Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jimny(off-road)

Refusal

Recommended Posts

(2)A person who has been sentenced . . . F3 to imprisonment for a term of three months or more but less than three years [F4or to youth custody [F5or detention in a young offender institution] for such a term], or who has been sentenced to be detained for such a term in a detention centre or in a young offenders institution in Scotland [F6or who has been subject to a secure training order [F7or a detention and training order]], shall not at any time before the expiration of the period of five years from the date of his release have a firearm or ammunition in his possession.

 

 

    • Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits a person from possession of any type of firearm if they have been given a custodial sentence when convicted of a criminal offence.
    • If you have received a custodial sentence of 3 months but less than 3 years then you are prohibited for a period of 5 years from the date you are released.
    • If you have received a custodial sentence of 3 years or more then you are prohibited for life, from the date of release.

     

     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he has been refused a certificate then surely he is prohibited?

 

He is deemed as not suitable to hold a shotgun certificate, thats the way I read it, how can someone that cannot hold a certificate be allowed to shoot?

 

I may be reading it wrong, we need a legal bod or DavidBASC to comment.

 

But this part stops him shooting at clubs

 

NOR IS IT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR REGULAR SHOOTING PERSONS WHO DO NOT POSSESS SHOTGUN CERTIFICATES

 

:shaun:

 

He`s not prohibited, the police have merely chosen to not issue him a SGC at this time. There`s always the possibility that will change in the future.

 

But the section in red would cause problems.

Edited by Danger-Mouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is definitely not a prohibited person, but Shaun has a point.

 

11 Sports, athletics and other approved activities.E+W+S

(1)A person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to another person holding a certificate under this Act may, without himself holding such a certificate, have in his possession that firearm or ammunition under instructions from, and for the use of, that other person for sporting purposes only.

 

(2)A person may, without holding a certificate, have a firearm in his possession at an athletic meeting for the purpose of starting races at that meeting.

 

F1(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

(4)A person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range (whether for a rifle club or otherwise) or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than air weapons or miniature rifles not exceeding ·23 inch calibre may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, such miniature rifles and ammunition suitable therefor; and any person may, without holding a certificate, use any such rifle and ammunition at such a range or gallery.

 

(5)A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupier’s presence.

 

(6)A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, use a shot gun at a time and place approved for shooting at artificial targets by the chief officer of police for the area in which that place is situated.

 

Whilst Section 11 gives permission, there is little to say what are the terms of the exemption. Police Forces might be interpreting this in the way that Shaun has indicated. You can understand why a club might be reluctant to stick their neck out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must confess my ignorance:the replies on this topic are educating me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shaun4860-excuse my ignorance but where did you find the rule on shooting clubs not being a venue for persons with no certificate to shoot on? At our club a guy who had his certificate revoked years ago for possessing illegal firearms shoots most weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shaun4860-excuse my ignorance but where did you find the rule on shooting clubs not being a venue for persons with no certificate to shoot on? At our club a guy who had his certificate revoked years ago for possessing illegal firearms shoots most weekends.

NOR IS IT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR REGULAR SHOOTING PERSONS WHO DO NOT POSSESS SHOTGUN CERTIFICATES

 

This part is lifted from our section 11 certificate,

 

It's listed as a condition,

 

We are not prepared to put our section 11 at risk so therefore don't allow non cert holders to shoot on a regular basis,

 

The gray area comes in at who decides what is regular,

 

If someone is waiting for their certificate to come through then we don't have a problem.

 

However we have turned away 1 person who used to have a certificate and handed it back in because of "issues" with his mental state, he had no intention of ever reapplying because he knew that he had zero chance of getting it because of his "issues"

 

We weren't prepared to take the chance, he did attend a couple of times and when I asked if he was reapplying, he said no, I informed him that this would be his last visit, he then flew off the handle and started ranting, he was subsequently banned from coming again.

 

You have to be so careful these days.

 

:shaun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOR IS IT TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR REGULAR SHOOTING PERSONS WHO DO NOT POSSESS SHOTGUN CERTIFICATES

 

This part is lifted from our section 11 certificate,

 

It's listed as a condition,

 

We are not prepared to put our section 11 at risk so therefore don't allow non cert holders to shoot on a regular basis,

 

The gray area comes in at who decides what is regular,

 

If someone is waiting for their certificate to come through then we don't have a problem.

 

However we have turned away 1 person who used to have a certificate and handed it back in because of "issues" with his mental state, he had no intention of ever reapplying because he knew that he had zero chance of getting it because of his "issues"

 

We weren't prepared to take the chance, he did attend a couple of times and when I asked if he was reapplying, he said no, I informed him that this would be his last visit, he then flew off the handle and started ranting, he was subsequently banned from coming again.

 

You have to be so careful these days.

 

:shaun:

Very carefull

Thought the exemption was so people could try and see if they liked the sport a few times then apply and carry on shooting until they were granted there own certificate and for children to shoot and prove they were responsible enough for a referee to sign there application

Just my thoughts

 

To the op

How is the victim ?

I assume your actions may have changed there life

Not unsympathetic but

There's a reason for you not getting your sgc

And I feel you cruised along past the time when you could have applied until the circumstances changed and had to

Sorry if this seems harsh

All the best

Of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was given 18 months for abh but got out after 15 months for good behaviour so I'm not banned from owning a firearm, I did get in trouble a few times for fighting but like I say I've not had any issues since 2004.

I'm not a member with basc but I did get in touch with them and they said they don't always take cases on and they couldn't tell me anything because I'm not a member.

