Gun licensing after the Plymouth shootings

The murder of five people and injury of two others by 22-year-old Jake Davison, before turning his shotgun on himself, in Keyham, Plymouth on 12th August 2021 are some of the most horrendous crimes in recent years. Our thoughts go out to the families of the victims and indeed all those affected.

The inquest into the shootings found that there had been a ‘catastrophic failure’ by Devon and Cornwall’s firearms department in issuing Davison with a shotgun certificate in 2018 and later, following the seizure of his pump action shotgun after his arrest for assaulting two teenagers, in returning the gun to him.

The court heard that he had been diagnosed with ADHD and autism as a child, that at 14 he had a mental health referral and that he had a history of carrying out unprovoked assaults, including two on his teachers. Despite this catalogue of incidents – many of which were known to the Firearms Enquiry Officer who carried out the initial firearms enquiry – he was issued with a shotgun certificate. After an investigation into two further unprovoked assaults on teenagers, he had his gun seized – and then later returned to him.

Following the inquest there have been calls for the legislation on gun ownership to be tightened up, and for a review of police practice.

Speaking in the House of Commons the Minister for Policing Chris Philp acknowledged that under the laws in place at the time Davison should not have received a certificate. He also confirmed that two or three individuals in Devon and Cornwall Police were considered to be guilty of misconduct by wrongly authorising the issue of the certificate. He further announced a review of firearms licensing which will take place shortly.

So what can we expect to come out of this tragedy and the review that is to take place?

The College of Policing has already published a proposed new draft APP (Authorised Professional Practice) document for consultation. This APP sets out the responsibilities of the police in relation to firearms licensing and the service to be provided both to the general public and firearms users. It provides guidance on how licensing departments should be resourced and managed as well as outlining the training requirements for officers. Importantly, it requires Chief Officers to account for any deviations from the recommendations. It is a critically important document for the future of firearms licensing. The NGO has been included in the consultation and has prepared a detailed response emphasising the standards of service which should be provided by the police.

Soon after the shooting, the Home Office published Statutory Guidance to the police on firearms licensing, although it had been in preparation long before August 2021. This outlined the very broad spetrum of enquiries that can be made into an application for a certificate, including changes to the way the GP certificate is obtained. It did not make it compulsory for GPs to involve themselves in the process, however the tone of Chris Philp’s address to the Commons indicates that this may be tightened up.

It was suggested at the inquest that the regulations in relation to shotgun certificates should be amended so that they fall in line with the requirements imposed by firearms certificates. I have heard it suggested that this may include the ability of the police to impose conditions on these certificates.

One big issue has been the resourcing of Firearms Licensing Departments. Currently this is partly funded by the fees charged for certificates, and partly by the taxpayer through contributions made to policing. This is because firearms licensing departments do not only issue certificates but also carry out other functions such as enforcement and the issue of explosives permits.

It is clear that, like some others around the country, Devon and Cornwall’s licensing department was grossly underfunded and poorly managed. There is a drive for the full cost of licensing departments to fall on the applicant, and if this were to take place there may be a significant rise in the cost of certificates. The Home Office have currently got a working group looking at the question of fees. The NGO has a seat on the group and is working hard to keep any increases to a minimum.

We have for many years recognised that the multitude of firearms laws and regulations make the legislation difficult to research and understand. Is it possible that, as a result of this incident, we might get a full and reasonable review of the legislation? Or will the six hundred and thirty thousand license-holding shooters, who put themselves up to be positively vetted every five years, be the subject of ever tightening legislation as a result of this policing failure?