count and a caution or warning is a successfully solved crime. So like everyone else says, don't fall for that one. And the order of play is always instruct a solicitor before interview.
Assuming the advice is not to say "no comment", you need to come across as a reasonable, sane person who has no real axe to grind. Which means speaking about the complainant in a detached, reasonable manner. If she has been unreasonable in her actions, merely tell it how it was and leave the cops to come to the conclusion that these are the petulant actions of a spurned lover. In other words, don't bad-mouth her and tell the police what she deserves. That may not go too well when you enquire after your firearms. If there is any way you can convince them that you intend to not have any interaction with her, all the better. For example if this happened in a pub that is frequented by both parties, volunteer that you don't go there any more.
I guess what I'm saying is hopefully the alleged assault will be seen to be the rubbish it is, but always have in your mind the decision they'll be making concerning your firearms and certificates after this unpleasantness is dealt with.
But, as with all advice on a forum such as this, although it might be useful, possibly even correct, speak to the solicitor and give him/her your thoughts and formulate the plan before anything else.
One other thing to avoid confusion: They may well caution you (informing you that you do not have to say anything etc.) That's one thing. But a formal caution which you may accept or not is an admission of guilt where the police decide you are guilty but won't take you to court. In effect, it's the same as a conviction. The only time you would accept a caution is when there is overwhelming evidence that you have committed an assault and it's the preferred option where the alternative is court. And then only after advice.
Assuming the advice is not to say "no comment", you need to come across as a reasonable, sane person who has no real axe to grind. Which means speaking about the complainant in a detached, reasonable manner. If she has been unreasonable in her actions, merely tell it how it was and leave the cops to come to the conclusion that these are the petulant actions of a spurned lover. In other words, don't bad-mouth her and tell the police what she deserves. That may not go too well when you enquire after your firearms. If there is any way you can convince them that you intend to not have any interaction with her, all the better. For example if this happened in a pub that is frequented by both parties, volunteer that you don't go there any more.
I guess what I'm saying is hopefully the alleged assault will be seen to be the rubbish it is, but always have in your mind the decision they'll be making concerning your firearms and certificates after this unpleasantness is dealt with.
But, as with all advice on a forum such as this, although it might be useful, possibly even correct, speak to the solicitor and give him/her your thoughts and formulate the plan before anything else.
One other thing to avoid confusion: They may well caution you (informing you that you do not have to say anything etc.) That's one thing. But a formal caution which you may accept or not is an admission of guilt where the police decide you are guilty but won't take you to court. In effect, it's the same as a conviction. The only time you would accept a caution is when there is overwhelming evidence that you have committed an assault and it's the preferred option where the alternative is court. And then only after advice.
the_greenman
Well-Known Member
Not true. The power to hold a firearm is granted by the Chief Constable and the firearms licencing department act on his authority. The police can withdraw the right to possess your firearms at any point but it must be for a genuine reason. An allegation of committing an act of violence against another is a good enough reason. They cannot be seen to allow a person access to firearms while the investigation is ongoing. That's common sense and arse covering for them. Remember the hoops we jump through to be allowed that bit of paper so if we're seen to not be or alleged that we've not been, of good character then they will for however long it takes remove any further potential issues.
Just to add as soon as you have taken the decision to restrict a person or persons movement then that is assault plain and simple it is whether it is a chargeable assault or not that the police will have to ascertain, So you putting an arm out and touching someone whether or not your intentions were good does not mean that you were lawful.
This is a mistake that many people make when getting involved in fights and argument, even a police officer in Scotland responding to an incident can be charged or investigated for assault if they have to become physical. The law is different in England.
This is a mistake that many people make when getting involved in fights and argument, even a police officer in Scotland responding to an incident can be charged or investigated for assault if they have to become physical. The law is different in England.
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
Quite right Greenman 'The police can withdraw the right to possess your firearms at any point' but in order to do so they must revoke your certificates otherwise why would they have enacted S. 12 of the 1988 Firearms Act? And for 'genuine reason' read danger to public safety or the peace.
F
F
Oracle
Well-Known Member
There are about 6 pieces of primary legislation ranging from the Firearm Act to Wildlife and Countryside Act that, in certain circumstances, give the police powers to seize firearms, ammunition etc.
The power used most frequently is seizure under Common Law to prevent Breach of the Peace/Danger to Public Safety. Very few seizures result in an immediate revocation of certificates, as any ongoing investigation by police will run its course prior to the relevant firearms licensing authority investigating a certificate holders continued suitability. Irrespective of what powers they use, the officers will still need to justify their decision making processes and course of action.
Indeed. Which is really sad because it stops genuinely good and caring people from helping out vulnerable members of society.