I did get the visit from the Feo he seemed happy with my cabinet and my shooting experience so I thought it was looking good

Something not right there normally if you get an 18 month sentence you only do 9 months.Unless you got a three year sentence did 18 months and then got three months out on "Tagging"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something not right there normally if you get an 18 month sentence you only do 9 months.Unless you got a three year sentence did 18 months and then got three months out on "Tagging"

He 'corrected' that further on in the thread, after I raised the same point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the crime and certainly expect to serve the time and the consequences of it all for a long time to come. I'm not saying they get sentencing right all the time, but as others have said something isn't adding up right. Time to move on OP and let it be a lesson. A moment of silliness and bravado as we can see sure doesn't pay. I'm glad to see the police do something right this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person i know was charged with abh he did 4 months he also was granted a sg license two yrs later but the police took it back off him saying it was granted in error he took it to court and lost so just uses airguns now .My friend is a sargeant in my local station and he says when violence is used then there is basicaly no chance now of gaining a sg license .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.My friend is a sargeant in my local station and he says when violence is used then there is basicaly no chance now of gaining a sg license .

This may be his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm honest I'd say I'm glad the police don't give out SGC's to offenders who have been convicted of ABH / GBH

 

me too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thing on one of those police camera action programmes last night where a driver who was involved in an accident where another driver was injured when he lost control and rammed her off the road.. He was speeding and had no insurance, after the accident he did a runner but as caught.

At they end of the programme they do a wash up telling you the susequent outcome. They said he was found guilty of GBH and dangerous driving. I personally have never before heard of a GBH charge in relation to a car accident. There was no suggestion he rammed her intentionally although he was a complete danger to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thing on one of those police camera action programmes last night where a driver who was involved in an accident where another driver was injured when he lost control and rammed her off the road.. He was speeding and had no insurance, after the accident he did a runner but as caught.

At they end of the programme they do a wash up telling you the susequent outcome. They said he was found guilty of GBH and dangerous driving. I personally have never before heard of a GBH charge in relation to a car accident. There was no suggestion he rammed her intentionally although he was a complete danger to the public.

VG certainly in the States a vehicle is seen as a weapon and if used as such permits an armed response.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a former Military Policeman, anything can be used as a weapon, in the Uk if you try to deliberatley knock someone over with a car, police can open fire as its the only means of stopping the treat. Just the same as an armed policeman on his own confronted by a crowd could open fire, its all about the perceived threat. The phrase commonly used when opening fire is "I perceived them to be a threat to my life or the lives of those around me". GBH is when all 7 layers of skin are open, a bone has been broken or a weapon has been used. You can get done for assault just for shouting at someone! It all depends on the circumstances and the way the victim perceives it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gbh is an option but depending on circumstances...

 

I know of a lady drink driver who got 3 1/2 years for dangerous driving,failing to stop at accident GBH and excess alcohol following a crash which left the victim with permanent facial injuries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still suprised at the use of GBH for things where there was no direct intent to injure (like a road accident) even though there are other factors like DD.

 

In the context of an FAC / SGC, it moves the goalposts a little because like a lot of law related things they suffer from 'mission creep' over time. In a few years time could we be seeing GBH being used in cases of negligence rather than malice. That wouldn't be a bad thing overall because negligence is very hard to prove. In particular workplace injuries where witnesses are often on the payroll of the person responsible.

 

But it does appear to be a change in approach and the CPS are only human and if it gets a result it keeps their batting average up

Edited by Vince Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When dealing with GBH you don't need to prove deliberate intent, if its an accident and you break a bone, cause burns or inflict a wound that goes through all 7 skin layers then its GBH. The problem is when the CPS get involved as they can and do change the charge. quite often people will be charged with GBH for the CPS to knock it down to ABH or battery. A lot of the time it depends on whether they are hitting their targets for prosecuting certain crimes.Target based policing is what is making things worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry your post is a little simplistic.

 

Targets are long gone

 

Cps charging standards for injuries are very different to the actual or grievous definitions of bodily harm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets mull this one over, could somebody get charged with GBH for an out and out accident resulting in an injury? if there doesn't have to be intent then it appears they could be?

 

Can you see where I am coming from on this?

Edited by Vince Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets mull this one over, could somebody get charged with GBH for an out and out accident resulting in an injury? if there doesn't have to be intent then it appears they could be?

 

Can you see where I am coming from on this?

Incredibly unlikely. Charging for GBH involves a large amount of culpability / premeditation. If you really want 'chapter and verse', then I'd suggest having a read here :

 

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes someone could be charged with GBH as a result of what could be looked at as an accident. There does not need to be any intent, in fact there is a seperate charge for the intent aspect .

I have dealt with a case where two lads were messing about with an air pistol. One pointed it at his mate who told him not to, but he did so again . It was loaded and went off resulting in the loss of an eye, and the withdrawal of a job offer in the Army. The other lad was charged with GBH.

Another case, whilst at a fancy dress party, someone set light to someone else's costume as a laugh. No intent to injure etc but the costume was more flammable than thought. The wearer sustained bad burns. Another Gbh charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes someone could be charged with GBH as a result of what could be looked at as an accident. There does not need to be any intent, in fact there is a seperate charge for the intent aspect .

I have dealt with a case where two lads were messing about with an air pistol. One pointed it at his mate who told him not to, but he did so again . It was loaded and went off resulting in the loss of an eye, and the withdrawal of a job offer in the Army. The other lad was charged with GBH.

Another case, whilst at a fancy dress party, someone set light to someone else's costume as a laugh. No intent to injure etc but the costume was more flammable than thought. The wearer sustained bad burns. Another Gbh charge.

In both of those cases, there is a large amount of culpability. The guilty party has 'recklessly endangered' the victim.

In the case of a genuine accident - where no reasonable person could forsee that a person might be injured - then the chances of getting charged or convicted of GBH must be incredibly remote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...