Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Hunter safety training and licensing in the UK question
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
So why not appeal then and send in pictures of your security with an independent report of a security 'expert?'

Appealing a section 44 appeal requires leave of the court to appeal as there is no statutory basis for it. I know Essex police appealed the Farrer case but I haven't got the money to be throwing into appeals, although my one success is that the police failed in their application for costs.

Farrer appealed from Crown Court (despite promising to abide by its decision) and we appealed from QBD to the Court of Appeal as the judgement at QBD meant Tom, Dick and Harry could say who they wanted to have access to their firearms. You don't need leave to Appeal. Even if the Judge doesn't grant you leave to Appeal, it's down to the three at QBD whether they will hear an Appeal. It's nice if he does though.

cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
That's why you have Barristers. He may have not read everything to be sure, but they like to see the arguments.

I had written arguments, the clerk had given them to him in a timely manner, he hadn't read them and neither had the magistrates. The police didn't even have written arguments at all. It was obvious the judge hadn't even got a copy of the Firearms Act, the barrister had to supply him with a copy.

I find that hard to believe. All Benches have Archibold and/or Stones in my experience. The point on written arguments is a good one. After all, Police are the respondent. Is it our remit to lay out the argument for the appellants? There's case law on that as well, but convention has it that we prepare a bundle.
cybershooters wrote:
Quote:
Kavenagh? Farrer? Dabek? Germain? Shall i go on?

Well to clarify, a regular section 44 appeal that has no transcript doesn't establish a precedent (the overwhelming majority of them). This is what I keep telling the Home Office about my second appeal, I was there, I know what happened. I spoke to someone from Leicestershire Police about it once and he explained my case to me, I told him that was complete twoddle and I should know, I was there! They're administrative appeals, not criminal cases.

Crown Court decisions are not binding, but can give direction. QBD (and Court of Appeal) whilst not binding require extenuating reasons why not to go with them. Eg GERMAIN, 2 drink drives in a five year period, say goodbye. However, there may be extenuating circumstances why the 2 x DD's should not apply.
cybershooters wrote:
This is why I was never clear why Essex appealed Farrer, in the end they won but by appealing it they made it a bigger deal. If they'd lost, then they really would have established a precedent they couldn't get out of.

As above, the QBD said that Tom Dick and Harry could choose who they wanted to have access to their firearms. Mum, sister, brother etc. It was down to the cert holder. QBD gives it precedent and even shooting organisations didn't favour the QBD result that much. If you think it's down to the cert holder who should have access to his firearms ..... without any background checks .... who they then give them too ..... the Court of appeal disagree, as do I for very obvious reasons.
cybershooters wrote:
Guy Savage actually has a letter from the Home Office which he went to some trouble to get where they explain their policy on which cases they use to establish precedent for firearm-related issues, basically what it says is they pick whatever ones they want that they think are relevant, regardless of the origin. In Guy's situation that was harmful to him because there was caselaw that contradicted what the Home Office said.

I'll refrain from comment on Guy as before for obvious reasons
cybershooters wrote:
As a result I don't really pay much attention to what the Home Office say about court cases, a court decides at the end of the day, the only reason you write to the Home Office is in case they side with you and you have a letter to prove it but you expect them not to. If you press them then you get a "court will decide" letter from them.

The guidance mentions both Crown Court and QBD (and Court of Appeal and HoL decisions). The difference I've explained above. I thought you'd had legal training?

The Edwards case is interesting. Even though he beat his wife up and had illegal grenades, he still got his certificate back. The QBD who saw the Appeal agreed that the Judge had made the right decision in law ie he had considered all of the evidence and still believed he wasn't a danger, so the Appeal was lost by Police. However, the QBD in a nutshell said they wouldn't have come to the same decision as the Judge based on what they'd read. You appeal on a point of law. The QBD (and above) can say whether Police were right or wrong in law.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
The guidance mentions both Crown Court and QBD (and Court of Appeal and HoL decisions). The difference I've explained above. I thought you'd had legal training?


