1.  On 2 May 2002 I submitted to the Committee a Report that dealt with the control of firearms as a principle and with the application of that principle to Northern Ireland. My Report had a number of supplementary reports intended for the information of the Committee and dealing with specific aspects of the subject.

  2.  On 17 July 2002, I gave oral evidence before the Committee.

  3.  Subsequent to that, the Northern Ireland Office has produced a draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 intended to replace the whole of the 1981 Order. I have been invited to make a further submission to the Committee by way of comment on the Order. I understand that the Order will not proceed until the Committee has considered comments made to it and has prepared its Report.

GENERAL COMMENTS

  4.  There are a number of areas in which the Northern Ireland Office proposals have failed to offer concessions that would create legislation proportionate to the problems existing in Northern Ireland and would also meet the reasonable expectations of the shooting community and firearms trade. That goal is set out in the explanatory document and also forms part of the terms of reference of the Committee. In particular, the opportunity could have been taken to simplify the law relating to shotguns and airguns.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

  5.  It would be inappropriate to raise issues of a right to have firearms, but the shooting community, like every other section of society, has basic rights to the enjoyment of personal property, to engage in sport and, in the context of Northern Ireland at least, to protect their lives from an identified threat. British firearms legislation since 1920 has dealt with this matter by providing that if an applicant meets certain criteria, a chief officer of police "shall" grant a certificate, and that term is still used. Thus, there is a qualified right to a certificate, subject to compliance with the requirements of the law. The 1981 Northern Ireland Order varied this to provide that the Chief Constable "may" issue a certificate and that term is used throughout the Draft Order.

  6.  It might be argued that the difference is of little consequence and the two words have the same effect in practice if not in theory, but the difference is vital and should be seen in terms of the burden of proof, particularly in any appeal. "may" appears to give the Chief Constable almost unfettered discretion even when all the criteria are met. Within the law, the Chief Constable has ample power to refuse, revoke or condition a certificate and in any case he has "to be satisfied" about many of the criteria, allowing an extremely wide area for subjective application of the criteria. On appeal, his judgement will be subject to review, but the use of the word "may" could result in someone who meets all the criteria being denied their right to a certificate both by the Chief Constable and on appeal.

  7.  In my opinion, the word "shall" should be used in the Order instead of "may" in all cases relating to the grant of certificates or licenses.

SHOTGUNS

  8.  There has been no attempt to simplify the law relating to shotguns which are the most common firearms in Northern Ireland and which are essential tools for farmers as well as popular sporting instruments. The number of shotguns per head of population is very much higher in Northern Ireland than it is in Britain. The total amount of shotgun ammunition used in the United Kingdom is a staggering 230 million cartridges per year and there is no reason to suppose that use, or potential use in Northern Ireland is less than the average.

  9.  The administrative burden on both police and shotgun owners in Northern Ireland is enormous, yet the use of legally owned shotguns in crime (including terrorist acts) is so low as to allow the chief constable to describe it as insignificant.

  10.  There would have been no need to create a second type of certificate as currently used in Britain. That is the product of the manner in which British legislation has grown up piecemeal. The criteria relating to the individual differs for shotgun and firearm certificates in Britain, and that is clearly wrong. A single certificate could be designed to deal with some classes of firearms on a prior authorisation basis and others on notification after acquisition basis. Ammunition for some firearms could be authorised by specific calibre and quantities and for others could be authorised by type.

  11.  In relation to shotguns, the firearm certificate could authorise the possession of shotguns (in the plural) but require notification after purchase. It could also authorise the possession of shotgun ammunition broadly in the terms used in current British legislation, "cartridges containing five or more shot, none of which exceeds .36 inch in diameter". It is quite impossible to check on the acquisition and use of shotgun cartridges by means of a limit set in a certificate. A clay pigeon shooter might compete in a hundred target event, but might have targets which have to be repeated, might be involved in a shoot-off, and so on. No one will know whether he used 100 or 150 cartridges in a single morning. Accounting would therefore depend entirely on what the certificate holder said.

