.17Hmr Supervisory Condition

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

My first post!!

 

I recently applied for a FAC for a .17HMR. Just as the FAC was about to be granted, I was told there would be a supervisory condition imposed (i.e I have to be accompanied by a FAC holder until I can demonstrate that this is no longer required) with no explanation provided.

 

I can't find much on the internet so thought I would ask you guys:

 

1. As far as I'm aware, supervisory conditions on a FAC as for large calibres / centre fires but would be interested to hear others' opinions. It seems particularly odd as I have been a responsible shotgun shooter for 25+ years.

 

2. In due course, how does one go about having the supervisory condition removed? Is it just a letter from your supervisor? I guess it will vary between forces but would be interested to hear advice.

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

[paulus 26]

there is no legal requirement in law that backs this up, are you a member of basc, sacs or any other shooting organization?

[rimmer 33]

I think your condition will have been put on because you prob didnt have a shotgun cert before hand, which always helps as it shows a progression in experiance, and if you think about it, its only sensible that you be supervised if you can show no previous experiance of firearms.

I had the same condition years ago on a center fire and my supervisor wrote to them after 6 months and the condition was removed.

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

Yes, BASC. I spoke to one of their officers. Without telling me, he went straight to the issuing force and asked why, and then came back to me to say it happens (although not with .17HMRs). So I'm none the wiser.

 

there is no legal requirement in law that backs this up, are you a member of basc, sacs or any other shooting organization?

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

I've had a SC for 25 years.

 

I think your condition will have been put on because you prob didnt have a shotgun cert before hand, which always helps as it shows a progression in experiance, and if you think about it, its only sensible that you be supervised if you can show no previous experiance of firearms.

I had the same condition years ago on a center fire and my supervisor wrote to them after 6 months and the condition was removed.

[paulus 26]

 

Yes, BASC. I spoke to one of their officers. Without telling me, he went straight to the issuing force and asked why, and then came back to me to say it happens (although not with .17HMRs). So I'm none the wiser.

 

there is no legal requirement in law that backs this up, are you a member of basc, sacs or any other shooting organization?

i would be ringing them back

[The one 8,482]

Ask basc and the issuing force Why ?>

[MrDjk 3]

Will you be going out on your own or with someone else at least to start with? If it is the latter is it actually going to make a difference? Get some experience under your belt and get whoever goes out with you to put something in writing after a few months and this would normally get it lifted. You only have the right to appeal a refusal or revocation not any conditions imposed. The fact that you have held a sgc for so long should make it a formality really.

[paulus 26]

