Thomas Hamilton's possession of firearms and ammunition

---

6.59   I come now to the evidence of Mr McMurdo. In the course of his evidence it was clear that, so far as he was concerned, the only practical difference between Section 27(1) and Section 30(1) of the 1968 Act was the absence of reference to "good reason" in the latter. He accepted that he was exercising preventive police work; and he asserted that where there was a doubt he would always act positively. But it was clear that great importance was attached by him to convictions. In giving examples of cases which would justify considering someone to be "unfitted" to be entrusted with a firearm he referred to convictions for assault resulting in a 3 months' sentence; a conviction for threatening with a firearm; and three drink-driving convictions. The means of identifying those who were "unfitted" was provided, he said, by the system whereby convictions and pending cases were drawn to the attention of the firearms department along with information which had been entered on criminal intelligence.

6.60   In regard to the memorandum by DS Hughes he did not take it lightly. However, it was a "gut feeling". It did not have the evidence to substantiate it. As regards the "assault" the memorandum was "biased". It was chastisement for bullying involving kicking, punching and throwing stones. The report which DS Hughes had earlier submitted to the Procurator Fiscal was "very mixed". Some parents had supported Thomas Hamilton. He did not accept DS Hughes' description of Thomas Hamilton. He had met and corresponded with him and knew his arguments and personality. In particular he did not consider him to be unstable or irrational. There had been no need for him to enquire of DS Hughes as there was no one in Central Scotland Police who knew him better than himself.

6.61   It seemed clear to me at a number of points that while Mr McMurdo accepted that he was exercising preventive police work he had difficulty in envisaging cases in which a person could be shown to be "unfitted" to be entrusted with a firearm where there was no previous conviction or pending criminal case. When he was asked what would be included in the responsibility to be expected of a holder of a firearm certificate he said that it was "expecting a bit much" for him to be honest in his dealings with the police. These and other passages seem to me to provide support for Mr Campbell's submission that he adopted an unduly narrow approach in which he paid not much more than lip service to the idea that a person could be "unfitted" in the absence of a conviction or pending criminal case. He undervalued the breadth of that expression.

6.62   Much of the criticism of the memorandum which Mr McMurdo expressed was directed at the "assault". However, the main point which DS Hughes was making was that Thomas Hamilton was a scheming, devious and deceitful person who was not to be trusted. This was, of course, within the context of the matters with which DS Hughes had been concerned. It was for Mr McMurdo to see that account was taken of the whole information available to the police and to apply his knowledge and experience of the firearms system. Did DS Hughes' description in the last paragraph of his memorandum indicate someone who should not have a firearm certificate? Mr McMurdo's position on this point underwent a disconcerting shift during the course of his evidence. At one point he made it clear in answer to Mr Bonomy and myself that if the description was correct he was unfitted. His concern had been whether there was evidence to prove it. However, on the following day he explicitly departed from that position on the ground that it did not of itself show unfitness to be entrusted with a firearm.

6.63   At the time when Mr McMurdo received the memorandum he knew that there was evidence that Thomas Hamilton had apparently misled the police in the course of their investigation of his taking of photographs which, to say the least, raised questions as to whether his interest in and behaviour towards boys, and in particular a favourite boy, was healthy and normal. The general context which was already known to him was that there was "no love lost between him and the Central Scotland Police Force" and that Thomas Hamilton would lose no opportunity to find fault with the police in evading questions about his own methods. His letter to The Scottish Office dated 14 January 1992, to which I referred in para 6.43, indicates DCC McMurdo's strongly held views about Thomas Hamilton's character, although I have to point out that when he was giving evidence Mr McMurdo said that he withdrew the word "irrational", explaining that he had "lost his cool" and wanted to put an end to the correspondence. However, it was to the police that Thomas Hamilton was responsible for giving truthful answers as to his reasons for wanting firearms and, when questioned, in regard to his own suitability. DCC McMurdo already knew of at least one instance of a link between Thomas Hamilton's firearms and the boys who attended his clubs. At the house in Linlithgow he had shown firearms to boys - with the parents' consent - after he had offered to do so. On any view it was an inappropriate conduct on the part of a firearm certificate holder and it raised a question as to whether it was serious enough to warrant revocation. Having heard, read and re-read the evidence I consider that these considerations called into question Thomas Hamilton's fitness to be entrusted with a firearm and that DCC McMurdo should have taken the opportunity of making further enquiries, and in particular hearing what DS Hughes had to say. He was after all able to give a first - hand account of Thomas Hamilton's behaviour and reactions when he was questioned at the camp.

