Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
STORY
ISSUE 1782 Tuesday 11 April 2000
Lawyer takes parting shot in gun law defeat
By David Sapsted
A RETIRED solicitor has lost a three-year battle to keep his shotgun after the Appeal Court upheld a decision by police to confiscate his licence on the grounds that his octogenarian mother knew where he kept his gun safe key.
After his lengthy legal skirmish, Mark Farrer, remains convinced that there is an unwritten agenda among civil servants and some senior police officers aimed at ending people's right to "prudent and responsible" ownership of firearms.
Mr Farrer, whose family firm counts the Queen among its clients, said: "I think, quite simply, that many in the police would like to close down country sports. Chief constables have limited resources and I suspect that allowing people to follow country sports, and protecting them, plays havoc with their budgets. It is already quite extraordinary the lengths the police are prepared to go to nowadays to control the lives of people in the country."
Last week, the Appeal Court handed down its written judgment in the case of Mr Farrer's shotgun. At issue was the 1997 decision by Essex police to strip him of his firearm and shotgun certificates because he had told his mother where the key was to the gun cabinet.
It did not matter that the gun safe was in her cottage in the grounds of the Farrers' house in Finchingfield. Nor did it matter - as Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, conceded in his judgment - that spouses and parents of shotgun owners knew, for practical reasons, where their loved ones kept the keys to their gun safes.
The only fact that mattered, ruled the court, was that Mr Farrer's mother was an unauthorised person who had access to the shotgun, so the police were right to rescind his licence. He lost in the Crown Court in Chelmsford in 1997 but won in the High Court last year, where Mr Justice Hooper ruled that spouses may legitimately have access to a gun cabinet or safe.
Now that he has lost in the Appeal Court, he would have liked one final shot in the Lords but decided against it as, he believes, the countryside is not as well represented in the higher judicial system as it used to be.
Mr Farrer does not shoot. The gun at the centre of the dispute is a 12-bore left by his late grandfather. He also had a 1932 Winchester .22, another bone of contention with police until he fitted it with a steel collar and promised not to tell his mother where he kept the key.
He said: "I haven't been shooting for 40 years, apart from taking a potshot with the .22 at some rats. It's not that I don't like it, it is just that, as a £6-a-week apprentice, I could not afford both fishing and shooting.
"I have fought this only because I believed the police argument was absurdly artificial. Initially, they even tried to suggest my mother was guilty of possession of a firearm simply because she knew where the key was, but Mr Justice Hooper firmly rejected that suggestion."
Mr Farrer is familiar with the argument that legal guns end up in criminal use but would like to know how many have done since tougher controls a decade ago. Since the case began to receive publicity, the police have offered him a compromise, which he refused, whereby he would agree to keep the key elsewhere and not tell his mother.
He said: "I was not prepared to accept it simply because it was not right. Being a lawyer has helped, in as much as I could afford to challenge them. There are a lot of other people who are not in a position to complain about how they are treated."
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
Vote for the Neal Knox 13
ISSUE 1782 Tuesday 11 April 2000
Lawyer takes parting shot in gun law defeat
By David Sapsted
A RETIRED solicitor has lost a three-year battle to keep his shotgun after the Appeal Court upheld a decision by police to confiscate his licence on the grounds that his octogenarian mother knew where he kept his gun safe key.
After his lengthy legal skirmish, Mark Farrer, remains convinced that there is an unwritten agenda among civil servants and some senior police officers aimed at ending people's right to "prudent and responsible" ownership of firearms.
Mr Farrer, whose family firm counts the Queen among its clients, said: "I think, quite simply, that many in the police would like to close down country sports. Chief constables have limited resources and I suspect that allowing people to follow country sports, and protecting them, plays havoc with their budgets. It is already quite extraordinary the lengths the police are prepared to go to nowadays to control the lives of people in the country."
Last week, the Appeal Court handed down its written judgment in the case of Mr Farrer's shotgun. At issue was the 1997 decision by Essex police to strip him of his firearm and shotgun certificates because he had told his mother where the key was to the gun cabinet.
It did not matter that the gun safe was in her cottage in the grounds of the Farrers' house in Finchingfield. Nor did it matter - as Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, conceded in his judgment - that spouses and parents of shotgun owners knew, for practical reasons, where their loved ones kept the keys to their gun safes.
The only fact that mattered, ruled the court, was that Mr Farrer's mother was an unauthorised person who had access to the shotgun, so the police were right to rescind his licence. He lost in the Crown Court in Chelmsford in 1997 but won in the High Court last year, where Mr Justice Hooper ruled that spouses may legitimately have access to a gun cabinet or safe.
Now that he has lost in the Appeal Court, he would have liked one final shot in the Lords but decided against it as, he believes, the countryside is not as well represented in the higher judicial system as it used to be.
Mr Farrer does not shoot. The gun at the centre of the dispute is a 12-bore left by his late grandfather. He also had a 1932 Winchester .22, another bone of contention with police until he fitted it with a steel collar and promised not to tell his mother where he kept the key.
He said: "I haven't been shooting for 40 years, apart from taking a potshot with the .22 at some rats. It's not that I don't like it, it is just that, as a £6-a-week apprentice, I could not afford both fishing and shooting.
"I have fought this only because I believed the police argument was absurdly artificial. Initially, they even tried to suggest my mother was guilty of possession of a firearm simply because she knew where the key was, but Mr Justice Hooper firmly rejected that suggestion."
Mr Farrer is familiar with the argument that legal guns end up in criminal use but would like to know how many have done since tougher controls a decade ago. Since the case began to receive publicity, the police have offered him a compromise, which he refused, whereby he would agree to keep the key elsewhere and not tell his mother.
He said: "I was not prepared to accept it simply because it was not right. Being a lawyer has helped, in as much as I could afford to challenge them. There are a lot of other people who are not in a position to complain about how they are treated."
------------------
Slowpoke Rodrigo...he pack a gon...
Vote for the Neal Knox 13