The guidance and the Home Office aren't accurate, is the point. You read the caselaw itself, not what the Home Office said about it. If there was no written decision their opinion is largely meaningless. They quote my case for example and there was no written decision. Plus the Home Office is biased, they ignore bits of caselaw that don't jive with their view of the law, the most obvious example being their guidance on antiques.

If it just so happens the Home Office view of it helps your case, great, otherwise you ignore it.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
I find that hard to believe.


My memory is a bit rusty on what he had to hand, but he definitely did not have a copy of the law, he ended up using the photocopy the police barrister provided him with. This was back in 1999 so I guess he didn't have the 1997 amendments. He didn't know what the rules of the court were or anything to do with appeals under the Act.

My second appeal was basically the reverse, the judge said he'd read up on section 44 appeals the night before and was going to set the rules of the court as he saw fit as he had broad latitude, and said to the barrister he wasn't going to allow any witnesses at all. At which point the barrister gagged. So it was me against him with the police providing him information and Bill Harriman giving me advice as we went along.

I'm convinced the reason I lost was basically because of deference to the fact he was a lawyer (don't rule against the pro) and plus one of the magistrates clearly didn't like guns, because the ruling was totally illogical and even their barrister said it was bollocks. Every point he made we blew out of the water and the judge clearly agreed with us based on his comments as we went along.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
The guidance mentions both Crown Court and QBD (and Court of Appeal and HoL decisions). The difference I've explained above. I thought you'd had legal training?

The guidance and the Home Office aren't accurate, is the point. You read the caselaw itself, not what the Home Office said about it. If there was no written decision their opinion is largely meaningless. They quote my case for example and there was no written decision. Plus the Home Office is biased, they ignore bits of caselaw that don't jive with their view of the law, the most obvious example being their guidance on antiques.

Here we go again, me, me, me, me. There's plenty in the guidance that mentions decisions that go against current views, particularly on good reason. The original 2002 draft had five references to Dunblane and Cullen. There's no reference to Dunblane now.

Their guidance on antiques reflects what the shooting organisations wanted, expert evidence. Maybe it wasn't what CS wanted, but then they have a bigger membership.
cybershooters wrote:
If it just so happens the Home Office view of it helps your case, great, otherwise you ignore it.

Like most shooters and shooting organisations you mean? Police are continually lambasted for not following it, until it suits the shooters or shooting organisations point of view.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
I find that hard to believe.

My memory is a bit rusty on what he had to hand, but he definitely did not have a copy of the law, he ended up using the photocopy the police barrister provided him with. This was back in 1999 so I guess he didn't have the 1997 amendments. He didn't know what the rules of the court were or anything to do with appeals under the Act.

Stones and Archibald both have the latest amendments in the following years edition. What sometimes happens, as the books are large and unwieldy is production of A4 sheets with the law thereon.
cybershooters wrote:
My second appeal was basically the reverse, the judge said he'd read up on section 44 appeals the night before and was going to set the rules of the court as he saw fit as he had broad latitude, and said to the barrister he wasn't going to allow any witnesses at all. At which point the barrister gagged. So it was me against him with the police providing him information and Bill Harriman giving me advice as we went along.

His train set.
cybershooters wrote:
I'm convinced the reason I lost was basically because of deference to the fact he was a lawyer (don't rule against the pro) and plus one of the magistrates clearly didn't like guns, because the ruling was totally illogical and even their barrister said it was bollocks. Every point he made we blew out of the water and the judge clearly agreed with us based on his comments as we went along.

I've said on many occasions, the Courts come to some strange decisions. As before, you need to try and be impartial even if it is your case.

I think it was the first case I lost against SRA. A month later he was thrown out of a nightclub and came back and threatened the door staff with one of his shot guns. I genuinely had to be stopped from writing to the Crown Court and saying 'I told you so.' Same as the man who got his SGC back but not his FAC. Three months later his car was found overturned in a ditch shot gun ammo strewn all about. The dog found him in a shed and even though it was two hours later, he was still twice over the limit. Decisions in my view are not taken arbitrarily.