6.64   In considering the question whether Thomas Hamilton's firearm certificate should have been revoked in the light of what was known or should have been found out at the time it is, of course, necessary to put aside the effect which hindsight tends to have in colouring the significance of the facts. Bearing in mind the width of the expression "unfitted" it is necessary to look at all the known conduct on the part of Thomas Hamilton which is relevant, whether related to firearms or to any other matter, in order to see whether such an inference should have been drawn. On balance I consider that there was a case for revocation of Thomas Hamilton's firearm certificate and that it should have been acted upon. However, I do not consider that this would have been the end of the matter. I have no doubt that he would have appealed and argued his case with his accustomed vigour and plausibility. The outcome would have depended very much on the impression which he created with the Sheriff. It is not certain that an appeal would have been unsuccessful.

6.65   The renewal (with a variation) of the certificate in 1992 could quite properly be described as a routine operation. It was abundantly clear that Ch.Supt Adamson was doing no more than giving effect to the decision which he understood DCC McMurdo had taken on 11 November 1991. At no point in the procedure was there any effective assessment of Thomas Hamilton's suitability. I should also point out that those who were dealing with the application for renewal before the new certificate reached Ch.Supt Adamson were provided with no adequate means of carrying out a proper scrutiny of the application as neither a copy of Inspector Nimmo's memorandum nor a copy of DS Hughes' memorandum was recorded in criminal intelligence or in the firearms file. In the result they could not be picked up by either the enquiry officer, in this case Mr N G Lynch, or by the firearms department. DCC McMurdo, who was the repository of knowledge about Thomas Hamilton, was absent. Ch.Supt Adamson assumed that appropriate steps had been taken by others. Thus he accepted in evidence that if, through an administrative error, the firearms file had not been passed to him when this should have been done, it is probable that he would still have signed the new certificate.

6.66   It is clear from his evidence that Mr McMurdo took the view that events between the renewal in 1992 and that in 1995 did not in any way alter his views as to whether Thomas Hamilton should continue to have a firearm certificate. I have already referred at para 6.47 to the evidence which he gave as to the circumstances in which he signed the renewal in 1995. He drew some support from the report which DCI Holden made to him after his interview with Thomas Hamilton in October 1993 (para 4.60). According to Mr McMurdo his view of Thomas Hamilton had changed. He said to Mr McMurdo: "Well, maybe he is a bit of an oddball, but maybe we have misjudged him a bit". However, Mr Holden's evidence was that he would have given the same endorsement to DS Hughes' memorandum if it had been presented to him in 1993 although he would have had to question the word "stable". However, as I have already narrated, he had questioned this expression in 1991; and his endorsement had followed after this had been discussed. In my view Mr McMurdo exaggerated any change in the views of DCI Holden.

6.67   The fate of Police Constable Anne Anderson's impression of Thomas Hamilton is another demonstration of the effect of the failure to enter relevant information in criminal intelligence, in this instance the memoranda of Inspector Nimmo, DS Hughes and DC Taylor. It was clear from her evidence that if she had had any indication of support for a concern as to Thomas Hamilton's fitness to be the holder of a firearm she would have wanted to make known her contribution. As it was, the lack of any other indication of significance led her to treat her impression of an unhealthy attitude to his firearms as being of no account.

6.68   The remarks which I have made in regard to the case for the revocation of Thomas Hamilton's firearm certificate and the outcome of an appeal by him apply also to a decision to refuse the renewal of the certificate.

6.69   If Thomas Hamilton had been finally deprived of his firearm certificate and hence lost his firearms and ammunition, how far would this have altered the course of events? Would he have sought and obtained illegal possession of one or more other firearms and ammunition? Would he have resorted to other means of causing death? Or would the loss of his own firearms and ammunition have forestalled the development of homicidal intentions? The Inquiry heard some evidence that it was unlikely that Thomas Hamilton would have been able to obtain a firearm from members of the criminal fraternity. Even without such evidence it seems to me to be highly improbable that he would have embarked upon, let alone been successful, in such an approach. However, by some means or other he might have purloined a firearm, whether legally or illegally held, from someone known to him. On the other hand it is difficult to envisage that he would have been able to amass a collection of firearms and ammunition similar to that with which he approached the school. This all presupposes that Thomas Hamilton would have had an intention to perpetrate a mass shooting which was independent of the non-availability of his own firearms and ammunition. It is clear that what he did on 13 March 1996 was planned in advance. However, it was planned in the context of the continuing availability of his own firearms and ammunition. Further, his attitude to his own firearms seems to me to be of some importance. They were his "babies": and he gloated over them. He used them as a means of exercising power over his victims and their relatives. It does not appear to me to follow from the evidence that Thomas Hamilton would have sought in any event to perpetrate a mass shooting. It seems to me to be at least as likely that the availability of his own firearms and ammunition influenced him in the way in which he proceeded. Now it is possible that he would have sought out some other means of causing death. In the light of the evidence of Dr Baird it would require to have been a means which encompassed his own death. I am not able to reach any conclusion as to what he would have done in this direction as it is too much a matter for speculation.