  12.  The concept of differentiating between firearms that must have prior authorisation and those subject to notification is well established in British law, though two separate certificates are used. It is also a major feature of the European Convention and is common in other countries. Its adoption in Northern Ireland would reduce burdensome bureaucracy on both police and gun owners and there is no evidence to suggest that it would in any way increase the danger to public safety.

AIRGUNS

  13.  The Order purports to exempt from controls airguns capable of generating a muzzle energy of less than one Joule (so-called soft air guns). That exemption is ultra vires because such items are unarguably not lethal and are therefore not firearms in the first place. One cannot exempt something that is not subject to the law in the first place. "Soft air" guns may, of course, be imitation firearms subject to legislation about misuse.

  14.  The problem lies with those airguns which are "firearms", that is are capable of being lethal, but are below the level set in Britain at six foot pounds for pistols and 12 foot pounds for rifles and to be set at similar Metric equivalents in the Order. In Britain, these air weapons are subject to quite stringent controls on their use, particularly by young people, though there is a lack of enforcement of that law which has led to some misuse. This category of airguns does not, however, require any form of licensing in Britain and having regard to the very large number in use, the level of misuse is minute.

  15.  The Order proposes to continue the system where these airguns are treated in exactly the same fashion as cartridge firing weapons and such a system is disproportionate to the problem that now exists or might exist if some relaxation was allowed. It may be felt that it would be too radical to propose a move from full firearm certificate control as now exists in Northern Ireland to no requirement for a licence as applies in Britain. There remains scope for a more modest change by allowing airguns to fall into the "notification after acquisition" category. This would result in a considerable reduction in the administrative burden on the police, would reduce the burden on airgun owners and at least partially remove the inhibition to trade. Such an interim step could be reviewed after a suitable period of time.

  16.  Schedule 1, paragraph 9(4) now exempts airgun ammunition from control. Having regard to the fact that these are just small pieces of lead, that change is, perhaps, overdue.

PROHIBITED WEAPONS

  17.  Part VI of the Order deals with prohibited weapons and, with the exception of "small firearms", seeks to impose on Northern Ireland the virtually unintelligible morass of legislation contained in Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 which has been amended several times. Some of the changes are a product of the European Convention, but have been extended. Others are the result of hasty legislation that was not subject to any consultation when it was enacted and was not debated in Parliament as it was rushed through against a guillotine.

  18.  In 1968, Section 5 consisted of some 500 words. It now consists of over 3,000 words when its various exceptions are taken into account. Much of it is entirely illogical given that the chief constable will need to authorise each of the firearms on a firearm certificate and will not normally authorise the acquisition nor permit the keeping of many items now on the list of prohibited weapons. The provisions in Britain are now so complex that most of those who have to administer the law cannot understand it and many of its provisions have yet to be tested before the Courts. From a situation in which a well-informed person could, almost off the cuff, offer an informed opinion about the legal status of any firearm, a situation has been created in which even the best-informed must defer an opinion until they have spent a long time reading and rereading this vast, complex legislation which lacks pattern or reason.

  19.  The unquestioning imposition of this mass of legislation on Northern Ireland does not pass the test of proportionality, nor does it meet with the Government's own criteria in the Better Regulation Guide. It seems to be a product of the Home Office seeking uniformity, but in the different situation of Northern Ireland, uniformity is, as the explanatory document makes clear, not a sufficient justification for change.

  20.  Each item in the extraordinary list should be examined in the context of Northern Ireland and in the light of the fact that Northern Ireland seems to have encountered no problems with any of the items not already in the 1981 Order. Such a logical examination of the list must result in the conclusion that few if any of the categories it is proposed to add to the list of prohibited weapons are justified.

  21.  Bearing in mind the experience of the ban on handguns in Britain, it is clear that anyone whose existing firearms are prohibited by this list will be entitled to proper compensation under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.

TESTS OF COMPETENCE

  22.  The original proposals for tests of competence have been significantly modified, and the extremely high standard that already exists for legal owners of firearms in Northern Ireland is recognised in the explanatory document. The standard of safety and behaviour of lawful firearms owners in Northern Ireland is at least as good as that in Britain, and far better than that in many countries which have complex and expensive shooting tests as a precondition either to firearms licensing or the holding of "hunting" licences.

