The certification system relating to section 1 firearms

---

8.67   I have already mentioned that the criteria for such a club provides for the probationary member being given a course in the safe handling and use of firearms; and that after its satisfactory completion he or she is to be supervised under certain conditions. Stirling Rifle and Pistol Club submitted that such a course should be organised from a national syllabus, but I do not consider that this is an area which calls for any recommendation on my part.

8.68   The recent reduction in the mandatory probationary period from 6 months to 3 months has attracted some criticism and I understand that a large number of clubs continue to require a period of 6 months as they are fully entitled to do. The Scottish Target Shooting Federation submitted that the restoration of the original requirement would not add a material safeguard since in practice clubs will extend the period when they consider that more examination of a potential member is required. I consider that it should be left to each club to decide whether the normal period should be 6 months; and, if it is to be 3 months, whether in a particular case it should be extended.

8.69   Under the criteria for approved clubs the members must be "of good character". Clubs naturally wish to ensure that they do not admit as a probationary member someone who is not of that character, not only because of the criteria but also out of concern for their own reputation. Plainly there are difficulties facing clubs who wish to vet their probationary members. The police do not become officially aware of the identity of the new member until full membership is obtained and the firearm application is presented. It has been suggested that a prospective member should be required to obtain a copy of any records held about him or her by the police on computer - which they are entitled to do under the Data Protection Act 1984 at a cost of £10. This proposal was rejected by the Home Office Working Group on the Criteria for the Approval of Rifle and Pistol Clubs which reported in 1995. They considered that it would be wrong to require individuals to do this as a prerequisite of joining a club. Whilst appreciating the difficulties faced by clubs in ensuring that members were of "good character", the Working Group were against routine police involvement and considered that vetting of members was a responsibility for the clubs by whatever method they saw fit. The Working Group went on to state that it was not good practice for clubs to use the firearm or shot gun certificate procedure to vet members. However, they recommended a requirement upon clubs to ask a prospective member or guest to declare that he or she was not a prohibited person under the 1968 Act (paras 15-17). This requirement is now part of the criteria. Note 2 on the criteria states also: "Clubs should make their own arrangements for assessing whether members or prospective members are of good character. Police firearms licensing departments should not be asked to disclose whether someone has a criminal record or not".

8.70   In the Inquiry it was also submitted that a person who wished to use a firearm as a member or probationary member but who did not produce a firearm certificate should be requested to provide a certificate issued by the police confirming that he or she was not a prohibited person. The BSSC maintained that this would be a simple document to issue and would not require to list any particular convictions. It could take the form of a simple confirmation that there was nothing in the police records to disqualify the would-be member.

8.71   I do not see any good reason to differ from the Working Group in regard to the proposal that a prospective member should be required to obtain a copy of any records held about him or her. I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to set up a system for the granting of certificates as the BSSC have proposed. However, I consider that each approved club should be required to inform the police of the receipt of an application for membership. This would enable the police to take prompt action where the applicant was found to be a prohibited person or where his criminal record was such as to give cause for concern. Clubs should also be required to inform the police of the outcome of each application. Each of these duties should fall to be performed within a given period of the event to which it relates.

8.72   I have also considered whether it is necessary to go further and to require that clubs should be under a duty to inform the police as to the reasons for any refusal of membership. As the Green Book points out there is nothing to prevent clubs from doing this at present, but there could be a disadvantage in making it a requirement. It might lead the club in marginal cases to decide that the less embarrassing course was not to refuse the application. The same considerations could apply in cases of expulsion (Part II, paras 119-122). It has also been claimed that clubs should enjoy immunity from liability for any statements of this kind. I consider that on balance it is better to let matters take their course on the present informal basis.

8.73   It would be of assistance if each applicant were required to state whether he or she had submitted any prior application for a firearm or shot gun certificate which had been refused; and whether he or she had previously held such a certificate which had been revoked; and in either event to supply details.

Counter-signatories

8.74   Rule 5 of the Firearms (Scotland) Rules, and the corresponding rule in England and Wales, introduced the requirement that a firearm application should be countersigned. This followed an amendment of section 26 of the 1968 Act by section 10 of the 1988 Act. It is required that the counter-signatory should not be a member of the applicant's family and must - (a) be resident in Great Britain; (b) have known the applicant personally for 2 years, and (c) be a Member of Parliament, justice of the peace, minister of religion, lawyer, established civil servant, bank officer "or person of similar standing". The counter-signatory is required to verify certain information given by the applicant on the application form and to declare that "he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm". Counter-signatories are asked to bear in mind the character, conduct and mental condition of the applicant "in so far as they are relevant to these matters".