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
ON FIREARM CERTIFICATES
[ADVICE FOR FIREARMS LICENSING STAFF]
INTRODUCTION
Firearm certificate conditions have proliferated over the years and have become a
cause of friction between the police and certificate holders. Many certificate holders are
frustrated by restrictions on the way they are allowed to use their firearms where there
is no danger or logical reason for those restrictions.
This fact sheet aims to provide advice to licensing staff and certificate holders about
the balanced application (if necessary) of additional firearm certificate conditions.
FIRST PRINCIPLES
Section 27(2) of the 1968 Firearms Act states;
“A firearm certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the conditions -
(if any) subject to which it is held”. [my underlining]
This clearly infers that additional conditions should be the exception rather than the
rule.
What are additional conditions?
Conditions, other than the statutory conditions prescribed by the 1998 Firearms Rules,
are a mechanism for the Chief Constable to regulate the behaviour of a certificate
holder where necessary, on a case by case basis. The original 1969 Home Office
Guidance on Parliament’s intentions within the 1968 Firearms Act shows this.
Section 10.35 of the guidance says that the chief officer may impose extra conditions
“if he feels that they are necessary to ensure effective operation of the firearms
controls and minimise risk to public safety”.
“Public safety” must not be extended to include restrictions on the shooting of certain
legal quarry species. Public safety relates to the holders competence to take a safe
shot when using a firearm over land. This assessment is dealt with at initial grant and
via land checks. For example: stopping a certificate holder shooting a fox with a rifle
held for deer has nothing to do with public safety. A backstop is always required.
It is ultra vires for police to impose conditions preventing a certificate holder from
carrying out an operation that would otherwise be lawful. Police have an enforcement
role with regard to the law; not to role to invent or embellish it.
Are conditions linked to ‘good reason’?
Conditions are not linked to “Good Reason”, neither do they automatically flow from it.
Whilst conditions often happen to list the primary reason conditions were not devised
to be used as a statement of good reason. A certificate may be granted once good
reason is met with or without conditions. Conditions should form no part of the process
for determining whether the applicant has satisfied “good reason”. Once good reason
has been satisfied, then an appraisal may be made to see whether it is appropriate for
any conditions to be imposed.
Once good reason has been demonstrated for the initial possession of a firearm,
additional conditions should be applied to allow other lawful uses. Paragraphs 13.14 &
13.22 of “Firearms Law – Guidance to the police 2002” make this clear.
What does the Home Office Guidance say about additional conditions?
13.14 “Good reason” to possess particular firearms will generally be linked to the
quarry species found on the land concerned, for example on a farm or estate. However,
conditions for the possession of such firearms should allow the certificate holder to deal
with reasonable eventualities, for example pest or game species or the humane
destruction of injured animals on the estate.
13.22 Chief officers of police will wish to be mindful that quarry species are mobile and
applicants may not be able to always predict their presence on land on a consistent
basis. Certificate conditions should therefore allow the applicant flexibility in dealing
with quarry species.
Note: In a letter to police licensing staff from the Home Office titled “reasonableness”
and dated 9th December 2002 (ref: TDD-0372) it says;
“Guidance says that allowance should be made for ‘reasonable eventuality’ of game
being present on the land (see paragraph 13.14). Whilst this appears to sometimes be
contrary to the table in Chapter 13, it should be remembered that the table is there to
establish the ‘good reason’ for the possession of the gun in the first place and should
not necessarily be used to impose overly restrictive conditions.”
Note: In an email to a BASC member from a Home Office official dated 18th August
2000 it says;
“I should make clear, firstly that the guidance is just that, and is not intended to set
the absolute limits of acceptable practice.
Secondly, the guidance was intended to deal mainly with the ‘good reason’ to acquire
weapons rather than their use as such. We would certainly not wish to force shooters
to acquire more guns than they need or to leave guns unattended because they are
obliged to carry a selection.”
THE CASE OF REGINALD BUCKLAND - 1997 (CAMBRIDGE CROWN COURT)
Paragraph 10.33 of “Firearms Law Guidance to the Police” states;
“As the courts have held (R v Cambridge Crown Court ex parte Buckland, 1998) that
there is no right of appeal against the imposition of conditions (as opposed to a refusal
to grant or renew a certificate) chief officers will wish to be cautious in imposing
conditions that might amount to a constructive refusal to grant or renew a certificate,
that is additional conditions that would make possession or use so difficult as to be
redundant in practice.”
The lack of an appeal procedure for a certificate holder aggrieved by a condition makes
it incumbent upon Chief Constables to be reasonable in imposing conditions. Conditions
must be competent in law and ‘Wednesbury reasonable’.
In his Judgement on the Buckland case, His Honour Judge J Haworth said: “That upon
a grant the Chief Constable shall specify any conditions, subject to the test of
Wednesbury reasonableness.”
Irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness
Wednesbury unreasonableness is a standard used in assessing applications for judicial
reviews of decisions by public authorities under English law. It applies to a decision,
which is "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no
sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have
arrived at it." [Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil
Service (the GCHQ case 1983)]. Whether a decision falls within this category is a
question that judges should be well equipped to answer. It is possible for a decision to
fail a proportionality test without being Wednesbury unreasonable.
In the words of Lord Greene [Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury
Corporation 1947]:
“It is true that discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean?
Lawyers familiar with the phraseology used in relation to exercise of statutory
discretions often use the word ‘unreasonable’ in a rather comprehensive sense. It has
frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that
must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak,
direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters, which he
is bound to consider. He must exclude from his considerations matters, which are
irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be
said, and often is said, to be acting ‘unreasonably’. Similarly, there may be something
so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the
