The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

So they have no "share" function.

Seems a bit behind the times.

Gazoo wrote: BUT..
If the failed applicant takes it to court, the Chief Constable will have to give his reasons.

Not necessarily. The reasons or cause of the revocation could be sensitive and there may be an informant that needs protecting. Likewise, there are somethings that perhaps even the apellant doesn't want coming out in open court!

And, it wouldn't be the Chief himself appearing in court! If only....

dromia wrote:Freedom of information request?

An organisation can refuse a FoI if the information is sensitive or collation of such, would be deemed too expensive.

dromia wrote:So they have no "share" function.

Seems a bit behind the times.

There's a massive inter-departmental and inter-organisation "sharing" mechanism in place now and there has to be considering the lessons learned from such incidents as Soham and porous European borders. But there is still the over riding principal of "need to know". Look at the catastrophic events initiated by Bradley Manning when the adoption of the ethos by the US military in theatre that everyone in the field on Intel should have access to everything....

Gazoo wrote:

Sim G wrote:

breacher wrote:

Actually he does. In writing at time of revocation.

No, he doesn't. Under the provisions of s30 Firearms Act 1968, the Chief Officer has to give notice that the certificate is revoked. There is no legislative requirement to state the reason why.

s10.39 of the 2016 Guidance says that the Chief "should", not "must" give reason.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 16_v20.pdf

And QEB Hollis Whiteman, one of the most senior criminal chambers agrees, there is no requirement.
"Failed applications
• Providing reasons – good practice but not a legal requirement
Whilst it is good practice to furnish an applicant with reasons for why their application was unsuccessful, in order for them to assess whether the decision was justified and possibly appealable, there is no statutory requirement that reasons be given."

http://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/arti ... rooney.pdf page 9.

BUT..
If the failed applicant takes it to court, the Chief Constable will have to give his reasons.

That refers to applications doesn't it? Having a renewal or new certificate refused is different to having a revocation of certificate isn't it?

Same principal.

Sim G wrote:

breacher wrote:

Sim G wrote: The Chief Constable does not have to give a reason if he revokes your ticket

Actually he does. In writing at time of revocation.

No, he doesn't. Under the provisions of s30 Firearms Act 1968, the Chief Officer has to give notice that the certificate is revoked. There is no legislative requirement to state the reason why.

s10.39 of the 2016 Guidance says that the Chief "should", not "must" give reason.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 16_v20.pdf

And QEB Hollis Whiteman, one of the most senior criminal chambers agrees, there is no requirement.
"Failed applications
• Providing reasons – good practice but not a legal requirement
Whilst it is good practice to furnish an applicant with reasons for why their application was unsuccessful, in order for them to assess whether the decision was justified and possibly appealable, there is no statutory requirement that reasons be given."

http://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/arti ... rooney.pdf page 9.

Having gone through the process I can assure you he does !

How can you appeal without knowing what you are appealing against ?

The vagaries of an individual case are such. The point was, at revocation of a certificate the Chief Officer just has to give notice that the certificate is revoked. There is no legal obligation on the Chief to state a reason.

What happens in County Court happens in court and there may still be instances where reason is not revealed. Your case was your case.

Interesting thanks. It makes you wonder what they're checking then when they do the ceremonial background check at initial grant and renewal then...

Ovenpaa wrote:I was in a meeting a while ago with firearms licensing department and counter terrorism types and the CT team made it quite clear the intelligence they gathered was not automatically shared with FL, far from it in fact. Here at the new place our latest CT contacts have told us to always contact them first as the local FLD will not have been made aware of stuff.

Bottom line is CT or similar certainly would not be pointing out posts on forums to the local firearms team.

Firearms act states the chief of Police needs a reason :-

(2)The certificate may be revoked if the chief officer of police has reason to believe—



Thus he need have resonable suspicion of the stated reasons on which a certficate can be revoked !
And he would justify his resasons to the court on appeal ! (He can't just say to the judge he is a danger but can't go into why because of what not etc )
Sim is right though that there is no requirement in law for the Chief of police to provide a reason in the latter

Also I think the court uses the civil burden of proof when it comes to its decisions

Racalman wrote: As for TV detector vans, how do they work these days as there's no line oscillator in flat screen TVs for them to detect?

They can't, but they were always a hoax anyway, even when it was possible to do. They just had a few empty vans with a big antenna on the roof and a large sign on the side. The threat of detection was all people needed to pay up.

This is my point about surveillance in general. Yes, the technology exists to do a lot of things, including reading our emails and intercepting our Internet traffic, but that doesn't mean it's actually happening and even it was, there are ways around it to maintain privacy and they know that so investing millions in a capability isn't going to guarantee they catch the people they are going after.

If they were trawling through all our communications looking for keywords which might indicate we were doing something illegal, a lot of that could be automated but at some point a human has to be involved and the number of false leads and follow ups required would stretch any resources they have to breaking point very quickly. That's why the detector vans were a hoax. They didn't have the money or the personnel to do it, so they just employed a few low skilled van drivers to provide a visible deterrent.

They're at it again now by pretending they have a way to monitor our wifi to find out if we're watching BBC on a smart device. It's complete nonsense and in any case there's a very simple and inexpensive solution if anyone really thinks they can and will do it. It's called an Ethernet cable.