Chief Constable Says NO

[poacher boy]

use are arguing amongst each other but the lad wont say why his mate has been refused it looks like something serious as if it wasnt he would say,*** so look a the obvious its his own stupid fault and take it from me i have a record from previous and i just say got mine and its from 22yrs ago.this is like the hunting life forum you arnt bothered unless you are arguing with each other.

 

 

I did say why he was refused, read my posts ( the chief constable said he did not believe he was fit enough person to hold a firearm certificate)thats what he has been refused on.

And tell me? what was his own stupid fault he has a clean record.

And i see you have a record, does that mean your stupid?

[Gnome of the Woods]

The Chief must have a reason to believe that, you have given us the effect not the cause!

Pointless carrying on as you will not say what and when, so we are unable to give the relevant advice apart from contact BASC!

[roadkill]

I did say why he was refused, read my posts ( the chief constable said he did not believe he was fit enough person to hold a firearm certificate)thats what he has been refused on.

And tell me? what was his own stupid fault he has a clean record.

And i see you have a record, does that mean your stupid?

 

it depends on what he was arrested for his record might well be clean but the arrest will still stop him getting a sgc fac if it has a good enough reason

[JustJon]

Don't want to go into what he was arrested for but at the end off the day he wasn't prosecuted and he didn't go to court as the case was threw out through lack off evidence. The Chief constable refused on the grounds that he deemed my friend was not a fit person to be given a firearm licence.

Yes he was cautioned as i believe you have to be when being arrested or charged (not sure) but if the charge was dropped so must the caution (i think)

 

I was arrested 4 years ago and released when I got to the station. Mis identified, by the time they hauled me in they'd checked the CCTV. The record was supposed to be removed and not on any criminal record checks - but my FAO knew all about it and wanted to know why I was arrested and what had happened.

 

Any easy explanation in my case, perhaps not so easy for your friend? Difficult to say as despite people wanting to help you are sketchy on the details. Not a criticism, but a fact. Tell the forum what he was arrested for and the full details and they'll give you a good estimate on whether they feel the certificate should be issued.

 

If not, I fear they can't help and this conversation is going no where.

 

Be well.

[Dirty Harry]

Kevlar,

 

If I don't know the subject I don't offer people advice on it. I seek advice from people do know the subject and usually know where to go to get it. If I'm wrong I would rather be corrected than give people incorrect information.

You assume a lot about people, me included. Do you assume I'm not a FLO?

 

Harry

[poontang]

Don't want to go into what he was arrested for but at the end off the day he wasn't prosecuted and he didn't go to court as the case was threw out through lack off evidence. The Chief constable refused on the grounds that he deemed my friend was not a fit person to be given a firearm licence.

Yes he was cautioned as i believe you have to be when being arrested or charged (not sure) but if the charge was dropped so must the caution (i think)

 

So he was arrested and the CPS decided not to prosecute due to lack of evidence?

 

Just as a matter of interest, did he actually commit the crime? (whatever it was)

[artschool]

I was arrested 4 years ago and released when I got to the station. Mis identified, by the time they hauled me in they'd checked the CCTV. The record was supposed to be removed and not on any criminal record checks - but my FAO knew all about it and wanted to know why I was arrested and what had happened.

 

Any easy explanation in my case, perhaps not so easy for your friend? Difficult to say as despite people wanting to help you are sketchy on the details. Not a criticism, but a fact. Tell the forum what he was arrested for and the full details and they'll give you a good estimate on whether they feel the certificate should be issued.

 

If not, I fear they can't help and this conversation is going no where.

 

Be well.

 

Same happened to my wife over a speeding offense that never happened, she was stopped but not charged yet the information was still on the computer.

 

Adolf Hitler wishes his records were as good as the British police

[tikka.223]

I did say why he was refused, read my posts ( the chief constable said he did not believe he was fit enough person to hold a firearm certificate)thats what he has been refused on.

 

Paramilitary,drug,violence,driving related??