8.75   The purpose of counter-signature is evidently to assist the police in their consideration of the application. However, the system has attracted considerable criticism.

8.76   Difficulty has been experienced with the application of the words "or person of similar standing". The Guidance to the Police states that this category might have to be extended fairly widely where an applicant had few contacts in the community (6.5); and the Firearms Consultative Committee advocated flexibility in their First Annual Report (in 1990)(4.8). However, this very flexibility tends to devalue the worth of the counter-signatory's declaration.

8.77   The declaration itself is essentially negative. In one sense the less that a counter-signatory knows about the applicant the less likely would he be to have any difficulty in providing his support to the application.

8.78   A further particular difficulty is encountered by medical practitioners. While the form asks the same of them as for any other counter-signatory they have two concerns, firstly, that their signature might be taken as implying that they were endorsing the applicant as medically fit to be entrusted with a firearm; and, secondly, that any reservation on their part about signing the certificate might impair their relationship with their patient. The interim firearms guidance note issued by the BMA, revised in April 1996, states: "Where the applicant is a patient, doctors are advised not to support firearm applications unless they believe that they have sufficient knowledge about an individual to justify a judgment that the individual could safely possess and control such a firearm. The occasions when this is so will be rare". At the annual meeting of BMA representatives on 27 June 1996 it was resolved, although by a small majority, "that doctors should not endorse gun licence applications".

8.79   The abolition of the requirement for counter-signature was called for in a number of reports, starting with the Multi-Force Firearm Scrutiny by Devon and Cornwall Constabulary in 1991 (8.2). I note that in the latest draft of the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland on the Administration of the Firearms Licensing System in 1995 there is a call for a "review" of the current requirement. An earlier draft had called for its discontinuance.

8.80   One way in which to proceed would be to require the counter-signatory to state specifically that the applicant was considered to be a fit person to be entrusted with a firearm. I do not support such a proposal. It would impose a burden which few would be prepared to undertake; and would merely serve to detract from the primary responsibilities of the police to reach a view on that question.

8.81   I consider that the current requirement for a counter-signatory should be abolished and should be replaced by a system for the obtaining of references as one source of information for the police. The object of such a system would be to provide the police not with negative but with positive statements about the applicant without imposing on referees the burden of declaring that the applicant was a fit person to the best of their knowledge and belief. I consider that there should be two referees, neither of whom should be a member of the applicant's family. They should both be persons of good character. One of them should be an official of an approved shooting club of which the applicant is a member. The other should be a person who is not a member of any shooting club. The latter should have known the applicant personally for at least 2 years. Each of the referees should be expected to supply a reference to the police in the form of answers to a questionnaire designed to bring out the extent and nature of their knowledge of the applicant, with particular reference to his character, conduct and mental condition. It would be open to the police to reject a referee who did not appear to have adequate knowledge of the applicant. A reference would normally be treated as confidential but might require to be made available to the applicant in the event of an appeal.

8.82   I do not support the submission that such referees should be made responsible for reporting any subsequent material change of circumstances or be subject to prosecution for failing to do so. It would, in my view, impose such a burden as to be counter-productive.

8.83   If a system of referees were introduced it would be for the police to decide in the particular case whether and to what extent a reference should be followed up by further enquiry of the referees.

Medical and psychological information

8.84   It was submitted that a significant improvement in the elimination of the unsuitable applicants could be achieved by the following as a matter of routine:

1. a report on the applicant by his general practitioner, with or without the disclosure of his or her medical records; and

2. the carrying out of a psychiatric examination or a psychological test of the applicant.