  23.  Firearms users fall into a number of categories in this regard. Members of clubs, whether rifle and pistol clubs or clay pigeon clubs are exposed to rigorous, if not entirely formal, systems of training and the inculcation of acceptable standards of behaviour. Members of the game-shooting and farming communities are also subject to training and control systems that may lack formality but which are of proven effect as the record shows.

  24.  In the vast majority of cases, therefore, the evidence proves without doubt that an ethic of responsible firearms use has been created and maintained and there is neither the need nor the justification for any statutory intervention.

  25.  It is argued that another group exists whose members are not familiar with firearms and who are not brought within the existing informal but extremely efficient systems. These might include some of those who, possible reluctantly, must carry a firearm for personal protection and might also include some new entrants to the game-shooting scene who lack the necessary contacts with the game-shooting community. This is a very small minority of firearm certificate holders and the remedies suggested are not proportionate to the problem.

  26.  The requirement that as a criteria for the grant of a certificate the chief constable must be satisfied that the person is competent will lead to the build-up of de facto testing and will create a small testing industry set up by individuals who are likely to seek to profit from providing such "evidence", based on courses of training they will invent and for which they will charge fees of their own calculation.

  27.  At the present time, a certificate can be refused if there is danger to public safety. If, in individual cases, the chief constable finds that the applicant has no background in firearms and is not part of a community that will provide that background, he may not be satisfied on the public safety issue until the applicant has undertaken some form of training. The exemption from the need for a firearm certificate whilst this is done is helpful.

  28.  But this system should be used only in those very few cases when it is justified and not as a means of imposing mandatory shooting tests either by the police or by self-seeking members of the shooting community. There is no need for statutory authority for this; the public safety requirement covers the situation well. Guidance might clarify what is intended.

  29.  All concerned seem to be aware of the very high standards that have existed to date and there is no evidence to show that formal arrangements will improve on that standard.

AGES

  30.  In Britain, firearm certificates can be granted to those over 14 and shotgun certificates can be granted to children of any age. I am not aware of any problems in Britain with the grant of firearm certificates to those aged 14 to 17 or shotguns certificates to young people of any age.

  31.  There is no lower age limit for competitors in competitions organised by the national target shooting organisations.

  32.  In 2001 two members of the NSRA Great Britain Junior Squad competing at the European Championships were 14 years of age and in the 2002 World Championships they had just reached their 15th birthday. Both had been competitors at local and national level for a number of years and it is not uncommon to have smallbore rifle shooters in serious competitions who are aged 11 years. There is no lower limit except that the person must be big enough to hold and use the rifle safely.

  33.  Until they are 14, such young people in Britain may not own their own rifle, but it is usual for them to have a specific firearm held for them, for example, by a parent who is also a shooter. From 14 onwards, they may own their own firearms, but may not purchase them or buy ammunition for them. This must be done by an adult, who than makes a gift to the young person. The young person may then use his rifle during club activities usually in the presence of a parent, team manager or coach.

  34.  The Clay Pigeon Shooting Association sets no lower limit for competitors and fields junior teams in local national and international events. Juniors who use their own guns are often fielded in international events at the age of 14 years or less. The present international junior team for England includes one boy of 14 and two of 15 as well as some of 16 and 17. No-one could reach international status, even, at Junior level, unless they had been shooting for two years or more. Many youngsters compete at local and national level at much lower ages.

  35.  It is significant that the youngest Gold Medallist in the recent Commonwealth Games was 15 year-old Charlotte Kerwood, shooting for England in the women's double trap event. She must have been shooting for many years to have attained that level of skill. Northern Ireland could never nurture such a star and could not host any games at which she would be allowed to compete.

  36.  In the game shooting field, young people are introduced to the sport at early ages, and youngsters of 12 and 13, often with light guns of smaller calibre such as 28 bore and 410s, shoot frequently in Britain. Subject to the rules about supervision, there is nothing to stop them doing so.

