FAO BASC - Medical reports

[Luckyshot]

1. It isn't just Durham

2. If nothing is done, it is bound to spread to more areas over time, and perhaps to all of them

3. If nothing is done, it will go from a 'request' to a demand. In fact it has already done so, one licensing authority has threatened to cancel an application unless the applicant complied - despite the fact that there is no such animal as a cancellation.

 

And people expect their shooting organisations to help them and to give an undertaking that they will do so. What a pity that ater 175 posts on this subject, BASC still won't give a clear, plain English promise to do what they hint they might do

 

 

Whats the matter do people not have voice of there own, why do the need basc to speak for them, Ile agree I think basc have done a **** job but its not just them.

[GHE]

 

 

Whats the matter do people not have voice of there own, why do the need basc to speak for them, Ile agree I think basc have done a **** job but its not just them.

But it's BASC that most people are paying to speak for them, which means that expectations are high.

 

And a collective of 130,000 people (BASC's membership) must have a lot of more clout than individual voices.

 

This doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't fight their corner, or that other shooting organisations shouldn't do their bit, but the expectation is that the largest shooting organisation, with their much larger financial and other resources, can and should use their muscle to protect its members.

 

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that BASC simply won't commit to their responsibilities fully, maybe they think that having a very healthy bank balance is more important than protecting their members.

 

All that they have been asked to do in this thread is to actually commit themselves to a clear course of action, or to say that they won't - and they won't give either answer.

[David BASC]

I have tried to make it abundantly clear that we will always try to help our members.

 

I have repeatedly written on this thread the steps we will go though on each case

 

I have made it perfectly clear that we have confirmed with Durham that people do not automatically have to fill in the extra forms, and that not filling in the forms will not stop their application

 

I can again confirm that we have confirmation from the senior officer in charge of licencing that if we uncover any example in Durham where their FEO's or others are over stepping the mark, by claiming that failure to complete them will delay or stop their application, for us to tell him so he can sort it our.

 

I have asked that if any member has any issues along these lines to get in touch and we will help sort it out.

 

David

Edited May 22, 2014 by David BASC

[GHE]

I have tried to make it abundantly clear that we will always try to help our members.

 

I have repeatedly written on this thread the steps we will go though on each case

 

I have made it perfectly clear that we have confirmed with Durham that people do not automatically have to fill in the extra forms, and that not filling in the forms will not stop their application

 

I can again confirm that we have confirmation from the senior officer in charge of licencing that if we uncover any example in Durham where their FEO's or others are over stepping the mark, by claiming that failure to complete them will delay or stop their application, for us to tell him so he can sort it our.

 

I have asked that if any member has any issues along these lines to get in touch and we will help sort it out.

 

David

And what if it's another licensing authority that's causing the problem?

 

But you haven't answered the actual question. This isn't about a general problem with an application, it is specifically about a delay or refusal to process an application when a person refuses to comply with the unlawful demands (or 'requests') made by police. The advice given by BASC is not to co-operate, but there has been no clear answer on what will be done to support anybody who finds themselves in this position. There is no 'case by case basis' for this, everybody who follows your advice will be in the exact same position and the support given by BASC should be the same in every case.

 

On this basis when you say 'we have the option to take them to Court' does this mean that BASC are prepared to fully support any member faced with a problem following your advice, and will be stood alongside them fighting to win their appeal every step of the way, all the way to the end of a Court case?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, this is the question that you still haven't answered

[David BASC]

Thank you for your questions,

 

If other authorities do the same then we will take the same course of action as we have with Durham, assuming their scheme is identical to Durham, if it is different than a different tack may be needed of course.

 

Yes we will stand by our members, and will always fight ,to the very best of our ability and using all our resources, any wrongful act by the licencing teams.

 

Now a question from me if you don't mind. At least two of you have said you have legal experience so may I ask please how can a judicial review be used to stop a licencing authority from running a voluntary pilot scheme?

 

David

[GHE]

Thank you for your questions,

 

If other authorities do the same then we will take the same course of action as we have with Durham, assuming their scheme is identical to Durham, if it is different than a different tack may be needed of course.

