Wiltshire FLO judge a DD Conviction renders Priest an unfit Counter-Signatory

[NorthDorset]

Hi Brewsher. At the risk of repeating myself. Derrick Bird (Cumbrian Mass Murderer) Disqualified for DD and Nicked for theft I think. Chief Police Officer completely excused for issuing him a ticket.

I dont disagree that this should be a likely consideration for the revoking of a ticket but it currently isnt automatically. Therefore seems a bit harsh to be used to disqualify a counter-signatory.

Found this:

Drink Driving and Shotgun Licence

Question

I have justbeen disqualified for drink driving, and have been told I may lose my ShotgunCertificate. Is this correct?

[h=2]Answer[/h]
It ispossible but unlikely that your Certificate will be revoked.
S30 of theFirearms Act 1968 now allows your Chief Constable to revoke your ShotgunCertificate if he has reason to believe you are of “intemperate habits.”
Your drinkdrive conviction could therefore be used as grounds to support such arevocation. This is more likely if thedrink driving offence is an exceptionally serious one perhaps involving a veryhigh blood/alcohol level or having come to light after an accident caused bythe reckless driving of the certificate holder whilst “in drink”.
Althoughdrink driving has (on the face of it) nothing to do with whether a person canbe allowed to possess firearms without danger to the public or the peace, yourChief Constable is quite entitled to consider it. In the well known case of Germain the HighCourt decided that irresponsible or intemperate behaviour in any areas of acertificate holder’s life (i.e. areas unrelated to firearms) could be takeninto account in deciding whether he was a danger to the public or the peace incontinuing to possess firearms. In thiscontext drink driving convictions indicated a lack of self control.

However, inthe absence of aggravating factors, it is unusual for a certificate holder tolose his Shotgun Certificate after one drink drive conviction. It is more usual for him to receive a warningletter to the effect that if a further drink drive conviction follows he willthen be revoked.

If revokedafter an ordinary drink drive conviction you could Appeal to the Crown Courtwith a good prospect of success. Anysuch Appeal must be filed within 21 days of receipt of the Notice of Revocationand will then require detailed legal preparation.

David M.B. Barnes B.A.
is a Shooting and Countryside lawSolicitor
Enquiries Tel. 07733 226091
Email: bb@shootinglaw.co.uk


Dont disagree with how outrageous it is that people should selfishly drink and drive and cause injury or not . Sorry for your loss. (I have a paraplegic neighbour from same) Also accept that people are flawed and make mistakes and bad decisions when they have had a drink that they wouldnt normally dream of.

I take solace that no member of this forum would ever drink and go near a car or a gun.

 

[NorthDorset]

Timbrayford. Part of what I was getting at here is that they seem to be making the rules up as they go along. Yes I think a simpler less ambiguous solution is called for.

 

[Irish Bob]

Nope a Doctor usually loses his or her licence if they get that sort of conviction mate - my Doc and I had this conversation last time I was there!

I don't think a priest is on the "person of suitable standing" list is it? - The fact that he/she's a priest isn't enough to speak for their character, and whilst I'm not suggesting this is the case with your priest we had a local priest who was simply transferred to another area for being convicted of grooming young boys on the internet... my point being that impeccible public standing is not a pre-requisite of being a preist as they will not be thrown out of the church for breaking the law in the same way as a doctor or lawyer will lose their jobs for the same offence.

I used another FAC holder and my barber (mother of 3 and business owner) as my referees, and also got a couple of character references from my family GP and the owner of my rifle club.

Has yours gone through ok or do you need another referee? Have you got an old manager or something you can use?

This is incorrect. A drink drive conviction will not get a doctor struck off. There are plenty of doctors, solicitors and barristers floating around with DD convictions.

 

[Dalua]

having lost friends and had others injured by Drunk Drivers I cannot see why this is still viewed as acceptable crime.

I'm sorry to hear of your losses, but other motoring offences (speeding, driving without due care and attention and so on) also result in injury and loss of life.

These offences for some reason have quite a different public profile to driving with excess alcohol (which is what we're talking about - not driving while incapable through drink, necessarily).

It is odd.

 

[Irish Bob]

Why not?
if you are (hypothetically rather than you) irresponsible enough to knowingly endanger yourself and other road users/pedestrians in a truly selfish act.....it does not take a leap of imagination to think of the likelihood of that person shooting whilst drunk as a worse case but being solely in control of firearms.

