is this the end to my sgc

[Robl]

Just to add another voice to the discussion.

 

I don’t think one legally needs to declare cautions, but I do think it’s probably sensible to do so.

Considering they require all speeding and traffic convictions to be declared I’d be surprised if they weren’t interested in any cautions one had in the past too.

That said, they have access to the cautions anyway.

 

I don’t think it would be possible for them to not grant and SGC on the grounds of not-declaring a caution.

However, I do think the cautions themselves may be grounds for refusal of an SGC.

That is to say, if you have been cautioned for ABH or carrying a knife then the FEO may decide you were too aggressive of temperament to be allowed an SGC.

I suppose the cautions would just be part of the whole package when making a decision in conjunction with any convictions and the tone of the interview.

[JonathanL]

Not sure how that works. :hmm:

 

Someone who has been refused a SGC and appeals - just where are the "proceedings which have been brought against them? There are none.

 

Mungler might be your man here, but if someone could get damages under these circumstances, I will plait sawdust.

 

I was talking in the context of being arrested and/or prosecuted for failing to declare a caution which is not an offence. That woud be a malicious prosecution for starters and you would also have a claim for false imprisonment.

 

Also, if you were refused on the basis that you didn't declare a caution you would probably be able to claim damages because there would have been no actual reason for the refusal. It would be especially pertinent in the case of a refusal to renew as you would have had to put your guns into storage which would have cost you money. If your job depended on your cert then you woud have even more basis on which to being a claim.

 

There is a case on-going in Newcastle at the moment involving a chap who is claiming costs from the police over a refusal to grant him a pistol for humane dispatch. The case is more involved than that but the court has not dismissed the costs part so there is clearly a basis on which to claim.

 

J.

Edited September 3, 2012 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

I am confident he is wrong. There would be no proceedings for a crime, just potentially a certificate refusal and there would be no mechanism for damages if that refusal were then overturned at a later date. Costs are always a different matter.

 

There was never any suggestion that you would be prosecuted not for doing so, but even so there is no compensation mechanism for prosecution where you are found to be not guilty beyond costs etc.

 

I'm confident he doesn't work in the legal services industry because looking at all angles doesn't just involve re-reading the wording, it means thinking 'could a potential problem arise from a particular course of action' if the answer is yes the best course to advise is one that is equally simple but couldn't conceivably cause a problem unless there is a significant benefit to be gained from taking the route where there is potentially a problem. The fact there is a debate shows it isn't the best course of action.

 

As there hasn't been a ruling on the precise meaning of the wording, my view remains unchanged.

 

I disagree here. I don't see any reason as to why you can not claim damages and costs in respect of losses you have suffered due to either being prosecuted for an offence which does not exist or having your cert pulled for not doing something you were never asked to do.

 

J.