Essex Police v Campbell

An appeal against revocation of a firearm certificate must be determined on the merits, having regard to all relevant evidence and circumstances. Leaving firearms or ammunition unsecured is significant, even if the firearm is temporarily incapable of being fired. Taking firearms away immediately after a violent domestic incident may itself demonstrate that the holder is unfit to possess them. The court must assess the conduct cumulatively, including relevant convictions, drug possession and previous incidents. Actual misuse of a firearm, or proof that no harm ultimately occurred, is unnecessary where the circumstances create a danger to public safety or the peace.

The Chief Constable appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the Crown Court at Chelmsford dated 29 July 2011. The Crown Court had allowed Donald Campbell’s appeal against revocation of his firearm certificate.

The revocation followed a violent domestic incident, during which Campbell left the premises with firearms, together with breaches of the certificate’s storage conditions. Police also found unsecured ammunition and cannabis. The central issues were whether the Crown Court had wrongly treated the domestic incident as insignificant, whether it had properly considered the wider history and cumulative circumstances, and whether it had determined the appeal on the merits as required by the Firearms Act 1968.

1. Appeal allowed. The Crown Court’s decision was set aside and the revocation of the firearm certificate was restored.
2. Under section 30A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968, revocation may be justified where the holder is unfit to be entrusted with firearms or where possession cannot safely be permitted. The statutory assessment requires attention to the circumstances as a whole, informed by the Home Office guidance on intemperate habits, aggressive behaviour and safe keeping.
3. The Crown Court erred in treating the events of 23 November 2010 as insignificant. On the evidence, it was open to the court to find that Campbell had seriously assaulted his partner. It should have made a definite finding, including by carefully examining her withdrawal of contemporaneous statements.
4. Even without resolving every issue concerning the assault, leaving the premises with a rifle and pistol, with ammunition, immediately after a violent domestic dispute was wholly irresponsible. The conduct created foreseeable and serious concerns for public safety. It was no answer that Campbell did not use the firearms improperly or later surrendered them to a registered dealer.
5. The unsecured rifle constituted a breach of an express certificate condition, whether or not it could then be fired. The unsecured ammunition was also significant. Those breaches had to be assessed alongside the cannabis conviction, the earlier alleged incidents, and Campbell’s previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Taken cumulatively, the circumstances made revocation inevitable.
6. Although the proceedings were framed as an appeal by way of case stated, the challenge was realistically one to the rationality of the Crown Court’s decision. On the evidence before the court, only one lawful conclusion was available: the revocation was lawful and correct. The formal answers to the first three questions were “no”, with the third question not arising.
7. Sir John Thomas added that appeals concerning firearm certificates should ordinarily be heard by full-time circuit judges, given the public importance of strict firearms control.
8. Costs were assessed at £1,200. Enforcement was left to the civil courts.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 3 July 2012, the appeal by way of case stated was allowed. The Crown Court’s decision was set aside and the revocation restored.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: On 29 July 2011, the court allowed Campbell’s appeal against revocation of his firearm certificate.