Many years back I was out in town having a few with some friends. I was walking home afterwards through the town centre with one friend when we came across a couple having a row. Proper loud, aggressive and the guy was towering over the women with his fist clenched and arm raised verbally threatening her and telling her what he was going to do to her. It looked like he was about to give her a right hiding. We very politely just made them aware of our presence and asked the girl if she was ok and she was the one that turned on us ha ha. Seriously, you couldn't make it up.
Some people are just feral and whilst most men and women are fine, the small minority of morons make life miserable for so many. Women are often the route of arguments.
I have never ever voluntarily got involved in that sort of thing again and have actively left situations whereby someone might have got a pasting. It is just not my problem and you cannot rely on people to be rational. People in the wrong are very defensive and make all sorts of stuff up.
I will always help an elderly person or someone with a health issue but domestics and stuff resulting from arguments with females? No chance. I also actively avoid stuff like parking disputes now as well. Years back I would have argued to the death on principle but these days I just refuse. Society has much to answer for.
Hope the OP is treated properly and you have your guns back very soon and in A1 condition.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
+1. In fact +2.
Also whilst a solicitor cannot tell you what to do you can try asking them, if they think you need a "time out" because of the way questioning is going to click the top of their biro, sniff with their nose, or somesuch. Apparently. According to the television programmes I've watched.
And you have every right to have any allegation put before any interview starts and once any allegation has been put to request that that before any interview takes place that you first consult your solicitor alone. Also, according to television I've watched if you get asked a difficult complicated question some ask for it to be repeated. As often what is then asked isn't quite as difficult.
Finally be aware of the "country lane". That has a gate halfway along. Some lines of questioning will seem quite innocent. Except one will serve to shut that gate behind you. You then get led along that "country lane" then asked a question that you then can't negate as you've shut that gate behind you long back down the lane. The classic example of the above often once taught to lawyers was a case in WWII.
A Native American GI murdered a woman with a distinctive Sioux or some such Indian knife with a defect in the blade that left an imprint on the bone of the victim. His knife. He then disposed of the knife down a drain immediately after the murder. The knife was recovered but no fingerprints. The man was asked early on..."is this your knife?". To which he categorically says, twice "No." The interview then carries on. Then some good time later he's asked does he know soldier x, soldier y and soldier z. To which he says he does. He's then told that ALL have given statements saying that the knife found is this GI's knife.
At which point he's then asked why has he denied it was his knife. And is in the mire whereas had he said that it was but that he had lost it at some short time before the murder was done he would have gotten away with the crime.
Last edited:
Mick9abf
Well-Known Member
As mentioned I would ask for David McKie from Levy and McRae solicitors (I think). He specialises in (alleged) rural crime, and as such has dealt with firearms being removed frequently and is used by the SGA members.
The solicitor used is YOUR choice and doesn’t have to be in the same town/city, the Police will explain this to you.
A duty solicitor may have experience of firearms being taken but since legal aid is means tested if you have to pay your going to have to pay so get the best for your circumstances.
McKie advises all the Gamekeepers I know so take from that what you will, you may only get a telephone consultation at this time, that matters not and he will advise you what to (or most likely not to say).
If there are witnesses and CCTV of the incident and they reflect the circumstances as described then I wouldn’t overly concern myself.
The solicitor used is YOUR choice and doesn’t have to be in the same town/city, the Police will explain this to you.
A duty solicitor may have experience of firearms being taken but since legal aid is means tested if you have to pay your going to have to pay so get the best for your circumstances.
McKie advises all the Gamekeepers I know so take from that what you will, you may only get a telephone consultation at this time, that matters not and he will advise you what to (or most likely not to say).
If there are witnesses and CCTV of the incident and they reflect the circumstances as described then I wouldn’t overly concern myself.
Mick9abf
Well-Known Member
The CPS Act 1995 is no longer, it is now the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. You will no longer be detained but arrested as an ‘unofficial accused’, it is a play on words but is effectively the same thing although detention, or ‘arrest’ times are now longer and it pretty much mirrors PACE in that respect.
A friend who had an allegation made against him recently had his firearms removed by police and had them back within two weeks as it was, as in a lot of cases, a load of crap.
the_greenman
Well-Known Member
It may be the case that the firearms dept do revoke or suspend the certificate but that would be at office pace and not response/investigation pace. The duty inspector would have authorised the firearms to have been seized as soon as a pnc of the individual had been completed and they were seen to be on the nfld. As before they don't need to revoke the certificate to seize and plenty of people have had their guns taken for safe keeping sometimes only overnight while enquiries are made.
Similar threads
