The Home Office is now working in earnest on producing the long awaited new edition of the Guidance. Drafts of the chapters that have so far been updated and revised have been circulated to shooting organisations for consultation and comment.
Our head of firearms law, Laura Saunsbury, along with her co-author in the British Firearms Handbook, barrister Nick Doherty, has submitted various proposals for improvement and clarification of the chapters relating to the procedure for handling firearm and shotgun certificate applications.
We frequently end up advising in appeals where inadequate or ambiguous medical information is what lies behind the Police’s decision to revoke or refuse to grant or renew a certificate. In many instances, the case is subsequently settled by agreement once the applicant’s medical history is clarified. If the volume of such revocations and refusals could be significantly reduced, this would reduce the number of appeals and so result in considerable cost savings, both for the Police and individual certificate holders.
Laura’s submission to the Home Office therefore includes proposals for significant changes to the sections of the Guidance relating to Police requests for medical evidence from applicants’ doctors. Placing a requirement on the Police to give doctors greater guidance when requesting medical reports as to the level of detail and relevant information required from the applicant’s medical history, should in turn lead to more comprehensive medical reports. In many cases, this could satisfy Police concerns about the applicant rather than leaving those concerns unresolved and so leading the Police to refuse to grant or renew a firearm or shotgun certificate for that individual.
Perhaps the most controversial amongst Laura’s proposals to the Home Office is a shift in the burden as to who should pay for medical reports required by the Police for processing firearm and shotgun certificate applications and renewals. The current edition of the Guidance makes the Police responsible for paying doctors’ fees, although under an agreement reached some years ago between the Police and the British Medical Association, doctors often do not get paid anything for supplying the Police with reports in these circumstances.
If the GP were free to negotiate a fee with his patient, i.e. the applicant, the GP might then be far more inclined to provide a more detailed report to the Police. Requiring the applicant to pay GP fees should also ensure there is greater consultation between the GP and the applicant before information is provided, and therefore that the Police receive a complete and up to date assessment of the applicant’s health.
Work by the Home Office on updating the Firearms Guidance to Police is ongoing and it is expected that the new edition will be published during 2013.
If the Police have refused to renew or grant you a firearm or shotgun certificate on medical grounds, contact Laura Saunsbury for advice about prospects of appeal.
