In April 2024, 15-year-old Jairus Earl travelled with his family to Dorset to spend time at their second home. Jairus’ father, a shotgun certificate holder, held a shotgun certificate registered in London and had taken his shotguns with him to Dorset where they were stored in a secure cabinet in the Dorset house.
On 14 April 2024 Jairus, who had a history of mental ill health and suicidal thoughts, took one of his father’s shotguns and tragically ended his own life.
The Inquest into Jairus’ death has resulted in the issue of a Report to Prevent Future Deaths (PFD) by the Senior Coroner for Dorset, Rachael Clare Griffin. Her PFD addressed two particular matters of concern:
- Gaps in the regulation of shotgun licenses when a license holder has more than one property.
- Access that police forces have to medical information about other persons living at the same property.
Registration of shotguns to a particular address
Under section 26B(1) of the Firearms Act 1968, an application for a shotgun certificate shall be made to the chief officer of police “where the applicant resides”. In the case of individuals with multiple residences in different police force areas throughout England and Wales, the individual applying for a certificate ultimately decides which force they wish to apply to. Once a police force grants a shotgun certificate, that individual may travel throughout England and Wales with their shotguns.
Concerns were expressed by the Senior Coroner about the lack of information sharing relating to addresses, and the lack of legal requirement to declare a second home in another force area. The Senior Coroner pointed to Dorset Police’s decision to implement a system whereby, when notified, a second home in Dorset for an external shotgun certificate holder is recorded as if they were a Dorset certificate holder. There is currently no information on whether similar systems are implemented by other police forces.
It may be that the Home Office Statutory Guidance on Firearms Licencing is reviewed, or an amendment to the Firearms Act 1968 is tabled, in order to address this potential difficulty. Shotgun possession is ultimately a privilege and not a right, and the overriding duty of police forces to protect public safety and the peace will almost certainly mean that some form of action is taken following this Report.
If further measures to tighten the rules around registered addresses for shotgun holders are taken, care must be taken to ensure that in effect, a shotgun certificate holder is not being asked to hold multiple licences in multiple different force areas.
The Home Office Statutory Guidance is not uniformly interpreted by all police forces; some forces take a more pragmatic and solution-based approach when considering potential risk factors, while others adopt a more hardline stance in the face of any potential risk. An effective and consistent line of communication between police forces will be key, and at present, for as long as some forces are (arguably) overburdened and under-resourced, the potential for information to fall between the cracks remains a risk.
Access to medical information for third-parties
The Senior Coroner also identified concerns around access to medical information. While police forces are able to obtain evidence relating to the medical history of a certificate holder and can speak to others at an address, they have no right to access medical records relating to another person.
The Home Office’s Statutory Guidance provides that when assessing suitability to hold such a certificate, a police force will consider a number of factors. Such factors relate not only to the individual in question, but also in relation to [another] person who lives at (or has unsupervised access to) their address. This can include any relevant medical conditions associated with that other person, be they the individual’s children or relatives.
In Jairus’s case, he had a history of mental ill health including disclosures that he had thought about ending his own life. That information would not have been made available in the course of his father’s shotgun certificate application as the questions on most forms do not provide for this information to be raised.
Unless such information self-declared or reported by a third-party to the police, there is little that the police can do to obtain such information. Jairus’s medical history came as a great surprise to the police officers in this case.
In July 2019 the Home Office, the police and the British Medical Association agreed a Memorandum of Understanding which sets out the roles and responsibilities of police and doctors regarding the medical assessment of firearms applicants and the ongoing monitoring of those in possession of a firearms certificate. That Memorandum creates no provision for sharing information for those residing in the same address as a license holder or those who may have unsupervised access to firearms.
According to the Home Office Statutory Guidance, “Where a firearms applicant or certificate holder may pose a risk to themselves and/or others, GPs may, depending on the individual circumstances, share relevant information with the police on the following grounds:
- with the individual’s consent;
- on public interest grounds; or
- in some circumstances, if it is legally required.”
Accordingly, disclosures may be made depending on the individual circumstances but that also raises the question of what information is available to the medical professionals, to assess those individual circumstances. It is unlikely that medical professionals will report matters to the police every time somebody reports suicidal thoughts.
GP markers
According to the Statutory Guidance, GPs place a marker on their files which indicates that the patient is a firearms license holder. The purpose of this marker is to provide a reminder to the GP that they may need to notify the police if a person begins to suffer from a relevant medical condition. There is currently no system of placing markers on files to those residing with firearms licence holders, or who might have access to properties where firearms are kept.
This would be valuable information for medical professionals in situations where disclosure is made to them either of suicidal thoughts or perhaps of, domestic abuse; the assessment of risk in that situation would be different if the medical professionals are aware that the patient is in a address with potential access to firearms. In Jairus’s case, it may have led them to report matters to the police sooner.
Ultimately, any proposed change will have to strike a balance between ensuring that police forces have sufficient information at their hands to make an informed decision on whether there is a danger to public safety or the peace, and ensuring that informed consent is given by those whose medical data comes under scrutiny. Currently most Police forces ask firearms applicants to confirm whether they have any relevant medical condition within an application form; an extension of this to ask all other residents to confirm their medical status or naming their GP practice may follow as a halfway house.
Conclusion
While the provision of medical information is a sensitive issue, particularly with regards to mental health, it is possible we will see some movement with regards to firearms licencing from the Home Office in the wake of this Inquest.
There has already been a recent update to the Statutory Guidance (para 2.16) which requires the police to speak to other members of the household to assess suitability and identify any risk factors. If a family member of the applicant has any such mental health issues, they have to declare it themselves or the police will have to identify it during the interview.
Any further changes to the guidance, applications, or to the process more generally, will have to be very carefully balanced so that Police forces are provided sufficient information while certificate holders are able to effectively engage with them in turn, and to ensure that certificate holders can continue to move freely yet responsibly throughout the UK. This sad case illustrates the need for effective communication between medical professionals and the police and also between different police forces.
Our Regulatory team regularly provide specialist advice on firearms licensing appeals and investigations for offences under the Firearms Act 1968. We also offer significant experience in dealing with inquest work, including conducting inquest advocacy on behalf of clients.
This article was written by Sam Harkness (Solicitor) in collaboration with barrister Ehsanul Oarith of Albion Chambers, who is regularly instructed in firearms cases by both lay clients and the Police.
