Bookmark this site!Firearms and Shotgun Certificates
By David Barrington Barnes BA
Readers may be aware of the Court of Appeal case of FARRER.
Briefly, Mr. Farrer, a Deputy Lord Lieutenant and leading citizen of the County of Essex spent much of his time in London and also maintained a family home and farm in Essex where his mother – a lady of distinguished years lived in a cottage. Mr. Farrer’s shotgun was kept in a proper gun safe in this cottage, and Mrs. Farrer knew where the key to the gun safe was kept. In fact she helpfully offered to assist the visiting Firearms Officer by opening the safe during his routine visit. On learning Mrs. Farrer had access to the shotgun, the Chief Constable refused to renew Mr. Farrer’s Shotgun Certificate. The reason for this refusal was that he had allowed his mother – a person holding no shotgun certificate – access to his shotgun.
After negotiations between the Chief Constable and Mr Farrer broke down, he appealed to the Crown Court, where it was held that Mrs. Farrer was an unauthorised person given access to her son’s shotgun, and that she was the custodial possessor of them. Therefore, the Crown Court concluded, the storage arrangements made by Mr. Farrer were not such as to prevent so far as reasonable practicable access to the guns by an unauthorised person i.e. his mother.
Mr. Farrer applied for judicial review and ultimately the case was referred to the Court of Appeal, which confirmed Mrs. Farrer was an unauthorised person, who had access to Mr. Farrer’s shotgun.
She had the key to the gun safe, which was in her house, and could open the safe and take out a shotgun whenever she wished.
On these facts, the Court of Appeal decided that the practical convenience of Mrs. Farrer having access, and the general good sense in having a wife or close relative able (as in this case) to facilitate police inspection or permit removal in case of fire or the demise of the certificate holder, was outweighed by the strict wording of the Act.
It held Mr. Farrer was in breach of the terms of his Shotgun Certificate by not having it stored securely so as to prevent, as far as reasonably practicable, access to the shotgun by an unauthorised person.
The first lesson Certificate Holders should learn from FARRER is that their mother, wife or other members of their household should not have access to their gun safe key or, if it be concealed, know its hiding place.
The second is that the Police have no right in law to inspect the storage arrangements of the Certificate Holder. Contrary to what some Firearms Licensing Officers say, it is a matter for the Certificate holder to store his guns securely as required by the Firearms Act 1968 and Firearms Rules 1998. Had Mrs. Farrer not so helpfully offered the inspecting Firearms Officer access to the gun safe, it would never have become apparent to the Chief Constable that she had a key at all! The refusal to renew Mr. Farrer’s Certificate flowed from her well-intended facilitation of an inspection. Of course the Certificate Holder must be careful about refusing an inspection. If he does so, he may be accused of showing the lack of basic co-operation with the Firearms Licensing Authority expected of a Certificate Holder.
Licensing Authorities, as an “argumentum authoritatem” in any disagreements with Certificate Holders, regrettably use this wording lifted out of context from Lord Cullen’s Dunblane Report all too often and as if it is the law, which it is not. For example, in another Essex case the writer has heard a Firearms Officer depose on oath to a disagreement with a Certificate Holder over whether a Firearms Certificate should be open or limited in its territorial restrictions and go on to state that this was a black mark on the record of that Certificate Holder.
The third and most important point about FARRER is that it shows how rigorously some Chief Constables apply the law and, as against Certificate Holders, how rigorous it is. In the case of FARRER the Certificate Holder could hardly have been a more upstanding citizen. He and his mother were specifically absolved from being otherwise unsuitable to hold Shotgun Certificates.
Notwithstanding they were said to be of the highest character, arguments as to practical considerations and convenience failed to displace the application of the letter of the law, and the Chief Constable’s refusal to renew Mr. Farrer’s Certificate was upheld.
Certificate Holders may do well to look to their own security arrangements. If a Deputy Lord Lieutenant can have renewal of his certificate refused in such circumstances, then one must ask if anyone’s certificate is safe.
Readers should be aware of their legal obligations in respect of secure storage. The Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms Rules 1998 contain the applicable law. In these Rules S. 3 and 5 deal with the grant of firearms and shotgun certificates respectively and prescribe the four conditions for grant or renewal.
The third and fourth conditions relating to secure storage, and safe custody, whilst the firearm or shotgun is in use or transit, cause the worst problems.
Mr. Farrer fell foul of S. 5 4(iv) (a) by allowing his non certificate holding mother access to his shotgun, but there are other scenarios. If father and son, for example, are both Shotgun Certificate holders and share a gun cabinet they should ideally apply to have their shotguns cross-catalogued on each others certificates. If they do not do so then they could hypothetically be in breach of this Condition.
