Thomas Hamilton's possession of firearms and ammunition

---

"How Hamilton can draw a sinister inference from such a healthy and worthwhile pastime is beyond my comprehension. For Mr Hamilton to see his tiny local organisation as a serious rival to the Scouting movement indicates a certain lack of perspective".

"In common with most right-minded people I am proud of the connection between Central Scotland Police and all the youth organisations with which we work. Only a bitter and petty minded individual like Thomas Hamilton could pervert such a relationship into something sleazy and dishonourable and imagine some undercurrent of corruption. I am sorry about the length of this letter but, as a comparatively recent beneficiary of Mr Hamilton's vindictive correspondence, you should be aware of the background to almost four years of ever more irrational outpourings. Both I and the two Chief Constables have tried very hard to resolve the matter but, as always when trying to reason with a zealot, each time a point appears to have been settled he re-introduces it in another guise, adjusts the facts selectively to suit his ends and it all begins again".

6.44   When the firearm certificate was renewed as from 17 February 1992 Thomas Hamilton was given authority to purchase or acquire two additional firearms, a .357 revolver and a 9 mm pistol (he having sold the pistol which he had been authorised to purchase in 1986). The renewal was signed by Ch.Supt Adamson, as acting Deputy Chief Constable in the absence of Mr McMurdo. He had before him only the certificate. He had not seen a copy of DS Hughes' memorandum and nobody had discussed its contents with him. However, he said in evidence that at about the time that it had been submitted, DCC McMurdo told him that he had decided that no action should be taken. Nothing was brought to his attention which indicated that this decision should be altered.

6.45    As I have already narrated, a further investigation into complaints about Thomas Hamilton's conduct was carried out in 1993. This led to DC Taylor preparing a memorandum to the Detective Superintendent, Crime Management Services dated 9 June 1993. From an examination of the Scout files he had read a description of Thomas Hamilton's character and Mr Fairgrieve had confirmed to him that he had described him as a bully with grandiose ideas as to his own ability, but not as mentally unbalanced. DC Taylor believed that Thomas Hamilton had been guilty of criminal conduct. However, he did not himself encounter anything which gave him concern as to his fitness to hold a firearm certificate. A copy of his memorandum was not put in the firearms file relating to Thomas Hamilton or in the criminal intelligence.

6.46   In 1995 the certificate was due for renewal once more. DC Anne Anderson was assigned to the role of enquiry officer. It was her one and only firearms enquiry. She carried out the SCRO and PNC checks. When she made a home visit to Thomas Hamilton she experienced, she said, a "strange feeling" about him when he showed her his firearms. She was disturbed by the way in which he looked at her as if he hoped to get some kind of reaction from her. She felt slightly intimidated. She wanted someone to know that she had been in the house and that she was not particularly happy about signing the form. Her own supervisor was not working on the same shift as herself at that time. After consulting a colleague she spoke to Inspector John Anderson. According to her evidence he said that a number of reports had been put in by DS Hughes and other officers about Thomas Hamilton but as there was nothing against him "there is nothing we can do". She felt happier after speaking to Inspector Anderson. She looked at criminal intelligence records in the hope that there was something on him there which would back up her feelings. If so, she would have been able to add her own feelings to that. But there was merely a short note about Thomas Hamilton trying to set up a boys club in the area of Bannockburn. As there was nothing else she felt that perhaps she had misinterpreted his manner. Since she had had merely a feeling about Thomas Hamilton, she did not make an entry about it in criminal intelligence. It should be pointed out that Inspector Anderson's account of this brief conversation was different. According to him, having checked that Thomas Hamilton had no previous convictions she approached him as he had been previously in charge of the Child Protection Unit and she suspected that he knew Thomas Hamilton. He told her to check criminal intelligence; and did not tell her that he did not have any previous convictions or that there was nothing which the police could do. I accept her version. The whole episode made a clear impression on her. Mr R O Campbell, JP, countersigned Thomas Hamilton's applications in 1992 and 1995. He had a general knowledge of his activities and had met his adoptive father but he did not know Thomas Hamilton particularly well. In each case he had received a telephone call from the police and had confirmed that the form bore his signature.