authority.
A typical example of unreasonableness that relates to firearms licensing is when
conditions are applied to make a lawful activity unlawful, for example; to impose a
condition restricting a person to shooting “foxes whilst deer stalking”.
The “foxes whilst deer stalking” condition prohibits night shooting as deer can only be
legally shot during daylight hours; the condition also prohibits a rifle being used on
land where the deer e.g. herding species have moved away, albeit temporarily or
where there are no deer in the first instance. Such a condition only seeks to force the
holder to obtain another rifle which the police feel is appropriate for unrestricted fox
control and to make secondary trips after stalking has ceased (see email above from
Richard Worth). Aside to night shooting, to make separate visits is often incompatible
as foxes are active at the same time as deer at dawn and dusk.
In essence an applicant is either safe to have a rifle or not, if he needs a specific calibre
by law for deer stalking and the application is approved for the person to shoot the
largest quarry species in the UK, then shooting a fox with the same rifle will also be
safe, humane and legal. The process of taking a safe and humane shot is identical
across the species and must of course includes a safe backstop. The aspect that police
are looking to be satisfied about is the competency of the applicant to take a safe shot
every time. The shooting of any quarry requires a safe backstop for the shot, and the
process/experience is translatable between quarry species.
Aside to an applicant’s ability to take a safe shot, police also allege that larger calibres
capable of humanely shooting the largest species of deer are ‘unsuitable’ or ‘overkill’
for smaller species such as fox. The primary concern for police is whether there are
issues around an application due to lack of energy to achieve a humane kill, not to
attempt to measure excess energy which will be absorbed by the backstop.
Some notes about additional conditions:
When it necessary to impose conditions, they must have the following attributes:
They must be….
o LAWFUL
o UNAMBIGUOUS
o WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH
o REASONABLE
o PROPORTIONATE
o NON-CONTRADICTORY
o DEMONSTRABLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
o PROPERLY NOTIFIED
o EVIDENCED
LAWFUL
• Must not permit or incite someone to do something which is illegal
e.g. to shoot deer with a rifle which does not satisfy the ballistic
minima of the Deer Act.
• They must not impose restrictions upon actions which are otherwise
permitted by law, whether explicitly or implicitly.
• May not modify or otherwise circumvent one or more of the statutory
conditions.
• May not require the certificate holder to obtain something for which
no authority is required e.g. The fitting of an integral sound
moderation system or to restrict the purchase of a particular ‘design’
of a firearm proven to be Section 1. The Act doesn’t provide for the
chief officer to be arbiter of taste in firearms.
Note: A condition which is incompetent in law does not bind the certificate holder.
UNAMBIGUOUS
• Must be in terms which are certain.
• Should not have a double meaning.
WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH
• They should be clearly written and couched in clear terms and
language.
• Should be pitched at the lowest level of education.
• Should be tested by an impartial independent source - peer review.
REASONABLE
• Statute law governs many aspects of firearms use. This should not
be modified by administration other than for a very good reason, on
an individual basis, and with clear and evidenced benefits.
• It is unreasonable to restrict the types of quarry. What quarry is shot
on land is a matter for the law and the landowner, not an
administrator.
PROPORTIONATE
• Should be tailored to the individual circumstances and should not
restrict the use of firearms more than is necessary – the burden of
proof in this case falls on the police.
• Risk assessment of individuals – only the minimum level of
restriction which would neutralise that clearly defined risk should be
imposed.
Note: Richard Worth (Home Office 1999) said; “In general we would advise the police
to exercise caution in imposing conditions that are unduly restrictive”.
NON-CONTRADICTORY
• The wording of some conditions has often been contradictory, not
only one with the other, but also within a single condition, where one
phrase may contradict another. This is normally caused by the word
“Only”.
• Where one condition contradicts one or more others, they may all be
invalid. This reduces any utility as it would be difficult for a
prosecution to succeed.
DEMONSTRABLY BENEFICIAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY
• They should be imposed for a specific reason, not merely as a catch
all. The burden of proof in this area falls on the police.
• They should not be imposed merely to prosecute the certificate
holder in the case of a breach of those conditions.
• They should not be imposed if it is already an offence to do a
particular act i.e. forbidding the certificate holder to perform an
action which is already illegal e.g. armed trespass, shooting
something out of season or ammunition not conforming to the Deer
Acts. Such conditions place the certificate holder in double jeopardy.
PROPERLY NOTIFIED
• Section 29(1) of the 1968 Firearms Act give the chief officer of police
the power to change conditions by providing notice in writing to
the certificate holder. If no such notice is given it may be that the
amendment is unlawful.
EVIDENCED
Where conditions need to be employed, they should be evidenced and the evidence
should be;
• Thoroughly thought out – not just that which may suit an opinion
• Objectively considered – looking at all the facts without bias
• Recorded – the reasons for the application of those conditions.
NEGOTIATION
When there is disagreement with the wording of conditions, such conditions must be
negotiable. Where a request is made for a condition to be changed, the burden should
fall upon the police to justify its retention, rather than vice versa.
Please listen to the concerns of your customers and be prepared to justify and
document your actions. If you fail to do this you leave yourself open to complaint and
possible public censure.
END NOTE
The right to impose conditions places considerable power in the hands of Firearms
Licensing staff. At a stroke you can make that which is otherwise lawful, unlawful.
It is ultra vires for you to impose conditions preventing a certificate holder from
carrying out an operation that would otherwise be lawful.
BASC recommends that licensing staff always ask themselves what the benefits and
disadvantages of imposing a particular condition may be.
For preference, unless the individual circumstances clearly justify them, conditions
should be avoided. If conditions are used the evidence for applying conditions should
be documented.
If additional conditions must be used, please use them sparingly & wisely, and with a
clear and evidenced record of their benefit to the public safety.
ENQUIRIES TO: Phone 01244-573010
E-mail: firearms@basc.org.uk
© BASC December 2012

