IMAGE: GETTY - ALAN HEWITT AKA ALPHOTOGRAPHIC
Readers will now be well aware of the changes to licensing brought about by the Statutory Guidance [‘SG’] first introduced in 2022 and now on its third version. Paul Green, the GTA technical director, covered the important practical changes last month. I want to explain in simple terms a change to the appeals process which was also mentioned for the first time in the August 2025 version of the SG. This was referred to in paragraph 3.56 of the SG where reference is made to a ‘Closed Material Procedure’. This follows a case called Scott in the High Court in 2023.
I thought it would be helpful to explain what this means and how it potentially affects a significant number of certificate holders. The position now in a firearms licensing appeal is that the police are permitted to place evidence before the court in a ‘closed’ session. The Appellant and their lawyer will not be present. The information will not be disclosed to either of them. This means that the Appellant may never know why it was that the police, and then the court, refused them a certificate.
When police consider ‘suitability’ in respect of an applicant for a certificate or an RFD they are obliged by the SG to consult a number of sources of information. ‘All applicants should be checked against the widest relevant databases to gather conviction, intelligence and counter terrorism data.’. These include ‘local intelligence records’. This will inevitably mean that the ‘Intelligence’ comes from a wide variety of sources, some more reliable than others. It also comes from sources who, if identified, might be in danger from those they have provided intelligence about. This type of information attracts ‘Public Interest Immunity’ [‘PII’]. It cannot be disclosed.
Two principle reasons are put forward to justify this departure from the usual principle that a party should know in full the case against them. Firstly: as firearms licensing is a process designed to protect the public, it is only right that the court hearing an appeal should be able to consider all material which may be relevant. Secondly, It would be an unusual situation if the police were able to make a decision on one basis, and then the court might be expected to decide the matter afresh on a more restricted set of evidence. There is therefore some justification for provision of a Closed Material Procedure [‘CMP’] within a firearms licensing appeal.
Paragraph 3.56 of the SG provides this summary of the considerations. I have underlined the important parts:
In the event of an appeal, the chief officer might consider an application for public interest immunity to avoid compromising an investigation or intelligence source. The High Court of England and Wales has ruled [… Scott, 2023] that a Closed Material
“THE STATUTORY GUIDANCE DOES WARN THE POLICE TO BE ALERT TO
MALICIOUS ALLEGATIONS”
Procedure (CMP) may be used in a firearms appeal, but only where it is ‘critical for the fair disposal of a firearms appeal’. This means that in some cases, subject to a successful application for Public Interest Immunity, sensitive information or intelligence does not have to be disclosed to the appellant at appeal. This may be relevant where there is information or intelligence relating to domestic abuse, terrorism, ongoing criminal investigations or other sensitive matters. It remains the position that as much information as possible should be disclosed to the appellant and non-disclosure must be justified in the particular case. As the Court said in Scott, ‘the existence of the CMP jurisdiction in such cases emphatically does not mean that such a procedure should become the norm’.
In practice, terrorism and other serious criminality does not feature in firearms licensing. They obtain firearms by other means. Paragraph 2.59 of the SG is clear that those suspected of engaging in domestic abuse are not to have a certificate. That is the issue which is most often raised in appeals. In my view it is also the area where the police are most likely to apply for a CMP as they cannot disclose that the partner has given evidence against the certificate holder. Taken together with the provisions of SG 3.56 quoted above it can be seen that where domestic abuse is raised an applicant is unlikely to be granted a certificate, and as the evidence will come from a current or former partner, they will never find out the reasons why they have been refused.
The SG does warn the police to be alert to malicious allegations, another common feature when couples are in dispute. The problem is the police can never decide where the truth lies and will always err on the side of caution. An untrue allegation of domestic abuse will almost always win. These provisions are contrary to the traditional English view of ‘fairness’. The pendulum continues to swing against shooting.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Email your views to editorial@twsgroup.com.