I know someone first hand who had this happen. DD conviction. ARU visit. the end

having lost friends and had others injured by Drunk Drivers I cannot see why this is still viewed as acceptable crime.

Drinking and driving is not acceptable full stop.

 

[matt_hooks]

NorthDorset, that sentence would seem to be outwith the normal sentencing guidelines. My cousin was done or drink driving, being juat marginally over the limit, having driven less than 100 yards and not having injured anyone. He was handed down 16 months, reduced to 12. It doesn't get any less serious than what he was convicted of, and the judge said it was the minimum sentence available to him. That being the case, a three month ban would be strange to say the least.

 

[NorthDorset]

Matt I'm not a Judge and I don't feel qualified to comment on this sentence. Seems highly unlikely the press would downplay a sentence. Though perhaps they took into account the importance of his ministry to the needs of his parish which is very large.

This has all gone rather off topic.

If you have a counter-signatory of appropriate standing you had better check for skeletons in the closet nomatter how unrelated.

 

[Neil M]

Wilts FLO must be taking the preists DD conviction very seriously, they are the most helpful people going! I have signed many applications and none have been turned down or questioned. Perhaps the FLO was a choir boy in his younger days!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NorthDorset]

Wilts are amazingly helpful. Many say one of the best.

After the initial shock they have been nothing but efficient.

I still think this is harsh.

 

[Bandit Country]

I take solace that no member of this forum would ever drink and go near a car or a gun.

Given the number of members I think that, statistically, that might be a bit of wishful thinking......

 

[Chanty Wrassler]

if you are (hypothetically rather than you) irresponsible enough to knowingly endanger yourself and other road users/pedestrians in a truly selfish act...

Can you point to any evidence that drivers slightly over the prescribed limit are more dangerous than those below it?

..it does not take a leap of imagination to think of the likelihood of that person shooting whilst drunk as a worse case but being solely in control of firearms.

The fact that someone has a drink driving conviction does not mean that they were drunk.

having lost friends and had others injured by Drunk Drivers I cannot see why this is still viewed as acceptable crime.

Acceptable crime? It seems to be a vanishing crime, very few people get convicted of driving under the influence (Section 4)

 

[NorthDorset]

Given the number of members I think that, statistically, that might be a bit of wishful thinking......

I'd did go very quiet after that.

 

[matt_hooks]

Can you point to any evidence that drivers slightly over the prescribed limit are more dangerous than those below it?

That's not what they are convicted of. There has to be a limit set somewhere, and whether you are adversely affected or not, it is your responsibility to ensure you don't operate a vehicle with more than the prescribed amount of alcohol in your system.

ANY amount of alcohol can adversely affect the core skills required to drive safely. It slows reactions and reduces or removes inhibitions, increasing the risks you are willing to take. Whether you are slightly above or slightly below is immaterial (in fact you will have some serious questions to answer if you have an accident and have alcohol in your blood, even if it's below the legal limit)

The fact that someone has a drink driving conviction does not mean that they were drunk.

No indeed, it means that they are willing to ignore a law. That's not good for someone entrusted with a dangerous weapon (be it a car or a firearm)

Acceptable crime? It seems to be a vanishing crime, very few people get convicted of driving under the influence (Section 4)

Really?

Yes, if you choose to look ONLY at S4 convictions. Generally it is considered that a person isn't significantly impaired if their BAC is below the prescribed level for a S5 conviction. Why convict under S4 when a S5 is available?

Granted the level of offending has decreased recently, but still a significant number of people are caught each year, and many accidents and deaths are linked to DUI.

Government statistics show that the number of drink driving related convictions is actually pretty steady at around the 90000 p/a level. The number of accidents involving DUI have reduced greatly, and the number of deaths annually have reduced too. There is a certain amount of truth to the claim that the number of convictions is down to the increased enforcement efforts, but the numbers are still frighteningly high.

The stats are HERE

As for the three month sentence, I am not a judge either, but I can look up the sentencing tariff for the offence which is readily available online. The magistrate must have a pretty good reason to convict at a lower level than the minimum tariff!

 

[NorthDorset]

I'm sure he did Matt.

So given that and all of my previous points IT SEEMS HARSH!

As for a zero% tolerance. Nuts to that and nanny state!