Or is his refusal on medical reasons,depression,etc??

 

I dont think you'll get an answer here unless you post more information about his past,there's plenty of people wanting to help but you need to help yourself(and your mate)first by explaining the situation he was in.

[Pastiebap]

Don't want to go into what he was arrested for but at the end off the day he wasn't prosecuted and he didn't go to court as the case was threw out through lack off evidence. The Chief constable refused on the grounds that he deemed my friend was not a fit person to be given a firearm licence.

Yes he was cautioned as i believe you have to be when being arrested or charged (not sure) but if the charge was dropped so must the caution (i think)

You don't have to be convicted of anything to be deemed unfit. Nobody but the police will know what any criminal intelligence reports have said.

 

Also when only one side is heard you rarely get the full facts of an argument.

[pat 1]

As in any properly run police state you will only get the minimum amount of privelages that they deem you will accept.When did the police in this country become judge and executioner?,must have missed the law passed that gave them the right to decide on guilt or innocence.Is that not the job of our court system?. Where is the basic human right that a person is innocent until proven guilty,sounds like Gadaffi had some influence in this one.

 

Pat

[artschool]

"Properly run police state"

 

Lol on that one

[Pastiebap]

As in any properly run police state you will only get the minimum amount of privelages that they deem you will accept.When did the police in this country become judge and executioner?,must have missed the law passed that gave them the right to decide on guilt or innocence.Is that not the job of our court system?. Where is the basic human right that a person is innocent until proven guilty,sounds like Gadaffi had some influence in this one.

 

Pat

 

*** are you blethering on about? The Police do not make the rules, they enforce them. At a guess here is the legislation that they are probably using, the same legislation created by OURpoliticians:

 

The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Article 5

 

Grant of firearm certificate

This section has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

 

5.—(1) If he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have in his possession without danger to public safety or to the peace the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made, the Chief Constable may grant a firearm certificate.

 

(2) The Chief Constable shall not grant a firearm certificate unless he is satisfied that the applicant—

 

(a)is a fit person to be entrusted with a firearm; and

 

(b)has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, each firearm and any ammunition to which the certificate relates.

 

(3) Subject to Article 7, the Chief Constable shall not grant a firearm certificate to a person under the age of 18.

 

(4) The Chief Constable shall not grant a firearm certificate to a person who is prohibited by this Order from possessing a firearm.

 

(5) The Chief Constable may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so, provide the holder of a firearm certificate with a duplicate certificate on payment of the appropriate fee.

 

 

This is further defined in:

 

GUIDANCE ON NORTHERN IRELAND FIREARMS CONTROLS

 

Article 5

Grant of firearm certificate

 

1 The Order imposes an obligation on the Chief Constable to decide whether or not an

applicant can be permitted to have a firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to

public safety or to the peace. The key criteria that he should apply in making that judgement are

set out in this Article. The Chief Constable must not grant a certificate to any person unless he is

satisfied that he -

(a) is fit to be entrusted with a firearm and ammunition; and

(B) has a good reason for the firearm and ammunition in question.

 

2 Guidance on the assessment of fitness is set out in Appendix 2. If the grant of the

certificate is not precluded on fitness grounds, the Chief Constable must be satisfied that the

applicant has a good reason for having the firearm or ammunition sought.

 

3 The consideration of good reason will be crucial to applications and the ongoing

possession of firearms. “It” should be neither confined to need nor equated with desire. Most

firearm certificate holders possess firearms for reasons of their profession, sport or recreation

Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

and may properly wish to exercise discretion as to what types of firearms they choose for these

purposes. On the other hand, a simple wish to own a particular firearm is not in itself “good

reason” without further supporting evidence of intentions. The Chief Constable should be

mindful of case law (Anderson v Neilans (1940) and Joy v Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway

(1966)) which suggests that he should consider the application firstly “from the standpoint of the

applicant rather than from that of a possible objector”. The applicant will need to demonstrate

good reason for each firearm. Further guidance on establishing good reason can be found in

Appendix 3

 

4 The Chief Constable should give in writing the reasons for a decision to refuse an

application for a firearm certificate and inform the applicant of any right of appeal against the

decision and the procedures for doing so. Before reaching a final decision, he should give the

applicant as much information as possible about his concerns and the opportunity (usually 21

days) to make representations. (see guidance on Article 74)

 

 

Appendix 2 expands on this

 

 

APPENDIX 2 (Articles 5 and 9)

 

FITNESS TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH A FIREARM

 

1 This Appendix offers guidance on how the Chief Constable may assess a person’s fitness

to be entrusted with a firearm as he is required to do by Article 5. It is without prejudice to what

a Court may decide constitutes fitness and contains a list of factors which are not intended to be

exhaustive or prescriptive.

Assessing fitness

 

2 The Chief Constable should, when considering an application for, or the revocation of, a

firearm certificate, take into account the following factors -

Prohibited persons and others known to have, or suspected of having, criminal

involvement

 

3 The guidance on Article 63 describes restrictions on the possession of firearms by certain

categories of persons convicted of crimes and given custodial sentences, including suspended

sentences.

 

4 The Chief Constable will consider any previous convictions or cautions of persons who do

not fall within the provisions of Article 63 and, in particular, any conviction, which involves the

use of a firearm, violence, dishonesty or a disregard for public safety. Cautions for offences such

as a failure to comply with conditions of a firearm certificate (taking account of the seriousness of

the breach will cause concern). The Chief Constable will be aware of the judgements in the

following cases. Although they were decided on their particular conditions, they offer broad

guidance that may be applicable to other cases -

 

(a) Dabek v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall (1991), where the court ruled that a woman of

good character should not possess a firearm where her husband had two old drug convictions

but still associated with drug users;

 

(B) Chief Constable of Essex v Germain (1991), where the court ruled that a chief officer was entitled,

in revoking a shotgun certificate, to take into account the certificate holder’s drink driving

convictions. The court considered that this demonstrated irresponsibility and lack of selfcontrol

and justified the chief officer believing there was a future risk to the peace involving

the shotgun; and

 

© Spencer-Stewart v Chief Constable of Kent (1989), where the court ruled that the certificate holder’s

conviction for handling stolen goods did not indicdate any future risk in relation to

possession of a shotgun and that the revocation of the certificate was not justified.

Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 Appendix 2

 

(d) Judicial Review – Tennyson (2001), where the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland held that the

blatant disregard of simple rules and regulations in other aspects of life as demonstrated by

the applicant’s criminal record could be sufficient reason to consider the applicant unfit to

possess a firearm.

 

(e) Firearms appeal by Paul Dugdale (at Preston Crown Court 2001), where the court ruled that hearsay

evidence was admissible when considering a firearm application.

 

(f) Judicial Review – Chalmers Brown (2002), where the High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that

only those in whom there can be full confidence as to their fitness to hold a firearm

certificate should be granted one.

 

5 Criminal intelligence in relation to the applicant should be assessed with particular regard

to alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use or

threat of violence or firearms or evidence of association with known criminals.

 

6 When an applicant is a foreign national or has lived several years overseas the enquiries

should be made with the authorities of the country concerned through Interpol as to whether the

applicant has a criminal record overseas that would have a bearing on his fitness. This includes

applicants from overseas who have been granted British citizenship.

Intemperate habits

 

7 Factors for consideration include evidence of -

 

(a) alcohol or drug abuse that may indicate that a person is unfit to possess a firearm due to the

possible impairment of judgement and loss of self-control. The relevant case law here is

“Luke v Little” (1980) and ”Chief Constable of Essex v Germain” (1991). Usually, it will be a

pattern of behaviour that causes concern but there may also be cases where one-off incidents

will bring into question a person’s fitness to possess firearms. In the case of “Lubbock v Chief

Constable of Lothian and Borders” (2001) the Sheriff ruled that the revocation of a firearm and

shotgun certificate following one isolated drink driving incident was justified given the

person’s general attitude towards the offence;

 

(B) aggressive or anti-social behaviour which may include domestic disputes or evidence of

hostility likely to lead to violent acts against particular groups categorised by, for example,

race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or class; or

 

© disturbing and unusual behaviour of a kind which gives rise to well-founded fears about the

future misuse of firearms. A pattern of abuse should generally be regarded more seriously

than a single incident, although isolated incidents should not be disregarded in the

assessment.

 

Unsound mind

 

8 This is a particularly difficult and sensitive area and it is not possible to provide a definition

that covers every eventuality. It is impractical for a psychiatric assessment to be conducted on

Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 Appendix 2

every applicant’s fitness to possess firearms. However, the Chief Constable should be alert to

cases in which a General Practitioner’s report reveals that an applicant has exhibited, or is

exhibiting, signs of depression, suicidal tendencies, long-standing or intermittent periods of either

emotional instability or unpredictable behaviour. The Chief Constable should also be alert to any

of these signs exhibited by existing certificate holders. This would include persons who had

been detained under the civil powers of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 on the

basis of their behaviour posing a risk to the public. Particular attention should be paid to anyone

who has previously been subject to a hospital order, guardianship order or restriction order under

the provisions of the Mental Health Act following the commission of offences. Although there

is no correlation between periods of imprisonment and periods of detention under the Mental

Health Act, it is important to examine the nature of the offences and the period of the order in

these situations.

 

9 It is important to remember that simply because a person has received treatment in the

past for certain illnesses or conditions, such as depression or stress, it does not automatically

follow that he is unfit to possess a firearm. It is simply one of the factors to be considered with

all other evidence relating to the applicant’s character and history. In such cases, account should

be taken of the latest medical opinion.

Safe-keeping and handling of firearms

 

10 Consideration should include any evidence that unauthorised persons, such as family

members or associates, who may themselves present a danger to public safety, might have access

to the firearms, notwithstanding any arrangements for their security which may have already been

made. Any history of serious incidents involving firearms, including their loss, or a careless

approach to the handling of other potentially dangerous items, should also receive close

consideration. Where the latter exists, the police should consider the likelihood of repetition.

Co-operation with the licensing authority

 

11 The following examples may indicate that a person has not complied with the need to cooperate

-

(a) the making of abusive or threatening phone calls to the staff of PSNI’s Firearms and

Explosives Branch;

 

(B) refusal to permit a police officer to inspect firearms or security provisions. The relevant case

law here is “Bianchi v Chief Constable of Northumbria” (1998); or

 

© failures to respond to requests for information or to reply to correspondence. The case of

Morris v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (1999) is relevant. There might be genuine reasons

for a failure to respond to requests for information, or to reply to correspondence. For

example, illness, particular family circumstances or extended absence overseas. Such failures

should not necessarily be taken to indicate a lack of co-operation with the licensing authority.

 

12 Care should be taken to ensure that reasonable complaints about delays or inappropriate

handling of a case are not categorised as a failure to co-operate, or perceived by potential

Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 Appendix 2

complainants as being so categorised. Where the police consider that a person’s actions have

brought him within the above paragraphs but where they have decided that his application for a

certificate should not be refused, or that his current certificate should not be revoked, the person

should receive a warning in writing that further examples of such actions may lead to future

applications being refused or existing certificates being revoked. Such a procedure ensures that,

where the reasons for refusal or revocation are based on persistent failures, adequate records

exist of them. It also ensures that the person has been made aware how his behaviour has been

interpreted, allowing him to alter it in future or complain at the time of the warning about the

interpretation placed on it. If, in the light of the query or complaint, the police consider that the

person’s actions should not have been so interpreted, they should write and tell him.