  37.  Article 7 of the Draft Northern Ireland Order precludes the grant of a firearm certificate, which includes a certificate for a shotgun or an ordinary airgun (see above for comment about "soft air guns"), to any person under 18. The Article then provides a series of quite complex exemptions for those aged 16 to 18 with different provisions for different people. An airgun, shotgun or .22 rifle may be used for agricultural purposes but only by a person who lives on the land in question. A shotgun might be possessed for sporting purposes (including clay pigeon shooting) but only under the supervision of a person aged 21 who has a certificate for that firearm.

  38.  Schedule 1 goes on to provide for exemptions from the need for a certificate for young people, once again setting different ages for different purposes. Paragraph 7 permits the use of any firearm (not a shotgun) at a firearms club without regard to age. Paragraph 8 allows the use of a low powered airgun (not "soft air guns" to which reference is made above) at a "shooting gallery" etc but a person under 16 may not take part in "combat games". Paragraph 10 precludes the use of a shotgun without a certificate on private premises or at an approved clay pigeon shoot by anyone under 18, but paragraph 12 allows for instruction in the use of a firearm without restriction as to age. The exemptions at paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, servants of dealers, auctioneers and carriers and slaughtermen may involve those under 18.

  39.  In respect of clay pigeon shooting, current international junior champions might be able to compete in events in Northern Ireland if they are holders of British shotgun certificates and can obtain a Northern Ireland authority, but the Chief Constable may feel that in granting such an authority to a young person from Britain who is under 16, he is discriminating against young people from Northern Ireland and so may refuse. Any international junior championships staged in Northern Ireland are therefore likely to be restricted to those over 16 would therefore exclude Britain's top competitors as well as those from most other countries.

  40.  There is a strong body of opinion which holds that teaching people to shoot at an early age is desirable in terms of their subsequent safety with firearms and experience in Britain shows convincingly that there is no public safety need to preclude the use of firearms by young people.

  41.  In such an area, simplicity and clarity are important if those involved are to understand what the law requires of them. There is no logical justification for preventing a young person from using any firearm if he is properly supervised and there is a great deal of merit in being able to provide for individual circumstances. There is merit in preventing young people from purchasing firearms or ammunition of any type for themselves.

  42.  Any public safety problems that exist could by catered for in a system that allows for supervised use on a case-by-case basis. It is suggested that the law should provide that no certificate should be issued to a person under 14, but that provision should be made for use of shotguns and sporting rifles on private property whilst the young person is supervised by a certificate holder.

  43.  Where appropriate, a certificate could be granted to a person who is aged 14 to17, but, in addition to the general power to impose conditions, there could be particular reference to the imposition of conditions restricting the nature of the use and the extent of supervision. The nature of the conditions could be included in guidance drawn up in consultation with user groups.

  44.  The law might usefully provide a duty of care on the person who undertakes the supervision of a young person in either of these two categories.

  45.  Such a system would be simple and the nature of the restrictions on each individual would be spelled out for him in his certificate.

CERTIFICATE LIFE

  46.  The extension from three to five years in the life of a certificate appears to have been well received in Britain and causes no difficulties of itself. When first implemented, however, the change-over caused severe administrative problems for the police and serious problems for certificate holders, many of whom were left without a certificate in some case for six months and more.

  47.  In each year a number of new certificates are granted and the change in certificate life caused no problems with these. Existing certificates had been valid for three years but were renewed (or under the arrangements in the Order, re-issued) for five years. The first three years after the new system was introduced ran smoothly, but for the following two years there were no renewals and the workload of police firearms departments was reduced. Typically, there are four times as many renewals as new grants in any year. Staffing levels were reduced but were not restored in sufficient time for the restart of the renewal process in year six, and new staff were untrained.

  48.  In some forces, certificate holders were left without a certificate for long periods, usually being denied the use of their firearms for that period. Police allowed an enormous backlog to develop. Delays persisted for a number of years and have still not been fully cleared in some areas.

  49.  When shotgun certificates were introduced in Britain, the period of validity was varied in accordance with the initial letter of the holder's surname so that renewals could be phased in. That may be just one method of phasing in increased certificate life but there are many others. The workload of renewals will fall by two fifths for each year after the change and a system should be found for transferring the renewal of that proportion of certificates re-granted in years one, two and three so that they fall due for renewal again in years four and five. If that is done, the problem will be small after the first five-year cycle when all certificates would be valid for five years.

FORMS AND DOCUMENTS

  50.  In Britain all the necessary forms are specified in the Firearms Rules but difficulties frequently arise when individual chief constables or force firearms officers invent additional forms, which they require applicants to complete. A 1993 report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (The Administration of Firearms Licensing) concluded at paragraph 9.5 that firearms licensing officers were adding their own criteria based on subjective views and opinions resulting in requirements which bordered on the discriminatory.

  51.  The Order gives the Chief Constable an unfettered right to draw up the forms and at 4(1)(c) to impose other requirements that he may specify in the form. Article 22 appears to provide the same power in respect of dealers allowing him the right to specify other requirements that must be met by the applicant who must supply any information required in the form.

  52.  At 7(b)(iv) the Chief Constable seems to be given unfettered power to demand that a referee makes any statement or supplies any information. This is too wide. The form to be completed by the referee should be specified by the Secretary of State and not left to the discretion of the Chief Constable.

  53.  The process of acquiring a certificate should be a certain one and the design and content of the application form can change the criteria very significantly. All forms should be specified by the Secretary of State after consultation and not left to the discretion of the police.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE ORDER

  54.  In addition to the broad points made above which relate to more than one Article in the Order, there are a number of specific comments which require consideration by the Committee or by the Northern Ireland Office.

COMPONENT PART

  55.  The definition of "component part" in Article 2 may be unnecessarily complex and it seems that the reference to pressure bearing parts in Para (d) covers all other parts except magazines and the definition could be shortened to one sentence. The inclusion of magazines is very doubtful because a magazine is not a part of a firearm. The firearm will fire with or without it and magazines are interchangeable accessories. In Britain they have never been regarded as component parts.

APPLICATIONS

  56.  At 4(2) the requirement of four photographs is excessive, particularly with modern reproduction techniques. Two should suffice.

  57.  At 4(7) a referee is required to verify information provided by the applicant. This will include the applicant's convictions and mental history. Whilst an applicant should certainly be required to disclose these to the police, legislation requiring him to disclose them to a third party might contravene Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such disclosure to the referee does not seem to take matters further. In the same article a referee is required to certify the likeness of an applicant to the photograph. This system was imposed in Britain in 1967 in respect of shotgun certificates only when the police did not see applicants. The Order envisages that the police will see every applicant and the process and writing on the back of small photographs is inconvenient for the referee and serves no purpose.

  58.  Para 8(1)(iii) requires that the certificate must include details of "any firearms club of which the holder is a member". A person may be a member of half a dozen clubs and this should surely refer to what is called in Britain his "primary" club. There is no need to list all clubs.

DEALER'S CERTIFICATE

  59.  The creation of firearms dealer's certificate removes much of the complexity of the old register of firearms dealers under which authority relied on an entry in a book that the dealer did not see.

  60.  Revocation of a dealer's certificate is a serious step from which it is unlikely that a dealer will recover even though he might win an appeal. Such a revocation is by way of a trial in Human Rights Act terms and, if not entirely justified, is likely to result in a denial of the right to private property (article 1, 1st Protocol) since that term can include economic interests such as a licence. Ground for revocation fall into two broad classes. Thos under 26(1) and (2)(a) may contain significant public safety implications whilst the remainder of those in 26(2) are generally more administrative in nature.

  61.  The chief constable should be required to give not less than 21 days notice of his intention to revoke the certificate, together with his reasons for doing so. He should then allow for representations to be made by or on behalf of the dealer before making his final decision. But there will be cases, perhaps where there is evidence of dealings with criminals or terrorists, where there should be immediate revocation. Such a case will probably have resulted in the arrest of the offender. Immediate revocation of a dealer's certificate should be permitted only on the authority of the Courts.

  62.  At 24(2) the chief constable is authorised "by notice in writing" to attach, vary or revoke conditions on a dealer's certificate. Conditions may have a very significant impact on the business of a dealer and no conditions should be imposed without proper consultation and consideration of any representations made. The decision to impose conditions is by way of a "trial" in Human Rights Act terms and the result could be the loss of property rights as set out above.