 

Yes we will stand by our members, and will always fight ,to the very best of our ability and using all our resources, any wrongful act by the licencing teams.

 

Now a question from me if you don't mind. At least two of you have said you have legal experience so may I ask please how can a judicial review be used to stop a licencing authority from running a voluntary pilot scheme?

 

David

Where any form of pressure or coercion is applied, or even implied, a voluntary scheme loses its perception of free choice and therefore ceases to be voluntary. Coercive actions change the nature of the action entirely. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether the person/body responsible for that action indicates that the response is voluntary or not. There is at least one case where the applicant ignored the 'request' to supply a medical report and a coercive action was then applied by the government (delegated to the FLM) who said that unless he complied with this 'request' by a certain date, his certificate application would be cancelled.

 

This is a more than adequate example of coercive action, and more than enough to bring the government action within the remit of a Judicial Review. The problem here is that taking a case to a Judicial Review is well beyond the financial means of most people. The solution is for their representing body, e.g. BASC, to stand behind them financially.

 

A claim for judicial review has a special quality which sets it apart from other forms of litigation: it is a claim against the government which may result in the government’s unlawful actions being quashed. Perhaps we have come to take its existence for granted, but its key elements are striking: not only do individuals have the power to subject government decisions and actions to an independent review of lawfulness, but such power is exercised on the premise that the government abides by the outcome in its exercise of executive power.

 

Judicial review therefore defines our constitutional climate. It plays a key role in ensuring that the executive acts only according to law. Without it, we are closer to an authoritarian or even totalitarian state. With it, we live under the rule of law and all government departments are required to abide by the rule of law.

 

The Judicial review process can be used to prevent an injustice (premptive action) as well as being used as a remedy. There is no need to wait until an actual, measurable injustice or loss has actually occurred.

 

By definition, "Government" includes all branches of government. Therefore it includes The Home Office and also includes all of the individual police forces because they all form part of the Home Office, and individual members of staff, acting during the normal course of their employment, are included too.

[David BASC]

However, in the case you highlighted, the person involved may have been persuaded by an individual that the schemes is not voluntary but given that its clear on the paperwork from Durham Firearms licencing that this IS a voluntary scheme, the issue in this case was with an individual within the police network NOT the entire constabulary or the Home Office nor indeed the government.

 

I am led to believe, but you can probably confirm, that if there is a case of where an authority has allegedly over stepped the mark, one question that will be asked before a case is referred to Judicial Review, is what other steps have been taken to stop or prevent this.

 

Its clear that positive steps have been taken on a national level by ACPO writing to all Senior Officers confirming that there is no blanket policy to ask all applicants / renewing certificate holders to take a medical and also at the Constabulary level with Durham where the voluntary nature of the pilot is in writing AND that the senior officer in charge of licencing has been asked to be told if any officers are saying / doing otherwise so he can step in and stop it.

 

To launch a Judicial Review against Durham is pointless in this context I suggest as it would fall at the first fence ( and that's the view or our legal advisors in this instance) as this is a clear problem with an individual member of staff and not a policy by the Constabulary.

 

If it were a suggestion by a constabulary that their should be a blanket policy that says everyone must have a medical and pay for it, regardless of their medical history and regardless of what their referees say, and with absolutely no evidence of risk then yes a Judicial Review would certainly be warranted.

 

David

[bostonmick]

I have not placed any comments on this forum for a couple of months now due to shooting .but this argument was going on then.i am sure basc will do all they can to help the members with the limited resources they have.they.there is strength in numbers and I have said it before all fac/sgc holders should be members not just the small percentage we have at the moment.

Edited May 22, 2014 by bostonmick

[GHE]

I fully accept this. Durham at least should now be kicked into touch.

 

But the problem remains with all of the other force areas, some of which are already trying it on.

 

There may well be a cause of action for a Judicial Review though in the case I mentioned. It just needs a test case, which I accept will be expensive, to kill this dead.

 

I am led to believe, but you can probably confirm, that if there is a case of where an authority has allegedly over stepped the mark, one question that will be asked before a case is referred to Judicial Review, is what other steps have been taken to stop or prevent this.

 

This is correct. But if taking the matter up at a more senior level doesn't achieve a total and immediate solution, then vicarious liability kicks in and there is a cause of action.