Further information

 

13 Where the applicant has previous convictions, or where information has cast doubts on his

fitness, the Chief Constable should consider whether to approach agencies likely to have had

involvement with him, such as the probation service or social services. The Chief Constable

should ensure that the reason for the enquiry is to ascertain whether there is any further evidence

that the person would be unfit to possess a firearm. Where an applicant’s reason for possessing

the firearm is shooting on a farm or at a club, for example, the Chief Constable should also

consider whether to seek additional information from persons such as the relevant farmer or club

secretary who may have close knowledge of the applicant’s character. Where this is considered

necessary, care should be taken not to divulge information about the applicant which is of a

sensitive or confidential nature.

 

14 Where an applicant has declared on the application form that he has suffered from a

mental or nervous disorder, including depression, and has given his consent to an approach being

made to his General Practitioner (GP) or medical adviser, the GP should be asked in writing to

provide factual details about the condition. The failure of a GP to provide such information

should not in itself result in the refusal of an application. See also paragraphs 13 to 19 of the

guidance on Article 4.

 

15 Decisions on fitness should be made on an assessment of all the relevant information and

on the individual merits of each case. Evidence of previous convictions or intemperate

behaviour, for example, might not result in an automatic refusal if, for a significant period since

the conviction, the applicant has led a law-abiding life and shown a capacity to be entrusted to

possess a firearm .

 

 

Of course being a responsible FAC holder, and acknowledging the priveldge you have furnished yourself with the relevant legislation that applies to all of us and you have made sure you read it.

[poacher boy]

As in any properly run police state you will only get the minimum amount of privelages that they deem you will accept.When did the police in this country become judge and executioner?,must have missed the law passed that gave them the right to decide on guilt or innocence.Is that not the job of our court system?. Where is the basic human right that a person is innocent until proven guilty,sounds like Gadaffi had some influence in this one.

 

Pat

 

Would have to agree with most of your post,

A person is innocent until proven guilty, thats my thoughts to

To be found and proven guilty surly means going through the court system

So why is it left to one person to have the final say

 

Also what we need to think about is the people over here in Northern Ireland who where/are CONVICTED Terrorists in goverment yes in goverment who have been granted a firearm certificate

 

Is it one rule for them and another for us, you tell me

[al4x]

He can take it to court and go over the Chief Constables head, but in reality though you are innocent till proven guilty when the police can't find the evidence to prosecute they don't then go and give you a FAC if what you have done is naughty enough.

 

As you won't say what he did we can't really comment not a catholic priest is he

[Sprackles]

As you won't say what he did we can't really comment not a catholic priest is he

 

Its a bum rap if he was

[poacher boy]

He can take it to court and go over the Chief Constables head, but in reality though you are innocent till proven guilty when the police can't find the evidence to prosecute they don't then go and give you a FAC if what you have done is naughty enough.

 

As you won't say what he did we can't really comment not a catholic priest is he

 

Not a suitable post for some people over here

[al4x]

oops didn't mean to touch a nerve

[poacher boy]

oops didn't mean to touch a nerve

 

No not mine as i am not catholic B)

[pat 1]

This copy and paste sure does away with having to think for yourself. Anyone with a brain should be able to see that the authorities are imposing law after law on ordinary peaceful people which do nothing but keep the law makers in a job and the ordinary Joe under the thumb.This guy who was refused his certificate can appeal to the secetary of state and he is entitled to be told exactly why he is being refused.I would recommend that he goes as far as he can to get this decision over ruled. It has happened here a lot since the new order took power in Stormont. Then again maybe he would be better off without a firearm for everyone elces sake. As has been said there are a lot of people holding firearms who always did but without permission.

Just a wee question for all interested here and across the water,,,,If you were asked on your application "would you use this firearm to protect your self,your family or your property",what would your answer be?. I have no doubt one answer would get you a refusal.

 

Pat

[al4x]

As indeed it should as its a question to weed out the proper walts. In this case I'm sure he knows why he was refused

[poacher boy]

As indeed it should as its a question to weed out the proper walts. In this case I'm sure he knows why he was refused

 

 

Yes said it all in earlier posts