6.47   The 1995 renewal was signed by DCC McMurdo. He said in evidence that he spent a few minutes on it. Only the certificate was before him. He said that he did apply his mind to the question of whether Thomas Hamilton was a fit and proper person. He had to consider whether he had good reason not to sign. He had reservations about the way in which he ran boys clubs but he had no evidence of his being dangerous with a firearm. He knew, he said, that in the event of an appeal against a refusal, he could not justify such a decision before the Sheriff. There were no "contra-indicators". The Procurators Fiscal had decided that there should be no proceedings and not one photograph of an indecent nature had been found. "So over the period, I mean, I have got absolutely nothing at the end of it".

6.48   Mr C M Campbell submitted to me that the certificate should have been revoked, or at any rate not renewed in 1992 or 1995. He founded on the memorandum of 11 November 1991. He also founded on evidence which, he said, indicated that Thomas Hamilton had committed assault, neglect, indecent behaviour and breach of the peace; that he was a scheming, vindictive, deceitful liar who harboured an obsessional grudge against the Scout movement and was hostile to the police; that he was the subject of rumours and gossip; and of frequent complaints by parents due to his abnormal and unhealthy conduct towards young boys, serviced by his obsessional organisation of boys clubs and camps; that he was a misfit, loner, weirdo, oddball who repelled most people; that he had made a habit of unjustified and time-consuming complaints, both formally and informally, about the police; and indulged in a series of false and defamatory accusations of police officers; this was "to tire and eventually deflate his accusers and throw a smoke screen over his own activities". In this he had been remarkably successful. He had also been expelled from the Scouts for reasons which DC Taylor had found in the Scout files in 1993.

6.49   Mr Campbell submitted that an important feature of the approach which had been taken by Central Scotland Police was the extraordinarily narrow interpretation which they had placed on the meaning of "unfitness" in Sections 27(1) and 30(1). He emphasised that this expression was concerned with the trustworthiness of a person's character in regard to the responsibilities which attached to a possessor of firearms. Firearms and especially semi-automatic handguns had a unique ability to kill. No physical contact, strength, prowess or even bravery was required. The chief officer of police had a heavy responsibility to perform in forestalling incidents. Central Scotland Police had concentrated on the need for a serious previous conviction or a strong pending case. They had in effect delegated their responsibility to Procurators Fiscal and were influenced by the risk of failure in an appeal. It was symptomatic of this that the memorandum of DS Hughes had been treated as simply a "gut feeling".

6.50   Mr Campbell was critical of the fact that DCC McMurdo had not made any enquiry of DS Hughes. In evidence the latter said that he considered that Thomas Hamilton had singled out a child for better treatment in order to engage his interest. He strongly suspected that he was a paedophile and that to a degree his tendencies had been controlled. He found him very obstructive; he had no intention of listening to reason; he had very much his own agenda; he firmly believed that he was an outstanding pillar of the community but somewhere within himself he must have recognised that he was not; and he came across as quite calm when he was actually quite angry. By referring to him as "unstable" the witness said that he meant that he was a difficult person to deal with, had very much his own agenda, had an unhealthy interest in children and was an abnormal type of person. As regards the assaults with which he was concerned he did not consider Thomas Hamilton at that time to be a particular threat. He had been more of a bully. However, he thought that he was capable of violence and felt that he tried to be intimidating in a veiled sort of fashion. "Gut feeling" had nothing to do with the charges which he had drafted. He accepted that he was a little aggrieved by the fact that Thomas Hamilton had made a complaint about him but he did not over-react or act unprofessionally.

6.51   Mr Campbell also submitted that Central Scotland Police had failed to take the whole picture together. But for their collective failures the shootings on 13 March 1996 would not have occurred.