I'm sure you feel aggrieved but can it just be taken as read that you are and focus on other cases in the guidance?
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
Here we go again, me, me, me, me. There's plenty in the guidance that mentions decisions that go against current views, particularly on good reason. The original 2002 draft had five references to Dunblane and Cullen. There's no reference to Dunblane now.


It's not all me, the guidance on antiques may have been done with shooting associations, the point is that it doesn't reflect current caselaw. The Home Office do ignore bits of caselaw, Guy has it in writing from them that they do. Some of the caselaw they present in guidance is incorrectly presented. How is that all me? I'm talking about what happens in court here.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
I'm sure you feel aggrieved but can it just be taken as read that you are and focus on other cases in the guidance?


I was just explaining what happened, this isn't a thread about court cases per se. Like I said, even the police barrister thought the decision was bollocks, he said it to me. What we were talking about originally was going to court on constitutional grounds - courts will not be friendly to something to do with firearms as both of us have found out on multiple occasions, that was all I was trying to get across. Plus "Home Office policy" is not law either and courts frequently ignore it, plus the Home Office have their own agenda.

Like I said above, when courts do find against the police, it's usually something straightforward to do with the character of the applicant, whether it be a refusal to grant, refusal to renew or section 21 prohibition, which is what you seem to have said.

If you go to court on technical grounds (like I did) you will probably lose, which is what I was illustrating. Personally I think going to court on something to do with the Bill of Rights would fall into that category.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Here we go again, me, me, me, me. There's plenty in the guidance that mentions decisions that go against current views, particularly on good reason. The original 2002 draft had five references to Dunblane and Cullen. There's no reference to Dunblane now.

It's not all me, the guidance on antiques may have been done with shooting associations, the point is that it doesn't reflect current caselaw. The Home Office do ignore bits of caselaw, Guy has it in writing from them that they do. Some of the caselaw they present in guidance is incorrectly presented. How is that all me? I'm talking about what happens in court here.

Okay (albeit the thread seems to be on the lines of how you were misquoted in your cases); example(s)? There's many cases funnily enough which aren't quoted in shooting journals such as .410 hammer guns lost by a well respected expert. The guidance is pretty good bearing in mind what cases are out there and what has actually been published in shooting mags.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mick F wrote:
There's many cases funnily enough which aren't quoted in shooting journals such as .410 hammer guns lost by a well respected expert. Mick F


Has anybody kept a log of how many he's lost ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:
Mick F wrote:
I'm sure you feel aggrieved but can it just be taken as read that you are and focus on other cases in the guidance?

I was just explaining what happened, this isn't a thread about court cases per se. Like I said, even the police barrister thought the decision was bollocks, he said it to me. What we were talking about originally was going to court on constitutional grounds - courts will not be friendly to something to do with firearms as both of us have found out on multiple occasions, that was all I was trying to get across. Plus "Home Office policy" is not law either and courts frequently ignore it, plus the Home Office have their own agenda.

I wouldn't say they frequently ignore it, or at least not in my experience and that of my colleagues. Maybe one or two cases in favour of shooters that the shooting chip wrappers publish
cybershooters wrote:
Like I said above, when courts do find against the police, it's usually something straightforward to do with the character of the applicant, whether it be a refusal to grant, refusal to renew or section 21 prohibition, which is what you seem to have said.

Again, only what is published. I've seen unreported cases of handguns for humane despatch getting refused at Court but because they don't favour shooters, they're not published. Farrer even had an article in Shooting Times. Funnily enough my three page response was not released to Shooting Times which gave a much more balanced in my view and of the lengthy negotiations which went on before we even got to Court. There's two sides to most stories.
cybershooters wrote:
If you go to court on technical grounds (like I did) you will probably lose, which is what I was illustrating. Personally I think going to court on something to do with the Bill of Rights would fall into that category.

Having re read the Burke case, I agree. This was a point they made about fraud cases and it's down to barristers who are not technically qualified to put it in layman's terms. I've often seen Judges pretty much dismiss Barrister's arguments on both sides. For me "If your client continues in his derogatory comments about Mr Fidgeon it will not do his case any good" to "What is the basis of your evidence, have we seen any missuse of firearms?" (which isn't the point ala Germain or conduct analogous to the possession of firearms).

