Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Police using procedure to punish.

Judicial review, activities of government, local and national etc.

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby shootist » Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:11 pm

atticus wrote:How many had you used in your last post but one?

3
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby shootist » Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:43 pm

dls wrote:Shootist, I am sorry, but clerical error doesn't cut it. I might not describe it as straightforwardly criminal, but it is in a context where such mistakes really should not be allowed.


Then why not prosecute him and never return his licence? It is ludicrous to suggest that they will monitor his behaviour for two years to see if he's safe enough, or fails to sign his driving licence, or some such nonsense. They can't even monitor major criminals or terrorist suspects too well.

dls wrote:The US are disastrously peculiar in having the idea that you have a right to a gun unless. Here, it is correctly the reverse. You earn a licence by demonstrating your proper respect for the administration of the rules.


Time and again when criticising any aspect of firearms law in the UK, people insist on comparing us with America. It is an entirely false premise to do so.

dls wrote:It is not a right. He is not being punished. he has failed to earn that which he desires.


As I have said before, it is a right. Once your character is of an acceptable standard, and you can demonstrate good reason to own a particular firearm or firearms, it is your right to own firearms.

Firearms Act 1968

27 Special provisions about firearm certificates.
[F7(1)A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied—
(a)that the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such a firearm;
(b)that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and
(c)that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.


If having a firearms certificate was a privilege then the section highlighted above would not contain the word 'shall' but rather some more concessionary word/s.

30A Revocation of firearm certificates.
(1)A firearm certificate may be revoked by the chief officer of police for the area in which the holder resides on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (2) to (5) below.
(2)The certificate may be revoked if the chief officer of police has reason to believe—
(a)that the holder is of intemperate habits or unsound mind or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm; or
(b)that the holder can no longer be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition to which the certificate relates in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace.
(3)The certificate may be revoked if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies.[/quote]

I might also remind some on this board that the person has not committed a criminal offence. We can say this, even though he could be tried and convicted of failing to comply with a condition on his licence (a criminal offence) simply because he has been neither tried nor convicted of that crime and so is innocent. The police would appear to have wilfully circumvented the legal system in order to cause this man to sell his firearms and give up his sport for an unspecified period, just because they can.

For those who said he could have appealed, you may be unaware of the vindictiveness of some police forces when it comes to firearms licencing. The person involved had a decision to make. Accept the punishment in the hope that he will get a firearms licence one day sometime, or challenge it, go to court and be convicted of a summary offence of the sort that very rarely involves any revocation but will now for certain and forever.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:04 pm

atticus wrote:In the same way that the wife whose anniversary has been overlooked might withdraw certain privileges?

Does she not do that as punishment for overlooking the anniversary?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:15 pm

shooter seems to think that his mate was punished.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18349
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby shootist » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:19 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:In the same way that the wife whose anniversary has been overlooked might withdraw certain privileges?

Does she not do that as punishment for overlooking the anniversary?


Pretty much the point I was making.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:11 pm

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:In the same way that the wife whose anniversary has been overlooked might withdraw certain privileges?

Does she not do that as punishment for overlooking the anniversary?


Pretty much the point I was making.

Yes, I was trying to help you to make it.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:17 pm

with friends like you ...
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18349
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby Voldemort » Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:27 pm

shootist wrote: Suppose you got caught speeding (a more dangerous offence) and instead of prosecuting you a police officer said he was going to take your car away for a year and wasn't going to allow you to buy another one.


If a driver is caught speeding (or other serious offence), their licence can be revoked (often is), and will need to re-apply following whatever period they were banned. The removal of the licence may impact the owners ability to keep the vehicle unless they can find a sympathetic insurance company.
Voldemort
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:28 am

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:34 pm

Voldemort wrote:
shootist wrote: Suppose you got caught speeding (a more dangerous offence) and instead of prosecuting you a police officer said he was going to take your car away for a year and wasn't going to allow you to buy another one.


If a driver is caught speeding (or other serious offence), their licence can be revoked (often is), and will need to re-apply following whatever period they were banned. The removal of the licence may impact the owners ability to keep the vehicle unless they can find a sympathetic insurance company.

Only in the event of a successful prosecution: the issue here is punishment without trial.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9176
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Police using procedure to punish.

Postby atticus » Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:18 pm

The time to challenge this was when the decision was made to withdraw the licence. The OP's friend could have sought a judicial review of the initial decision at that time. He is now very much out of time.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18349
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest