WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2002

COMMISSIONER JAMES HART AND MR MIKE LOBB

  240. Article 5 of the draft Northern Ireland Order provides for the Chief Constable to be satisfied of the competence of an applicant in handling a firearm before the certificate is granted. Would you welcome that provision?
  (Commissioner Hart) The situation in the United Kingdom at the moment—and as I explained I can only comment on the situation in the United Kingdom—is that it is the land over which or the purpose to which the weapon is to be used which is the thing which is certified by the Chief Constable. For instance, if a target shooter is to be certified, the Chief Constable needs to be satisfied that he is a member of a club, that it is a proper club and there are proper circumstances which attach to that. Similarly with shooting over land. The question of certifying competency of course would help but then it raises the question of who would certify competency and under what circumstances. Again that is not a problem to which I have a solution immediately to hand. If we were to ask the shooting organisations whether they would be willing to certify shooters to an appropriate standard, they may well take a view on that. There is nothing in the legislation, unless Mike corrects me if I am wrong, which actually requires a chief constable to consider the competency of a person. There is no test to possess a weapon in the same way that there is a test to drive a car.
  (Mr Lobb) That is a very accurate summary.

  241. Would you wish to have that power?
  (Commissioner Hart) Provided it was capable of adequate and satisfactory efficient administration. We would need to be very certain that the standards which were set were the standards which were examined and that they were being examined by a competent authority such as the shooting organisations or others who would be in a position to certify that an individual was competent.

  242. When we recently took evidence from the Gun Trade Association and the Gun Trade Association Northern Ireland I suggested to some of their witnesses that there is a measure in this country, if you look at the way the competencies have been developed within the National Vocational Qualification structure, a procedure which is well developed for how to define competency. I wonder whether that might be one route which could be pursued in relation to this field. Would you have a view on that?
  (Commissioner Hart) It certainly sounds an interesting idea. I would not exclude anything. If there is some way in which we can make the lawful sport of shooting safer for those people who participate in it and the public as a whole, that must be a good thing. I would welcome any opportunity to explore further creative ideas such as the one you mention.

  243. It is strange, is it not, that with a weapon as lethal as a rifle I can go legally and get one, get a certificate for it if I pass all the other tests, without having the first idea how to use it.
  (Commissioner Hart) Yes; yes, that is true.

  244. If we are putting that into draft legislation it probably makes a bit of sense, does it not?
  (Commissioner Hart) It certainly would make sense to me.

  245. I want to go back to your earlier response to the Chairman's question about his shotgun. If you take his shotgun and he still holds onto his licence, are you saying that in Northern Ireland I could take that licence and get another shotgun?
  (Mr Lobb) Not in Northern Ireland. That is the legislation in England and Wales and Scotland.

  246. Only in England and Wales.
  (Mr Lobb) Yes.

  247. You make the helpful analogy with driving licences as an example of one area of law where perhaps we have a provisional licence whilst somebody proves their competence and once they have proven their competence they can have a full licence. We took evidence last week where we quite clearly proved that somebody could obtain a licence to hold a firearm without being competent and could also be responsible for allowing a child to handle that firearm on their own land with them not being competent and therefore the child being in danger. Given that possible scenario, do you think there is a case now for provisional firearms licences to be issued prior to competence being proved.
  (Commissioner Hart) That is a very interesting point. My understanding of the legislation is that that scenario could arise. There is no test which I am aware of which needs to be applied to a person over 21 who is supervising a person under 21. I think that is correct. I would just reiterate my comments to Mr McCabe. If there are creative ideas that we can actually efficiently administer without putting an additional burden on the police which improve public safety and improve the safety of a legitimate sport, then I would certainly be very, very happy to explore anything like that. It sounds a very interesting idea.

  248. May I ask you to expand on your earlier answer to the Chairman regarding temporary suspensions in certain circumstances? Could you indicate the mechanism by which this could be accomplished because it could be a very subjective decision to be made? Would you agree that it would almost require a quasi judicial process to protect the rights of the individual in such circumstances and would that not frustrate you in its time frame?
  (Commissioner Hart) You make an interesting point. I did perhaps rather cautiously caveat my response to say that this question of suspension is an interesting idea, but it is not one where, as far as I am aware, the detail has been thought through terribly well. In previous discussions colleagues have identified a number of practical areas of difficulty which would have to be sorted out prior to the introduction of such a scheme. The point you make illustrates one of them. It may well be the case that such a scheme would produce greater inconsistency than consistency. One of the charges which is frequently levelled against police in England and Wales, although this might not necessarily be the case in Northern Ireland, is the inconsistency of application of administration or interpretation of regulations. I work very hard to try to encourage forces up and down the country to take a consistent view. It is not because individuals want to be difficult, it is just because individuals interpret things in different ways. The question of whether somebody might have their firearms certificate suspended for a period or not inevitably seems to me to be something which would be subjective. Provided that subjectivity could be consistent subjectivity, I think we might get somewhere. I am being absolutely frank with you: I do see some dangers in this from a practical point of view.
  (Mr Lobb) Yes, we are well aware of problems in administering this. From a practical perspective firearms licensing managers do take a number of calls. I took one this week and I would say I probably average one a week; sometimes they are anonymous, "I know a man who shouldn't have a gun". At the moment a certificate is either valid or it is revoked. There is no half-way house. We really need time and a time limit could be set on it, say 28 days, when a chief officer of police has the power to suspend a certificate in order to conduct inquiries for a period of 28 days during which the firearms certificate and the guns and ammunition held by that certificate could be seized by the police. At the end of 28 days, if the inquiries were inconclusive, they would have to be returned. I do acknowledge that there are difficulties in administering this.

  249. Would you give us that example? No names, no pack drill. What was the reason that the anonymous caller said he was unfit to have a weapon?
  (Mr Lobb) We had a report from Warwickshire police that a complaint had been made to them about one of our certificate holders, that a man had been harassing them and that he was on drugs.

  250. With a weapon?
  (Mr Lobb) They knew him to be a firearms certificate holder.

  251. In those circumstances you cannot take the firearm away.
  (Mr Lobb) No. It was basically her word against his and she would not make a statement.

  252. I want to go back to the very first question regarding the three- to five-year administrative problem where you see an absence of a bottleneck during years four and five. I am interested in this for other reasons. You do make a comment that one of the differentials is that the Northern Ireland firearms certificates are issued by police officers and in GB it is by civilian staff. Would you recommend that it should be civilian staff? Would that enable a better consistency of service for specialised trained civilian staff?
  (Commissioner Hart) I do not want to appear defensive but I have to caveat my answer by saying that of course the Chief Constable Northern Ireland must express a view on this. If it were my police force I would expect police officers to be doing patrol work, responding to emergency calls, investigating crime and satisfying the needs of the policing plan rather than engaging in work which in many cases can be more competently undertaken by fully trained members of civilian staff.

  253. I imagine you issue rather fewer shotgun certificates than most chief constables.
  (Commissioner Hart) Yes, we do not have a deerstalking problem in the City.

  Chairman: Mr Hart, Mr Lobb, thank you very much indeed for coming and giving us your evidence.