8.85   I am entirely satisfied that general practitioners cannot reliably assist in the identification of those who pose a risk of violence and those who do not. There is at present no scientific evidence which would allow this to be determined. It is clear that forensic psychiatrists and clinical psychologists doubt their own ability to predict violent behaviour. A generalist such as the applicant's doctor, who lacks specialist expertise, is even less able to reach soundly-based judgment as to his potential for violence. As regards mental illness, it was pointed out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in their submission that this of itself does not indicate the risk of violence since only a small proportion of those who suffer from such illness commit such offences. Severe mood disturbance or instability or alcohol abuse or a history of violence might suggest that the patient should not be permitted to possess a firearm, but this is based on common sense rather than on scientific grounds. Quite apart from these considerations there are cases, of which Thomas Hamilton is an example, where the general practitioner has no adequate personal knowledge of the individual patient. There may, of course, be cases in which a doctor is under the duty of disclosure in the interests of others. Such cases are covered by paragraph 18 of the Guidance on Confidentiality issued by the General Medical Council which states: "Disclosures may be necessary in the public interest where a failure to disclose information may expose the patient, or others, to risk of death of serious harm. In such circumstances you should disclose information promptly to an appropriate person or authority". For such cases a confidential telephone advice and information service is offered to doctors by the DVLA. In his letter to the Home Affairs Committee dated 24 May 1996, which formed part of the BMA evidence to the Inquiry, the Secretary, Dr E M Armstrong, stated: "Our conclusion, sadly, is that until such time as methods are developed to provide reliable predictions, firearms policy needs to be based on the understanding that, from time to time, unpredictable behaviour will occur".

8.86   As regards carrying out of a special examination or test, essentially the same considerations apply. The carrying out of risk assessments by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists who were trained for this type of work would involve considerable expense, and the use of resources which are in short supply. Such assessments would require to be carried out at least annually. On the basis that firearm certificates have a life of 5 years approximately 35,000 applications require to be dealt with each year. The corresponding figure for shot gun applications is 145,000. Professor Cooke in his evidence said that it would be possible to identify individuals who had a propensity to violence but that this would require 2 days' work interviewing the applicant, seeking to build up rapport and trust and using collateral information. However, there would always be errors, which would tend to be errors on the side of regarding the person as unsuitable rather than the other way round. Extreme violence was very rare and was virtually impossible to predict. Mental illness, as distinct from traits of personality, could come about rapidly and unexpectedly; and accordingly it could not be taken that this would be picked up in an examination. The remarks which Professor Cooke made about a psychological examination applied also to psychometric testing. In any event there is a danger that applicants would discover what were the "right" answers.

8.87   In the light of the above I am satisfied that neither of these approaches is practicable. In each case there are grounds for considerable reservations as to its effectiveness.

8.88   The Inquiry heard the evidence of Dr H D Davies who has had many years of experience as a police surgeon and is the immediate past president of the Association of Police Surgeons. He outlined a possible system by which the applicant's medical practitioner would on request from a selected police surgeon (now referred to as a forensic medical examiner) supply information as to the applicant's medical history. For this purpose forms similar to those used for the purpose of obtaining life assurance would be used. The medical practitioner would be able, but not bound, to add comment of his own as to the suitability of the applicant. The forensic medical examiner would make an assessment as to whether there was any point in the applicant being interviewed by him or examined by a psychiatrist or psychologist. The forensic medical examiner would make a formal and confidential recommendation to the Chief Constable as to whether the applicant was or was not suitable from a medical point of view. The final decision would, as at present, rest with the Chief Constable. It was also suggested that medical practitioners would be under a duty to advise the police or the forensic medical examiner if the holder of the firearm certificate became mentally unwell or if there was some other change of circumstances which raised a question as to whether he was still suitable.

8.89   The advantage of such a proposal is that it could be of some benefit in screening out at least some of the applicants which are unsuitable on medical grounds. It would relieve the medical practitioner of the difficulty of being asked to give what he regards as an assurance as to the medical suitability of the applicant; and it would enable him to exchange information with a fellow-professional who would have the responsibility of deciding whether the information provided called for further action. In cases in which the medical practitioner knew so little of his patient that he was unable personally to give details of the applicant's medical history it might prove necessary for a medical examination to precede any further consideration of the application by the forensic medical examiner. The proposal would also provide a means by which a medical practitioner could discharge his duty to provide information in accordance with paragraph 18 of the Guidance on Confidentiality.

8.90   I consider that there is some merit in the proposal which has been put forward on behalf of the Association of Police Surgeons. However, as it raises questions on which there should be full consultation with the professional bodies, I consider that the best course for me is to recommend that the Home Office and The Scottish Office institute a process of consultation in order to see whether such a system is feasible. It would, of course, on any view involve the need to make it an essential part of the procedure for applying for a firearm certificate that the applicant consented to the disclosure of details of his medical history and was subject to being required to undertake an interview, examination or test. I have some reservations about the proposal that medical practitioners should be under a duty to report changes relating to the holder of the firearm certificate, in respect that it might well be very difficult for them to know when such a duty arose.