DO THEY SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE?

The long-standing practice of police assessing land as ‘safe’ for shooting is under scrutiny. Many forces now question its value, with some abandoning it altogether. Nick Doherty, barrister and firearms licensing expert, examines the practicality, inconsistencies, and future of land checks, and considers whether other measures, such as mentoring and safety training, could – or should – replace them.

IMAGE: SHUTTERSTOCK - KEVIN RICHARDS

All dealers, and most other readers, will be aware that it was standard practice in the past for all police forces to approve land as suitable (safe) for shooting’ and this was suggested within the non-statutory Guidance to Police as a matter which could be the subject of a condition on a certificate. More importantly, this was linked to the question of ‘good reason’ to have a firearm, and a certificate could be conditioned to only permit shooting on approved land.

A number of police forces have indicated in recent times that they will no longer rely on this criteria. The issues are neatly summarised within paragraph 12.14 of the non-statutory Guidance:

When land inspections are required, the knowledge of local shooters, stalkers, gamekeepers etc. may be drawn upon. This is particularly important in cases of doubt. Decisions to refuse approval on public safety grounds should not be based on the assessment of a police employee with little or no experience in such matters and the views of those experienced in the field use of firearms should be sought before final decisions are made. Shooting organisations may also be able to assist with detailed information about the practical applications of rifle/cartridge combinations.

As demonstrated by the paragraph above, the practice of assessing the land in question is problematic. The police are not well equipped to carry out the task. It places a responsibility on the local force probably beyond their capabilities. More importantly, land is neither inherently ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’. It relied on the judgement of the individual shooter at the moment they pull the trigger.

Adrian Davis, the National Police Chiefs Council strategic coordinator for firearms licensing, convened a meeting recently to consider the issue of Land Checks. A number of experienced licensing managers and representatives of BASC, the BSSC and the Home Office attended.

Mr. Davis observed that he was not aware of a single incident where a land check had been a factor in a reported accident. Many forces, including Police Scotland, no longer conduct such checks. The meeting considered 3 options: cease these checks across the board; some forces continue with them (but that is inconsistent); consider a simpler way to ensure that shooters understand potential hazards and mitigate the risks.

Inspector Chris Biggs from Dorset made the very valid point that it is not the land that is safe or otherwise, it is the shooter. Reading the report from this meeting, I am encouraged that the NPCC are taking a practical approach and are involving, and listening to, the shooting community.

There appears to be a significant degree of support across the board for Land Checks to be abolished. There is no evidence they enhance safety in the field. The current position is inconsistent, it is highly undesirable for some forces to continue with the practice when others do not. It looks likely they will go. The Home Office would simply need to amend the Guidance.

If my prediction is correct, what next? Is there any need for other measures? It is a basic principle of our laws that you do not place a restriction on society unless it is necessary to prevent an identifiable risk. Serious incidents involving shooters in the countryside are extremely rare. The answer is therefore: “No.”

Some forces have asked for new shooters to have a mentor. Many new shooters have informal mentors who introduced them to the sport. The problem with making mentors a ‘condition’ is the additional work for the police combined with an inability to assess the competence of the mentor. As with land checks, the police are imposing a burden on themselves which they are unlikely to be able to conduct satisfactorily. In my view, having mentors conditioned on certificates should also go.

I anticipate some requirements being made. Insurance for all field shooters may become a condition, as it already is for target shooting. Many will already have this through BASC and other organisations.

It may be suggested that field shooters should have mandatory safety training. That would require changes in the law and the evidence does not exist to support the huge expense involved. A sensible solution is for detailed guidance to be provided in collaboration between the NPCC and the shooting organisations which is readily available and can cover all disciplines and circumstances. This can be discussed by FEOs with those who are less experienced.

Chris Downs is now running FEO courses at the College of Policing. This is a welcome development and will improve consistency across forces. The course already includes safety considerations. When a decision has been made regarding land checks it might be helpful for FEOs to be encouraged to discuss these issues with applicants.

Nick Doherty is a barrister specialising in firearms licensing law. He is a member of the Council of the GTA and co-author of the Firearms Law Handbook .