[David BASC]

I agree, that if a force still over steps the mark, then they may well have exhausted all of their 'get out of jail free' options so a legal challenge would be a viable step should they refuse to toe the line.

 

With that in mind we need as much feedback as possible from any member who is being coerced in any way to complete a medical form where these is no evidence what so ever that they need to e.g. current or past declarations on their application / renewal forms.

 

We need their contact details, the force area and the name of the officer / FEO involved and a copy of any letters or emails they have been sent.

 

David

[Beretta06]

I fully accept this. Durham at least should now be kicked into touch.

 

But the problem remains with all of the other force areas, some of which are already trying it on.

 

There may well be a cause of action for a Judicial Review though in the case I mentioned. It just needs a test case, which I accept will be expensive, to kill this dead.

 

This is correct. But if taking the matter up at a more senior level doesn't achieve a total and immediate solution, then vicarious liability kicks in and there is a cause of action.

 

Out of interest, which other forces are 'already trying it on'?

 

B06

[Scully]

The term 'pilot scheme' implies that this scheme is a precursor to some point in the future wherein the scheme will be made permanent, which is in-line with the information I was given. Can you confirm or deny this David?

[David BASC]

Scully,

 

Its my understanding that there are a few pilot schemes in play which are all slightly different, and yes I agree its likely that there will be a roll out of one of them as there is increasing pressure on firearms department to look more closely at the medical history of applicants in particular, but again the issue remains that all applications must be risk assessed and ONLY those where these is evidence of past medical history which could have an impact on their fitness to possess should be referred for a GP assessment

 

David

[Beretta06]

GHE,

 

as previously asked, which other forces are 'already trying it on"?

[phaedra1106]

The following have been mentioned on here as requesting the additional medical forms.

 

West Mercia & Warwickshire http://www.westmercia.police.uk/applying-for-or-renewing-a-certificate.html

 

Lancashire http://www.lancashire.police.uk/about-us/corporate-information/firearms-licensing

 

There was another one but I can't remember who it was.

[David BASC]

I take your point and thank you very much indeed for posting those links. However, they are not demanding you send in extra forms with your application, just suggesting that you may have to.

 

Having said that, please can any BASC member in any of these or any other constabulary area who have been asked to send in additional medical forms, please let me know.

 

Similarly if any member is asked to go for a GP report and there is nothing declared on their application form, and or they are told that by not getting a GP report will delay or stop their application, again please let me know,

 

Thanks

 

David

[Beretta06]

GHE

 

 

What it will do however is to create yet another financial hurdle to shooters, and if I was cynical I might wonder whether this is just another of the steps that some police forces are taking to close down our sports.

 

How do you define 'yet another financial hurdle'? Other than the cost of the application, plus charges for variations etc, I do not see any 'financial hurdles' - or are you proposing it should all cost nothing???

[Bazooka Joe]

'yet another financial hurdle'?

 

 

 

I think GHE is referring to the fee for the doctors letter, £50+ has been mentioned.

[GHE]

GHE

 

 

What it will do however is to create yet another financial hurdle to shooters, and if I was cynical I might wonder whether this is just another of the steps that some police forces are taking to close down our sports.

 

How do you define 'yet another financial hurdle'? Other than the cost of the application, plus charges for variations etc, I do not see any 'financial hurdles' - or are you proposing it should all cost nothing???

What I had in mind is the substantial increase to the application fees.

 

GHE,

 

as previously asked, which other forces are 'already trying it on"?

Thames Valley springs to mind

[bedwards1966]

Well it seems that nobody has mentioned that this also appears to be taking place in Staffordshire, Surry, Sussex and unsurprisingly, North Yorkshire. Thames Valley, Lancashire, West Mercia and Durham have already been mentioned, though I am doubtful that this is a complete list.

 

If BASC is fighting hard to resolve this issue then I find it hard to believe that they aren't aware of all the forces which are doing this, but in any case, they do know of the ones I've just mentioned as I told them in an e-mail - the one which they didn't want to reply to, causing me to start this thread. Less room to wriggle.

 

 

With a lack of opposition it is pretty much inevitable that this will become the norm, not just 'voluntary' or a 'pilot' scheme.

In any event, as I've already said, few shooters understand the law and frequently believe the police are doing them a favor by granting them a certificate. If they see that they can provide a medical report in support of their application then many will do so, just in case it helps them get a certificate. This is one reason why the whole thing is not appropriate or acceptable.

Edited May 22, 2014 by bedwards1966

[Beretta06]

What I had in mind is the substantial increase to the application fees.

 

Thames Valley springs to mind

 

I didn't think there was any decision on increased fees. I also think the fees are unrealistically low and should be increased - in return for a better service of course

 

Someone mentioned Sussex was also doing this request. It wasn't happening in Sussex when I renewed a month ago. I had no forms other than the usual ones. Unless this changed recently :no:In the covering guidance - http://www.sussex.police.uk/media/627455/form_201a_-_20_05_2014__final_.pdf - Section 6 states that in certain cases a medical report may be required - it doesn't say I may have to pay for the medical. I view it as an advice notice that in some instances GPs may be asked to write stuff. I guess, if really cynical, you could say it has an undertone of a demand, but I think that's somewhat tenuous. For me, its more of a heads up that if I say I'm fine and they tell my doctor, there's a chance the doc might flag up an issue. I know they raises patient confidentiality issues, but I strongly feel that should be waived in relation to possess firearms. If you are medically unfit, it shouldn't be kept a secret.

[Dave-G]

The following have been mentioned on here as requesting the additional medical forms.

 

West Mercia & Warwickshire http://www.westmercia.police.uk/applying-for-or-renewing-a-certificate.html

 

Lancashire http://www.lancashire.police.uk/about-us/corporate-information/firearms-licensing

 

There was another one but I can't remember who it was.

I see both areas quote this: Having a medical condition of any kind does not preclude you from possessing a firearm. However any physical or mental condition that may affect your ability to possess and use firearms safely should be declared. This includes, for example, mental health disorder, epilepsy, diabetes, stroke, stress related illness, depression, alcoholism, substance use or dependency, heart disease, cancer. This list is not definitive

 

Anyone know why Diabetes (there are two types), heart disease or cancer are of concern? Could it be these are just being used as excuses to require a medical certificate?

[Beretta06]

Diabetes (some levels) can have an impact on your ability to drive - often, type 1 diabetics have their licences revoked and reissued every 3 years - with regular medical checks and reports. If not controlled properly, diabetes can lead to fits, unconsciousness and death. Clearly, not a good thing if you are holding a gun at the time. So, it allows the issuing authority to just check that you are managing your condition in a responsible fashion. It does not, however, automatically preclude you from holding a shotgun or firearm certificate.

[Dave-G]

Diabetes (some levels) can have an impact on your ability to drive - often, type 1 diabetics have their licences revoked and reissued every 3 years - with regular medical checks and reports. If not controlled properly, diabetes can lead to fits, unconsciousness and death. Clearly, not a good thing if you are holding a gun at the time. So, it allows the issuing authority to just check that you are managing your condition in a responsible fashion. It does not, however, automatically preclude you from holding a shotgun or firearm certificate.

Thanks for that - I have recently been diagnosed DB2.

[Scully]

The discussions with the HO aren't to stop the issue, they are to determine who pays- the applicant or the police.

There will be no court cases for reasons I've already outlined, but also because the organisations know this issue is going to be 'rolled out' nationwide and become compulsory in the near future, regardless of an applicants entry in the relevant column. Even if they had the inclination to take it on, why would an organisation spend money trying to defeat a practice they know to be inevitable.

Talks will take place for the cost to the applicant for a higher certificate cost based on police demands and extra cost of a GP's report, which is why the 10 year certificate life has been suggested as a compromise.

Add the GP's report to the cost of a certificate plus organisation fees, to what is already an expensive sport, and the effects all this will have on new blood to the sport, and in particular those who decide to join an organisation; quite a saving there.

For those who say 'Ah but, it's only to fork out once every 10 years'; no, it isn't yet, and it is very unlikely to be so. It was mooted as a diversionary tactic to soften the blow of the inevitable above. It is only a suggestion, and means nothing.