6.52   In reply Mr Taylor submitted that Section 27(1) should be treated as posing a composite test which, in his words, was "whether or not the circumstances revealed the likelihood of a disturbance to good order arising out of the possession by the applicant of a firearm". On this approach there was little practical significance in the distinction between the language of Section 27(1) and that of Section 30(1). This was how the matter had been approached in the case of Thomas Hamilton. There always had to be evidence: "gut feeling" was not enough. It was accepted that a previous conviction was not necessary for revocation or refusal to renew. But if any member of the police force did have such a view it would be understandable, in the light of the statement in the Green Book that "unless a certificate holder sustains a criminal conviction during the currency of his certificate, the conditions for revocation may not often apply in practice". (Part I, para 79). Furthermore other passages clearly implied that character should be viewed primarily in terms of criminal conduct (Part I, paras 62 and 65-67).

6.53   Mr Taylor maintained that DS Hughes' memorandum consisted almost entirely of "gut feeling". There was no need for DCC McMurdo to enquire of him. Mr Taylor also suggested that the memorandum was an after-thought on the part of DS Hughes who must have known at the time of his report to the Procurator Fiscal that Thomas Hamilton had a firearm certificate as this would have been shown by the SCRO check which was carried out as a matter of routine. Mr Taylor also emphasised that DC Taylor did not consider that he had revealed any factors which caused concern about the fact that Thomas Hamilton held a firearm certificate. It was of no materiality that details of the Linlithgow and Mullarochy Bay investigations were not included in the firearms file relating to Thomas Hamilton. There was nothing in the firearms file which would have told DCC McMurdo what he did not already know. Even when all the matters were taken together the information available to the police did not show that Thomas Hamilton was predisposed to violence. There was no more than a suspicion of unwholesome activities on his part. When it came to the point of decision DCC McMurdo was in much the same position as others who had difficulty in putting their finger on what was wrong. He would have had no prospect of success in the event of an appeal.

6.54   Before coming to the evidence of Mr McMurdo I should refer to the evidence of the two officers who were involved in the chain of communication between DS Hughes and the Deputy Chief Constable.

6.55   Supt (then DCI) Holden said that he had shared DS Hughes' concerns. He had questioned, and they had discussed, his reference to Thomas Hamilton being "unstable" which he had explained as being based on his inability to cope with a number of boys, resulting in his assaulting one of them. Supt Holden could find no reason why DS Hughes was not right but he could not say whether Thomas Hamilton was "unfitted" to be entrusted with a firearm. He felt that they did not have enough at that point. He had never spoken to Thomas Hamilton and relied on second-hand information from DS Hughes. He had agreed that the question as to his fitness should be raised. At the time he had no experience in firearms certification. He accepted that in his police statement for the Inquiry, which he had written himself, he said: "I believed our recommendation was based on Hamilton not being a fit and proper person to hold firearms authority". He did not know whether a person who fitted the description given by DS Hughes in the last paragraph of his memorandum was unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm. If he was unstable he would be. However, he agreed that if a person was a deceitful liar, it would raise a very serious question mark.

6.56   Supt Holden's evidence gave me the strong impression that, without going back on what he had written in the memorandum, he was seeking to dilute the support which he had given to DS Hughes. I am extremely sceptical that at the time he expressed or entertained the qualification which he expressed in his evidence to the Inquiry. As far as DS Hughes was concerned - and I accept him as an honest and well-balanced witness - Superintendent Holden agreed with his appraisal at the time.

6.57   I turn then to Mr Millar, who said that he had handled very many firearms applications and, as a sub-divisional commander, had had to consider whether the applications should be recommended. When he was shown what he had written on the memorandum he said that the word "convicted" had been used by him to cover quite a wide meaning. He was aware that there was no need for a conviction but there had to be evidence of unsuitability and he did not think that on the basis of the information supplied to him there was enough evidence. There were no guns involved. So he recommended that there were no grounds which would stand up in court. Whatever may have been in his mind it is, in my view, quite impossible to read what he wrote referring to anything other than criminal proceedings and a criminal conviction. This was plainly too narrow an approach. A criminal prosecution is concerned with a different question, and is subject to its own peculiar rules of evidence and procedure. When he was asked for examples of persons who would be unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm he mentioned cases of extreme violence (including child assault, depending on the severity); drunkenness; and violence where a firearm was used in the commission of crime. When he was asked about consideration of preventive measures he answered: "In hindsight there possibly should have been. There was not at the time".