Another, more serious, breach of this Condition may occur if the Certificate Holder is burgled. If the burglar takes a shotgun from the locked gun safe then there is unlikely to be any breach. However if the guns are not so stored, or the key to the safe is readily discovered then the Certificate Holder may be prosecuted for breach of this Condition and/or have his Certificate revoked. The Certificate Holder who keeps a shotgun in his bedroom for potting rabbits on the lawn would be wise to review this practice. It is bad enough to be burgled of a beloved shotgun by some specimen of “low life”, who will probably never be apprehended, but even worse to face prosecution and revocation.
Turning to 3 and 5 (iv) (b), reasonable precautions must be taken for the safe custody of the rifle and shotgun. The Rules do not define reasonable precautions. Many of the cases on this Condition arise from the theft of guns from motor vehicles. The writer submits that what amounts to “reasonable precautions” may differ depending on the circumstances.
For example, a short direct drive on country roads from home to a local shoot requires minimal precautions. However, if the journey is via the Certificate Holder’s business premises in the local town, then the gun should at least be concealed in the vehicle and not on view.
On a long-distance journey, undertaken on major trunk roads and motorways, it is suggested an altogether higher standard of precautions are required if they are to be deemed reasonable. For instance, the rifle or shotgun could be attached to the vehicle by some form of security chain. It can be concealed from view. It can be disabled by the removal of the barrel beforehand or a patent barrel blocking device. Precautions should also be taken as to the parking and immobilising of the vehicle containing the gun. Either one or a combination of some of these procedures might be used.
Rifles and Guns are sometimes stolen from vehicles parked in pub car parks. If possible, guns should not be left in cars during lunch breaks or after shooting or stalking. If there is no alternative, then some or all of the precautions mentioned above are desirable.
The Gamekeeper, who routinely carries firearms in his work vehicle, must guard against them being insecure at any time. His routine may be studied by would-be thieves who well know he is likely to have his guns in his vehicle. Whilst these firearms may be the tools of his trade, a theft of them from his vehicle, even parked outside his house for an hour or so, could result in prosecution and revocation and loss of livelihood. He must use all the security strategies and devices he can to try to minimise the risk of firearms theft.
None of these precautions necessarily deter the thief, and the weapon may still be stolen. However, if this misfortune occurs, the certificate holder who has thought ahead will be able to contend to the Police and, if necessary, the Court that he took all reasonable precautions under S. 3 or 5(4) (iv) (b). Such a Certificate Holder may at least succeed in heading off or defending a Prosecution and also in avoiding a revocation or refusal to renew his Certificate.
Certificate Holders are generally responsible persons; were they not, they would never have Certificates in the first place. Each and every one on grant and renewal must satisfy the Chief Constable that he can have a firearm or shotgun without danger to the public or the peace. His referees must vouch for him. Generally, certificate holders do take all reasonable precautions to store their weapons securely or, when these are in use, take reasonable precautions for their safe custody.
Notwithstanding this, the examples above show that the Police both as criminal law enforcement and firearms law authorities can and do on occasion enforce the letter of the law against Certificate Holders.
The writer submits there is no small element of discrimination against Certificate Holders. With an often hysterical press and public, the Certificate Holders are soft targets. The man who leaves a high powered motor car unattended and unlocked does not face prosecution or disqualification, although he thereby hands to the teenage joy rider who takes and drives it away a lethal weapon.
In contrast, the Firearms or Shotgun Certificate Holder only has to blink to be first allocated a criminal record and secondly revoked, whereafter he may only be able to shoot, if at all, in a most restricted and unsatisfactory manner under the exemptions in the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms Amendment Act 1988.
Certificate Holders would do well to always be mindful that their Certificates are as safe as their permanent storage arrangements and the custodial care they take of their guns whilst these are in use or transit.
Information and Stats
© Copyright:
"David Barrington Barnes, B.A. is a specialist firearms and shooting law solicitor. He accepts professional instructions and can be contacted on bb@shootinglaw.co.uk or by mobile on 07887-762275."
Firearms and Shotgun Certificates was published by The Shooting Scene on 18 Jun, 2008. © All rights reserved. You may download and print this article for personal or non-profit use only. Please feel free to link to this article.
Firearms and Shotgun Certificates was published by The Shooting Scene on 18 Jun, 2008. © All rights reserved. You may download and print this article for personal or non-profit use only. Please feel free to link to this article.
URL: No web site known
Submitted: 18 Jun, 2008 (Edited 30 Jun, 2008)
Hits: 64 to site, 0 from site. Averaging 0 out and 0 in per day.
In the most recent 30 day period, there've been 5 to the site and 0 from the site.
Submitted: 18 Jun, 2008 (Edited 30 Jun, 2008)
Hits: 64 to site, 0 from site. Averaging 0 out and 0 in per day.
In the most recent 30 day period, there've been 5 to the site and 0 from the site.
Tags: