The police will revoke a firearms certificate if they believe the holder demonstrates an unsound mind, intemperate habits, or is otherwise considered to be unfit. Unsoundness of mind is subjective. Intemperate habits include misuse of alcohol or drugs, domestic violence or other antisocial behaviour. This article concerns the place of firearms and ‘fitness’ of a license holder when deterring trespassers with or without dogs.
In 1987, one of the utilities prosecuted a Durham farmer for levelling a shotgun at an emergency engineer. The incident occurred at 2.00am and there had been no notice of entry. The farmer claimed he was frightened. “We find no case to answer” said the chairman. “A man’s home is his castle and we believe this man acted reasonably”. It was a quite extraordinary decision, even for a bench who lived through the war.
Times have changed and any farmer pointing a shotgun at anyone now can expect an immediate prison sentence with his guns forfeit and license revoked. While reasonable force might be justified to eject trespassers, again, the use of guns, or threat of use can never be ‘reasonable’ and even when dogs actually attack livestock, the police are more likely to pursue the landowner who shoots (or threatens to shoot) the animal than the irresponsible keeper who lost control in the first place.
With livestock attacks widespread, this approach can be exasperating however a landowner’s “fitness” to be entrusted with a firearm will always be the police’s overriding concern and they can be expected to err the side of caution and revoke at the first sign of instability.
While an out of control dog worrying livestock can be shot as a very last resort, when dealing with everyday trespassers (with or without dogs) the law expects the landowner to be circumspect and to exercise temperance and restraint. He can ask them to leave. He can order them to control their dog however bringing a firearm to the discussion is out of the question and any landowner doing so faces the immediate revocation of their certificate with little prospect of respite on appeal to the Crown Court.
This may seem a little unfair to a landowner trying to protect his castle and, in some ways, perhaps it is. However, there have been too many tragedies involving firearms in the possession of the wrong people, and the greater perception is that the police have every right to get jumpy at the first suggestion of misuse. Times have changed and the law has changed with the times.
Simon Catterall, Partner, Regulatory