[The one 8,482]

It no legal to enforce so suppose you agree ,get your cert then go out by yourself what can the lawfully do to you ?.

[b53hunt 15]

very strange never heard of anyone having that condition for a rimfire but they do these things might well be you just do what they ask and get a letter from someone saying your fine then happy days condition lifted or join a rifle club and chairman will vouch for you atb

[Beefbeefbeef 10]

I may just keep my head down and apply to get the supervisory condition taken off in a few months. Still have no real idea how I go about doing that - you would think the police would provide advice or at least explain their reasoning. I guess a letter from my local keeper will suffice.

 

Any ideas welcome.

[Ratsmasher 36]

 

NEGOTIATION

When there is disagreement with the wording of conditions, such conditions must be

negotiable. Where a request is made for a condition to be changed, the burden should

fall upon the police to justify its retention, rather than vice versa.

 

As I read it you should ring up your FEO and quote that^ bit and they should at least explain their reasoning.

 

I may just keep my head down and apply to get the supervisory condition taken off in a few months. Still have no real idea how I go about doing that - you would think the police would provide advice or at least explain their reasoning. I guess a letter from my local keeper will suffice.

 

Any ideas welcome.

[charlie caller 3,654]

I may just keep my head down and apply to get the supervisory condition taken off in a few months. Still have no real idea how I go about doing that - you would think the police would provide advice or at least explain their reasoning. I guess a letter from my local keeper will suffice.

 

Any ideas welcome.

That would be the best option,the police can( within reason)impose any conditions they like,and we are going to see this more and more,but in some cases (note I said some) this is a good thing,get out with your mentor,put plenty of rounds through your rifle,get the experience,get your mentor to sign you off as safe,condition removed, simples.

Edited April 10, 2013 by charlie caller