The occasions on which the use of a firearm or shotgun in self-defence can be justified as necessary and reasonable must be extremely rare. However, it would be difficult to find a clearer example than the unfortunate Mr and Mrs Ferrie who were both arrested earlier this week after Mr Ferrie used a licensed shotgun to frighten away four intruders who had broken into their home in the dead of night.
Quite apart from the fact they were outnumbered by the burglars, the latest reports that have emerged indicate that at least one of the intruders was masked. Having been roused from their sleep by the sound of breaking glass, the couple awoke to be faced by one or more of the gang in their bedroom. Furthermore, they had been the victims of several burglaries in the past. This and the prospect of what was yet to come must all have been operating on Mr Ferrie’s mind at the point when he decided to fire the shotgun. Had he retaliated with anything less than a gun, it is highly questionable whether the burglars would have left them unharmed or exited the property so soon.
In the circumstances, it is difficult to imagine why it took so long for a senior lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service to reach the decision that their actions amounted to no more than lawful and reasonable self-defence, and that consequently neither of them should be prosecuted. The couple spent almost three whole days in police custody before being released on police bail. No doubt, they must have been greatly relieved when their ordeal ended some 24 hours later and they were informed a decision had been reached to take no further action.
But is it really over yet for Mr and Mrs Ferrie? The fact remains they suffered the ignominy of being arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm, a serious criminal offence, and were deprived of their liberty for 3 days. The couple would have been detained separately from each other at a time when the very thing each of them craved was almost certainly the comforting presence of their spouse. This must have added significantly to the trauma of the burglary and will no doubt stay with them for a very long time to come.
The further aspect of this case, which probably won’t have occurred to the wider public, is that Mr and Mrs Ferrie may now face scrutiny from their police firearms department as to whether the shotgun certificates held by them should be revoked. It is to be hoped that the licensing department will take a sensible view in the circumstances of this case. But as our firearms law specialist Laura Saunsbury knows only too well from her experience in advising on firearms licensing appeals, the mere fact that an individual has been cleared of a criminal offence they were suspected of committing does not by any means guarantee their firearm or shotgun certificate is safe. If there is any indication their certificates may be in jeopardy, Mr and Mrs Ferrie would be well advised to avail themselves of specialist representation.
