This week we have travelled to Suffolk to meet specialist shooting law Solicitor David Barrington Barnes. “B.B.” as he is invariably known by his friends, has an office in Ipswich, Suffolk from which he deals with shooting law problems in all parts of England and Wales.

We met BB there with his springer Brandy in attendance and he explained what his job as a firearms and shooting law solicitor involves.

BB told us that the strongest demand for his services is in relation to shotgun and firearms Certificate problems. Usually these cases flow from the revocation of or refusal to grant the shooter his shotgun or firearms Certificate. The remedy for this is a Firearms Act Appeal to the Crown Court.

BB explained to us that such Appeals, although dealt with in the Crown Court and determined by a Crown Court Judge sitting with two local Magistrates, are part of the civil justice system. Firearms law Appeals are part of the “preventative justice system”, in which the rights of the individual shooter to possess firearms have to be balanced against the public interest and the need to prevent any breach of public safety or the peace.

Typically such cases flow from perceived misbehaviour or character defects of the certificate holder. Explains BB:-

“These Appeals fall into recognisable categories. In some cases the problems could be avoided by the certificate holder exercising more care; in others by the Chief Firearms Officer being less zealous. Typical of the areas giving rise to problems are intemperate behaviour, domestic disputes, security breaches and mental health problems.”

Under the first head BB mentioned the leading case of Germain in which the certificate holder had drink drive convictions and, it was suggested, might have inflicted domestic violence on his wife. (Nothing detrimental was recorded regarding his use of firearms). Germain lost his Appeal against revocation. The importance of his case to certificate holders is that even where there is no evidence of dangerous behaviour with firearms, the certificate holder may be revoked because of bad behaviour or irresponsibility in other aspects of his life such as drink driving. The later case of Edwards was decided on similar facts in favour of the certificate holder, which illustrates the wide discretion of the Court.

In respect of cases in which there is a heated domestic situation, BB explained that the certificate holder is extremely vulnerable to reports by his wife or partner to the local police that he (the certificate holder) has threatened her “with his guns”. On receipt of these reports the police tend to act first and ask questions afterwards. Undoubtedly in these circumstances some aggrieved certificate holders have had their firearms seized as a result of the complaint of “a woman scorned”.

The case of Dabek and the Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall is also of interest to certificate holders in a family situation. In Dabek the certificate holder was married to a man with two previous convictions for drug offences and still associated with drug users. On Appeal, the High Court held that even though the certificate holder was a person of good character this was insufficient safeguard to the public safety and to the peace where there was someone who was a danger to this in the accommodation where the gun was kept. It follows that whilst a certificate holder may be of good character, if there is a spouse, partner or child living in his home who is or might be a danger to the public or the peace then that certificate holder is liable to be revoked. BB pointed out that Chief Constables routinely rely on Dabek to resist attempts by recently revoked certificate holders to transfer their firearms to the Certificate of a spouse.

In respect of “insecure storage" cases, BB says that it is most important to be able to demonstrate that adequate security provisions have been taken. Leaving guns in vehicles outside pubs, leaving them unlocked at home and even on occasion leaving them behind in field, covet and marsh, can at times lead to either prosecution and revocation or both of these.

BB also has a cautionary tale for depressives. Whilst plainly some people sadly suffer from such serious mental illness that they cannot possess firearms without danger to the public or the peace, there is a danger that a certificate holder who goes to his GP with just “a touch of the blues” may be reported to the police and have his Certificates revoked. The lesson says BB is not to be in too much of a hurry to unload on the GP or to seek an anti-depressant prescription.

In the course of BB’s work on shotgun and firearms Certificate Appeals he finds there is often room for negotiation with the Chief Constable and perhaps half the cases are “settled on terms” reasonably satisfactory to both the certificate holder and their Firearms Department. This avoids some of the considerable costs and risks inherent in Appeals that go to hearing.

BB also represents clients in the Magistrates’ and Crown Court in shooting and related countryside law offences, which fall under the criminal law.

In a recent case BB successfully defended a gamekeeper in a pole trapping case. The complaint arose from a visit to his woods by two young field officers from English Nature, who were there “on other business”, and after only some months of repeated representations by BB the case was dropped for lack of evidence.

BB went on to tell us that the work he is required to do in shooting and firearms law is far wider than the two areas mentioned above and he offers a complete shooting law service to Shoots. The work he does in this capacity includes the grant of shooting and stalking Licences. BB points out that whilst even many solicitors talk about shooting and stalking Leases, shooting and stalking are at law, "profits a prendre" and are not even capable of being granted as Leases. Shooting and stalking rights should always be granted under Licence. BB is often involved in the grant of such Licences, some of which now involve large sums of money. There are many non-obvious considerations that need to be taken into account such as stocking densities, crop damage, conflicting interest and value added tax.

Many shoots suffer from the persistent dog walker who wilfully lets his dogs run riot across the shoot well off the public rights of way to disturb all the cover crops. BB offers an injunctive trespass pack to the victims of such characters. He has a short sequence of letters and standard injunction claim forms for an Injunction and damages. On occasion this has proved most effective in deterring these roamers without rights.

Shooting ground clubs and proprietors are constantly under pressure from nimby environmental groups and local authorities. The operators of these need thick skins and deep wallets as the legal planning and environmental issues can subsist for years.

Generally BB finds that shoot operators are fairly well aware of health and safety considerations. Suffice to say here that a Health and Safety Act prosecution can be an extremely worrying and expensive experience whatever the outcome, particularly as the HSE can recover its investigative as well as its legal costs. BB works in both these fields for shoot owners and operators.

BB says that he has not experienced any great increase recently in the number of claims made by persons injured in shooting accidents. Invariably of course such claims are dealt with by insurers and with the high value of claims generally now it is impossible to emphasise enough that shooters must carry adequate insurance and more.

Reviewing his view of shooting and the law at the present time, BB’s main concern relates to the increasing amount of interference that shoots and shooters face. Regulatory and legislative interference originates both with the UK and European Governments. Government agencies such as HSE, DEFRA, English Nature and the Employment Tribunals have a direct and significant impact on shoots and shooting. Organisations and charities such as RSPB RSPCA and RA to mention but three, are active and energetic fellow travellers. Many of these specific interest groups and their representatives think they know much more about running the countryside than do those who shoot in it. They use the existing legislation and lobby energetically for more legislative control to support it. BB’s view is that the power and resources of these inter-meddlers is so enormous that huge commitment is required by the shooting community to avoid death by a thousand cuts. Lobbying and educating our legislators is critical to shooting’s survival.