In summary, what cases have been published in the shooting press only represent a percentage of cases heard and are those which have been found in favour of the shooter.

Had a DC email me about how we were upsetting shooters because of what he'd read. Advised him that not only was I member of the same organisation, that we circulated their advice on shooters (with the caveat to ignore the emotive beginning); that we spoke to that organisation on a weekly basis (twice today) and that they were out there to gain more members and good press rarely made the pages but bad always did. I also advised him that we in conjunction with that organisation had come up with a shooters guide to dealing with trespassers. Still hoping to get a joint ACPO and BSSC publication. He left with his tail between his legs because he had believed the hype.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carrot Cruncher wrote:
Mick F wrote:
There's many cases funnily enough which aren't quoted in shooting journals such as .410 hammer guns lost by a well respected expert. Mick F

Has anybody kept a log of how many he's lost ?

Dunno, but I think he's won more than lost on the whole.
Cheers
Mick F
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rob



Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
Location: Cheshire

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was listening to the Tony Livesey Show on 5 Live last night. I missed the start, but they were talking about a decision by the University of Colorado to ban the carrying of firearms on campus. If I heard right, most students opposed this ban, and a personable young guy was on explaining why he wanted a permit so as to be able to protect himself and fellow students if necessary. The programme was a good illustration of the way the very concept of armed self defence has been completely eradicated in Britain. The journalist guest just didn't get it, it was as if the student was talking Chinese. He couldn't work out why anyone would want a gun, why they wouldn't rely on the campus police to protect them (like at Virginia Tech maybe?), and even accused the student of "escalating" a situation by defending himself.

This is the point I was making before. The 1920 Act did not forbid armed self defence, and until 1939 banks and other similar companies routinely kept handguns on the premises. The only reason this stopped after WWII was down to the "policy" of the Home Office and police, not because of any decision Parliament made. Because of this, the idea of armed defence just does not compute in Britain any more, it's as if it went down a 1984 style memory hole.

The reality was that 99.9% of the population did not own a handgun, and those that did, had them purely for target shooting. That "good reason" did not cut the mustard when the press decided the sport had to be destroyed, precisely because that's all it was, a sport. I am sure that if Americans were only allowed to own handguns for target shooting they would have been banned by now. Handguns have always been defensive weapons, and the sport of target shooting grew from that. Divorced from their essential raison d'etre, it was only a matter of time before the sport was legislated out of existence, all because of a change of policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4589

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've always thought that one of the reasons people in Britain are so anti-gun is that the police don't carry guns routinely, and when they do it's usually something like an MP5 or a G36 which is far more overt than a pistol.

In other countries, people see the police walking around with a pistol on their hip so they're aware it's just a piece of metal. In GB in particular most people get their concept of firearms from the TV and inane prattling at the pub.

It makes it very hard to have any sort of rational conversation about the subject because most people have no experience of firearms at all, they do not have even a basic understanding of how they work. Inevitably you end up ploughing through TV-generated myths and other claptrap.

But really, urbanisation is the cause of anti-gun sentiment at the end of the day, people who live in cities only really see firearms used in crime on a day-to-day basis. The most urban places are Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore for example and look how tough their gun laws are. The US has a large rural population and so does New Zealand for example and their gun laws are far less restrictive.
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cybershooters wrote:


But really, urbanisation is the cause of anti-gun sentiment at the end of the day, people who live in cities only really see firearms used in crime on a day-to-day basis. The most urban places are Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore for example and look how tough their gun laws are. The US has a large rural population and so does New Zealand for example and their gun laws are far less restrictive.


Same principle applies in UK really, though it's a matter of application rather than the laws themselves. Urban police forces on the whole tend to have a far stricter approach than most rural forces.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One upon a time, in a land far away . . . .

What training requirements are there to hunt in the UK? Is there a hunting license similar to the US or German systems?
Thank you,
George in Las Vegas



I think Elvis has left the building.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 11 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group