  63.  The Chief Constable should be required to give at least 21 days notice in writing of his intention to impose new conditions and his reasons for doing so. He should then be required to consider any representations made before imposing conditions.

  64.  Article 29 allows the Chief Constable to remove a place of business from a dealer's certificate. The notice in writing should be of at least 21 days and the criteria set out for conditions should apply. The Article should contain a provision to allow the Chief Constable to remove a place of business on the application of the holder.

AUTHORISED FIREARMS CLUBS

  65.  Articles 35, 36 and 37 relate to firearms clubs, which are defined so as to exclude shotgun shooting clubs, and broadly confirm existing arrangements except that article 37 provides a new power of entry for police or support staff which is far wider than that under British law and raises a number of issues.

  66.  Under Article 35 of the Chief Constable may attach any conditions to his authorisation. Whilst guidance will doubtless be given, this remains an extremely wide power not directly reflect in British Law. Under Article 37, police may enter any premises "occupied or used" by the club and inspect "anything" on them for the purposes of ascertaining whether the conditions are met. In particular, ranges are mentioned.

  67.  Firearms clubs are private property, almost invariable operating on private premises to which members of the public at large are not admitted. They do not therefore impinge on public safety during their normal activities. In essence, the do not differ from other private clubs that operate on private premises, yet the power of entry given by the Order is entirely at the discretion of the police and apparently without restriction or control.

  68.  Range safety inspections in Britain are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence whose inspection officers are generally very circumspect. They make it clear that the "range safety certificate" relates to the conditions found on a range at the time of inspection but that safety is entirely the responsibility of the person or club operating the range. Their reasoning appears to be linked to the very considerable risk that they might incur extremely costly legal liability if they accept responsibility for ongoing range management. Re-inspections can be arranged at the request of the person running the range, but are not imposed by the military authorities.

  69.  I have been unable to locate information about any accidents on private ranges operated or used by approved clubs in Britain.

  70.  The new and very wide power of entry onto private premises does not appear to be justified by any evidence and does not appear to be proportionate to any known or probable risk to public safety. In particular, the power to inspect ranges has far reaching ramifications and may involve significant liability for the police in the event of any accident or occurrence. In a number of cases police in Britain have sought to carry out range safety inspections and it has been clear that they lacked the necessary skills and knowledge to judge such matters.

TRANSACTIONS WITH FIREARMS

  71.  Article 38(2) mirrors British and prior Northern Ireland law by requiring a person who undertakes to repair (etc) a firearm to see a firearm certificate when he accepts the item for repair. The effect on returning a firearm after repair is not clear and depends on whether or not such a return amounts to a parting with possession. A person who accepts a firearm for repair (etc) must be authorised to have it and will generally be a firearms dealer. Whilst he has the firearm, it will not be the physical possession of its owner and it makes more sense to ensure that Paragraph (1) is changed to include returning after repair (etc) rather than to require a dealer to see a certificate when he accepts a firearm for repair and possibly not see it when he returns the firearm. In some cases the latter transaction could be a considerable time after the former. If that is done, reference to test, repair (etc) at 38(4) should be removed.

  72.  In contrast with British law, the Order requires notification to the police of all dealer to dealer transactions, including transactions involving component parts, firearms for repair, and other movements. Having regard to the comprehensive nature of the dealer's register of transactions and the powers of the police to inspect those, it is appropriate to ask whether this provision has served any useful purpose in the past. The general view in Britain appears to be that such a requirement would impose a heavy burden on dealers and the mass of information involved would lead to errors and omission, would clutter up police records for no purpose, and is not proportionate to any identified risk.

  73.  Article 42(2) requires notification to the police of any repair or alteration to a firearm and is in contrast with British law. It is appropriate to ask what purpose this requirement serves, particularly in respect of minor repairs.

  74.  Article 62 creates a new offence of having a firearm or ammunition in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person does not have the firearm or ammunition in his possession for a lawful purpose. This seems to be dangerously wide and could entrap quite innocent persons. The burden of proof is entirely on the person with the firearm, the police would only have to have "reasonable suspicion", but the defence of reasonable excuse is not available to the defendant. The person does not have to have an unlawful purpose and no evidence would be required of such a purpose.