Observations on the system

6.70   At this stage I have some comments on the system used by Central Scotland Police. In Chapter 8 I will undertake the more comprehensive task of considering certain aspects of the certification regime which is in force throughout the country.

6.71   Enquiry officers were required by means of form RL3a to provide the answer to a question which is of fundamental importance to a correct decision on the application: "Is the applicant a suitable person to hold a firearm certificate?" If information which was adverse to the applicant emerged from his enquiry he would have to weigh up its significance and seriousness. It might well be thought that the question which was posed should have been a question for the senior police officer who made the decision on behalf of the Chief Constable. The true objective of the enquiry into the question of suitability was surely that the officer should assemble the information which appeared to be of possible relevance to the decision.

6.72   I have referred earlier, and need not repeat here, my remarks about the absence from criminal intelligence of any reference to the previous police investigation of Thomas Hamilton's conduct. The fact that the substance of this information was made known to Mr McMurdo at one stage or another was neither here nor there. It was a glaring deficiency in the operation of the force's information system.

6.73   It was obviously important that an enquiry form should require the enquiry officer to give a positive response in regard to all lines of enquiry which as a matter of routine required to be pursued. Accordingly in the evidence and in the written submission made by the Chief Constable, to which I referred at para 3.28, it was recognised that form RL3a should have referred to a check on criminal intelligence. Such a check was omitted when Thomas Hamilton's certificate was due for renewal in February 1992.

6.74   Any visit by an enquiry officer to the applicant's home was of necessity comparatively brief, but it might well be that during the visit something came to his or her attention which might raise a matter for concern about the suitability of the applicant or holder. The experience of PC Anderson in February 1995 was a striking example of this. There was a danger that some piece of information, even an impression, when seen by itself might appear to be of no account but when considered along with other information not known to the enquiry officer might assume a very different complexion. If an enquiry officer was in effect limited to answering yes or no to the question of whether the applicant or holder was a suitable person, such information might be lost. This suggests that the form should have been worded in such a way as to encourage the enquiry officer to mention any matter which gave rise to any concern in regard to the applicant's suitability and the view which he took of it, whether or not he was asked to, and did, express a view as to the applicant's suitability.

6.75   In the system which I have described earlier it is clear that reference was made to the firearms department only after the enquiry officer had carried out his work. However, it might well be that there were matters which were already known to the department, perhaps in the form of a change of circumstances or some reason for exercising particular caution, which should be looked into. It would have been sensible if such matters had been drawn to the attention of the enquiry officer before he undertook his work.

6.76   I appreciate that I heard evidence which emphasised that a constable who was called upon to be the enquiry officer had the benefit of his sergeant to advise him and to scrutinise his work so far as that is considered necessary. However, it was asking a great deal of a constable who had no previous first-hand experience of firearms or the certification system to undertake enquiries, particularly in regard to the existence of "good reason". The provision of information in response to an enquiry form would not serve the purpose of providing a thorough examination of "good reason" unless full details were set out as a result of the right questions being asked.

6.77   I also note that form RL3a did not specifically require the enquiry officer to name the club or clubs whose membership was relied on in showing "good reason" or the means by which the applicant's current membership was vouched to his satisfaction.

6.78   In the preceding paragraphs I have been principally concerned with the supplying of adequate information to, and by, the enquiry officer. However, the evidence provided a disturbing picture of the operation of the decision-making process. The senior officer who had the responsibility of determining the outcome of Thomas Hamilton's application had nothing put before him but the new firearm certificate to be signed. In the absence of any indication to the contrary he assumed that it was appropriate for him to sign. In such circumstances junior officers made the assessment of the significance of information which was obtained. The senior officer was not placed in the position of making the decision in the light of all the information which was of possible relevance.