At present, firearms licensing in the UK takes two separate tracks with two separate forms of requirements. These are known as Section 1 licensing (for rifles) and Section 2 licensing (for shotguns). Section 1 licencing imposes a large number of conditions on owners of firearms, including restrictions on their place of use, an outright restriction on their use under supervision, and the requirement of good reasons for holding such firearms. Section 2 licencing does not impose similar requirements at present on the holder of a shotgun.
In response to a Home Office proposal to merge the requirements of Section 1 and Section 2, in effect creating a uniform system with no distinction for shotgun ownership, over 100,000 signatures were added to a petition against such proposed reforms.
Reforms
The proposed reforms would result in the following changes for shotgun certificate holders:
- The imposition of conditions on shotgun use, such as their place of use.
- Compulsory membership of clay grounds or registered shoots as a place of use.
- Land inspections for any land nominated for the use of a shotgun.
- Removal of existing exemptions allowing supervised lending under section 11(5) Firearms Act 1968.
- Restrictions on the temporary transfer of shotguns, even where previously permissible under Section 2 arrangements.
These reforms are proposed with a view to improving public safety and achieving consistency in firearms licensing. Critics argue that there are substantially more dangerous priorities when it comes to public safety, such as tackling illegal weapons and knife crime, and trying to achieve consistency in how police forces assess individuals considered to be a risk to public safety or the peace. In addition, there is currently no clear evidence-based justification for imposing Section 1-style conditions on shotgun owners; Home Office statistics consistently show that lawfully-held shotguns are rarely involved in criminal misuse, raising questions about whether such reforms meet the public law requirements of proportionality and rationality.
Delays
One assertion that is made in support of these proposed reforms is that the creation of a uniform system will speed up firearms licensing teams in making decisions. In reality, the opposite outcome is more likely based on existing resourcing constraints. In our experience, firearms licensing teams across many police forces are already stretched to capacity – the additional requirement to consider conditions of use around shotgun certificates will only worsen this situation.
Our clients have encountered substantial delays whilst we have sought to engage with particular police forces during an appeal against the revocation of a certificate (or the refusal to grant). We are concerned that increasing the regulatory requirements on those officers to examine, on a case-by-case basis, the suitability and proposed conditions attached to each shotgun certificate will only worsen the current situation.
Consistency of approach
When it comes to police assessments of suitability to hold a firearms licence or shotgun certificate, decisions must be taken with reference to the Home Office’s Statutory Guidance on firearms licensing. The reality is that while one set of Statutory Guidance exists for police forces, individual firearms licensing teams apply this Guidance in wildly different ways already.
Even in the West Country (the area in which we see the most instructions to advise on firearms licensing requirements), there are police forces for whom the fact of a criminal allegation being made is sufficient to revoke a certificate before an investigation is concluded. For other police forces in the same geographic area, a suitability investigation is only triggered in the event of a charging decision or a conviction (and even after some convictions, firearms licensing officers are satisfied that the individual involved does not pose a danger to public safety and allow them to continue to possess shotguns).
There is no guarantee that, even if uniformity is imposed between Section 1 and Section 2 licensing, police forces will adopt a uniform approach. With no right of appeal against unnecessarily onerous conditions, the risk is that shotgun certificate owners are pushed from a system of some flexibility to a system of unrealistic rigidity, simply by virtue of a postcode lottery. There is also a real risk that the introduction of multiple, detailed conditions will inadvertently criminalise otherwise law‑abiding certificate holders; the current shotgun system is deliberately simple, and adding complex conditional requirements increases the likelihood of accidental technical breaches, potentially resulting in revocation or prosecution despite no meaningful risk to public safety.
Potential benefits
One potential benefit that has not been widely examined is the potential to improve dialogue around appeals against the revocation of a certificate, or the refusal to grant a shotgun certificate.
Police forces often take decisions to revoke (or refuse to grant) a firearms licence or shotgun certificate, on grounds that they consider an individual cannot possess a firearm or shotgun without being a danger to public safety or the peace. We regularly act for clients looking to appeal such decisions.
However, when appealing decisions in respect of shotgun certificates, we often find that there is no mechanism to resolve matters outside of Court as police forces fall back on their inability to impose conditions on shotgun certificate holders under the current licensing regime. This leaves clients in an unenviable situation where they have to commit fully to a hearing in the Crown Court or withdraw their appeal.
It is feasible that more nuanced outcomes could be achieved when appealing against marginal decisions to refuse to grant a shotgun certificate. However, it would be hard to persuade critics of these proposed reforms that this benefit outweighs the increased bureaucracy and ostensibly more onerous requirements for shotgun certificate holders.
The Regulatory team at Clarke Willmott LLP regularly advise clients in respect of firearms licensing queries, representing clients in appeals against the revocation or refusal to grant certificates as well as in criminal proceedings relating to offences under the Firearms Act 1968. If you would like to learn more about these proposed changes, or if you are concerned about an actual or threatened revocation decision from a police force, then please contact Sam Harkness.
Article written by Sam Harkness (Solicitor) with assistance from Matthew Burgess (Paralegal).