  75.  There are ample provisions in existing law including possession in public places, trespassing, causing fear of unlawful violence, etc, together with the wide ranging controls under this Order on possession of firearms or ammunition and the powers of police and courts to revoke certificates. This offence is not proportionate to any identified problem, and is capable of being oppressive.

  76.  Article 65 is concerned with "sawn off" shotguns and converted imitation firearms and, in respect of shotguns, continues existing legislation. It should be stressed that this Article is concerned with either conversion or possession of a converted firearm and not with their use in crime. In respect of shotguns, the legislation was based on misconception in the first instance and this was compounded by an undebated proposal to raise the original length of the illegal barrel from 20 inches to 24 inches (now 60.96 cm). It is not illegal for the holder of a firearm certificate to possess a smoothbore gun which was made with a barrel less than 24 inches, but it is illegal to shorten a gun to such a length. Shot pistols were and are made with barrels around ten inches long and are fairly common and still permitted in Britain for some uses.

  77.  To propose that possession of a shotgun the barrel of which has been shortened to 23 inches, or the possession of a replica firearm which has been converted into a single shot pistol of doubtful efficiency is a more serious offence than possession of a self loading pistol is illogical in the extreme. "Sawn off" shotguns used by criminal are invariably shortened to have barrels of nine inches or less, but the use of even that type of firearm in crime is falling in Britain.

  78.  If shotguns remain as they are presently classified in Northern Ireland, they are individually licensed and the police are not likely to grant a licence for a sawn off shotgun. Similarly, police are unlikely to grant a certificate for a firearm converted from an imitation except in the most unusual circumstances. Unlawful possession of either of these items attracts a sensible penalty and there is no logic in isolating them for special treatment.

  79.  If shotguns are to be subject to a less bureaucratic system of controls as suggested here, it will be necessary to define the class of shotguns subject of such a regime and that could be done so as to exclude sawn off shotguns from any relaxation. In such a case the dimensions most appropriate would be those for short firearms in the European directive of 30 cm barrel and 60 cm overall.

  80.  The provisions in Article 65 are an unnecessary complication to an already over-complex legal framework.

APPEAL—LEGAL AID

  81.  Article 68 debars a person who appeals against the decision of the Chief Constable from being granted legal aid. The cost of an appeal may be beyond the means of some certificate holders. In Britain, a chief constable is invariably represented by both solicitors and Counsel and has at his disposal what are effectively unlimited resources. The appellant who cannot afford solicitors or counsel is therefore denied a fair trial in a matter concerning his civil rights in possible contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

SCHEDULE 2

  82.  This schedule details particulars to be recorded by dealers in their register of transactions but like its British counterpart is inadequate and does not accord with general practice.

  83.  Throughout, the word "description" needs to be amplified so that there is no misunderstanding about what is required. Some amplification is contained in the British Firearms Rules, but it should include the type of firearm (rifle, pistol, shotguns etc) its manufacturer if known and the serial number if there is one.

  84.  Para two relates to firearms coming into the dealer's possession but actually refers only to those purchased or acquired. Firearms accepted for repair, test etc are normally recorded by dealers and provide a more complete record of transactions. The requirement might better relate to firearms and ammunition coming into his possession in the course of his business.

  85.  Para three relates only to firearms and ammunition sold or transferred and the return of a repaired firearm may be a transfer as defined—"parting with possession". The British requirement includes entering details of the authority of the person to whom the transfer is made.

  86.  Para four relates to an annual stocktaking but is limited to firearms and ammunition in possession for sale or transfer. Dealers often keep firearms as display items (etc), which they do not intend to sell or transfer and a better term might be "In possession in the course of his business".

  87.  Airgun ammunition is now excluded from control and should not be entered. If shotgun cartridges are to be removed from numerical control, they too need not be recorded.

APPEALS

  88.  There is no provision for an appeal against the refusal of the Secretary of State to issue an authority under Article 46 and an absence of such an appeal may contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act.

23 August 2002