HO Guidance - Help Required Please

[JonathanL]

Your aren't quite right on that. In reality, if the police don't like you when you apply for a SGC and refuse you, you can appeal and they have to prove a good reason why you can't be trusted with one, if they can't do that then a court appeal will see that you get a certificate.

A FAC is very different, if the FEO turns up at your door for the FAC interview and decided he doesn't like you/feels you can't be trusted you will be refused one and appealing isn't likely to be able to do anything to help.

It is different, regardless of what they should and should not do in law, it does seem that when FAC's are concerned they get away with doing as they wish. You can often change things by arguing with them, and getting the help of BASC and so on, but they do as they wish, a FAC is more of a privilege than a right.

 

No, the law on granting either certificate is essentially the same with one minor variation. In relation to an FAC you have to demonstrate 'good reason' before they can grant it. With an SGC the police have to demonstrate that you have no good reason ratheer than you having to prove that you do from the outset.

 

The police cannot refuse you simply because they have decided that they don't like you. They can only refuse (and indeed are required to refuse) if you do not meet the statutory criteria. If you meet the criteria laid down in the Act then they must grant the cert.

 

You are right that they get away with not issuing lots of things (not so much entire certs but certain slots to acquire) but very, very many of those are not refused in the proper way. They get away with this stuff because, rather than formally refusing it, they get you to agree verbally to drop your application in relation to that particular gun. If you drop it then there is nothing to refuse.

 

They often do this sort of thing because they know they cannot justify the refusal. If more people were a bit more militant about this sort of thing then it wouldn't happen. The problem is though that many people talk a good talk (especially on boards like here) but when it actually comes down to it they won't challenge the police because of some mis-placed deference to them.

 

The thing I alsways tell people to do is to always get the police to put things in writing. In a lot of cased they simply won't and the problem will go away. I know a chap who recently had his renewal. His cabinet was in the loft (which is one of the reccommended best places in the HO Guidance) but the civillian lady who came out to see him wouldn't go up to look at it. She said that he'd need to re-site the cabinet elsewhere. Lots of people told him that that was total rubbish but he bought another cabinet anyway.

 

The police never put any of that to him in writing. Had he simply have said, 'no problem, would you just confirm all that it writing please' he would never have heard another word of it and his cert would have been renewed. Had they refused him because of it he would have won an appeal, absolutely no question what-so-ever.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

If the police decide not to allow you a FAC there is usually very little you can do about it, it is different. Perhaps privilege wasn't the best way to describe it but it really doesn't work as a right to have a FAC, unlike a SGC.

That isn't to say they are hard to get, but if the police say no then that's usually the end of it!

 

Nope, sorry but this is wrong.

 

There is plenty you can do about it. Section.44 gives you a right to appeal to the Crown court. This then takes the issue out of the hands of the police. If the Court comes down on your side then it orders the police to grant the certificate.

 

This is a very fundamental point that all shooters need to know. You are not 'requesting' the police give you a certificate in the sense of 'Please, please allow me to have one of your lovely firearm certificates, I'm a really nice person you know'. You are applying for one to be granted. What you are doing, in effect, when you post your form off is saying 'I am a person who meets the criteria specified in the Firearms Act for the grant of an FAC, you must now grant it to me.'.

 

The checks and enquiries which the police make aren't simply to decide whether they like you or not. They serve to verify that what you are telling them (hat you do meet the statutory criteria) is true.

 

The criteria for the grant of an FAC are;

 

(1)A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—

 

(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;

 

(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

 

©that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.[/]

 

The word 'shall' in that subsection tells us that the police have NO discretion in the matter. If you meet those criteria then they MUST grant the certificate.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

Jonathan, I would like to think you are right but why so much variation in VERY similar circumstances, if discretion is not being operated?

 

Because they get away with it for the reasons mentioned. The reality of the situation is though they should not be doing it and many won't if you ask them to put it in writing.

 

A lot of it though isn't actually 'discretion' being exercised at all, it's the problem of people who have almost zero knowledge of firearms and their uses administering the system and making the decsions. They aren't really exercising discretion they are just coming to incorrest decisions usually relating to people's 'good reason' to possess.

 

If people appealed these things more then I think we would see a much more consistent system.

 

J.

[David BASC]

Yes we all have the right of Judicial review, but remember the costs can be high - £10-£15,000 per side for a 1 day hearing.

 

Although the rule of thumb is ‘the looser pays’ the judge can award costs against you even if you win, especially if the court feels you have contributed in some way to the case having to come to a judicial review.

 

So the financial risks of a judicial review are high.

 

It’s never possible to give a definitive answer as to how successful a judicial review is likely to be, and there are, of course, ways you can try to mitigate your financial liability, and your solicitor should walk you though these options.

 

Best to get the application right first time, as you say, be very aware of what the law requires of you.

 

David

[JonathanL]

Yes we all have the right of Judicial review, but remember the costs can be high - £10-£15,000 per side for a 1 day hearing.

 

A Sec.44 appeal is not Judicial Review. The section specifically says '....not by way of review'.

Although the rule of thumb is ‘the looser pays’ the judge can award costs against you even if you win, especially if the court feels you have contributed in some way to the case having to come to a judicial review.

 

See above.

So the financial risks of a judicial review are high.

 

See above.

 

It’s never possible to give a definitive answer as to how successful a judicial review is likely to be, and there are, of course, ways you can try to mitigate your financial liability, and your solicitor should walk you though these options.

 

Again, this is not Judicial Review it is an appeal to the Crown Court (which doesn't handle Judicial Review) against refusal to grant, refusal to vary or revocation of a cert under section.44. As far as I believe the costs are unlikely to exceed a grand or so depending on how much of the work you do your self an how complex the case is. Most sec.44 cases won't be that complex.

 

J.

[David BASC]

You are quite right to correct my use of the term 'judicial review' which in law is a very specific thing.

 

The appeal under the firearms act is in the the Crown Court, to a CC Judge and two magistrates. In my experience the police will contest.

 

The last case I heard of lasted about 90 mins and was lost, cost the the individual was over £6000. However, I agree the costs can vary depending on the level of legal support you have for example.

 

A full day in court will be very expensive.

 

David

 

PS just looked at another simple case - cost was £3000 .Did not win

 

PPS Just reviewed another one, that was dropped ,as the solicitor (bless him) did a propper review of the case and told the chap the cost would be at least £8000, but would probably go over £10,000.

Edited March 9, 2012 by David BASC

[Kes]

You are quite right to correct my use of the term 'judicial review' which in law is a very specific thing.

 

The appeal under the firearms act is in the the Crown Court, to a CC Judge and two magistrates. In my experience the police will contest.

 

The last case I heard of lasted about 90 mins and was lost, cost the the individual was over £6000. However, I agree the costs can vary depending on the level of legal support you have for example.

 

A full day in court will be very expensive.

 

David

 

PS just looked at another simple case - cost was £3000 .Did not win

 

PPS Just reviewed another one, that was dropped ,as the solicitor (bless him) did a propper review of the case and told the chap the cost would be at least £8000, but would probably go over £10,000.

 

David,

One could be forgiven for thinking that BASC do not support shooters in a difficult position because of the cost. I would hope a realistic assessment is made of both the chances of success and the wider value to shooters in general, so as to be able to protect the wider rights of shooters.

If BASC doesnt help, who will?

Or are we saying the police always win so lets not do this?

If the latter, I'm saddened as this is NOT the support shooters need. Whilst I do NOT expect support, this single issue is indicative of wider abuses.

I also have to say the advice on ensuring the police respond in writing is crucial- so far none of their responses have been in writing and thus nothing can be confirmed.

I fully support the law and am ultra law abiding but this is testing my belief in a system that others have criticised.

I seem to be in a minority but lack the normal minority support ? Not to worry someone has to do this.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Kes

[MiLisCer]

Kes,

 

Please take this in the spirit it is intended - Cheshire can be difficult and if you rattle them, they can be more difficult - but they can also be very helpful and accommodating if approached in the right way.

 

Why not give them a ring and ask for a face to face meeting, go and sit and have a chat with them and ask them "what they would suggest and how they suggest you go about this"

 

You will be surprised at just how helpful they can be if approached and asked for help and advice in person.

 

Later in this thread you have mentioned the .243 for Deer and Fox, whereas earlier it was just for deer - go and see them with an open mind - do not go in there looking for a fight, talk it through, put over your side and listen to theirs and find some middle ground that they will agree on - what do you have to lose?

 

Mike

 

(And yes I have been there and had a face to face - worked out for all of us in the end)

[David BASC]

How BASC helps in all firearms cases is detailed on our web site on the firearms page, services to members.

 

Our objective will be to give the best help and guidance we can to help the member get their grant, renewal, variation at the time of application.As Mike says, mediation in the first place is much better.

 

We do not automatically fund appeals, all application for appeal funding are subject to review. How we review funding for appeals is exactly the same as how a legal expenses insurance company will.

 

We assess all the facts that are presented to us by the member, take into account what the law says, and look at similar appeals that have gone before and if the probability of success of appeal is low then typically we will not look to fund.

 

However, unlike a legal expenses policy, that will simply refuse to take a case if the chance of winning and getting all costs back are low, BASC will still take a case forward in certain circumstances, where the head of firearms makes the decision, backed by our legal advisors; again this is detailed on the firearms section of the BASC web site, under services to members.

 

David

[Mr_Logic]

Or you could just keep with 223. While I always support things to make licensing fairer, the 223 can use the 75 Amax to kill foxes. The BC is .435 which is better than an 87grain 6mm. The MV is lower at around 3000 fps but it will work. 1:8 twist barrel needed.

[Kes]

Kes,

 

Please take this in the spirit it is intended - Cheshire can be difficult and if you rattle them, they can be more difficult - but they can also be very helpful and accommodating if approached in the right way.

 

Why not give them a ring and ask for a face to face meeting, go and sit and have a chat with them and ask them "what they would suggest and how they suggest you go about this"

 

You will be surprised at just how helpful they can be if approached and asked for help and advice in person.

 

Later in this thread you have mentioned the .243 for Deer and Fox, whereas earlier it was just for deer - go and see them with an open mind - do not go in there looking for a fight, talk it through, put over your side and listen to theirs and find some middle ground that they will agree on - what do you have to lose?

 

 

(And yes I have been there and had a face to face - worked out for all of us in the end)

 

 

 

 

 

Mike

 

 

Mike, I have decided that I will ask for a meeting to discuss this but I will first speak to my FLO - he may be responsive but indications are not too hopeful. Nevertheless, as you say its best to talk to them directly as, at least, they then know who you are and can judge whether you are a reasonable person or not

Its just a shame that what appears to be a reasonable approach has been met so far with a negative response.

You are right though and I will see them, if they will see me of course.

BASC have no reason to help me yet - I havent been refused and I havent asked BASC - I'm not the type to argue unreasonably or without good reason - forgive the obvious pun !!!

We shall see.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Kes