Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JAMES HART,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
PETER GAMMON,
SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN
MORRIS, MR
FRED BROUGHTON
AND MR
PAUL O'BRIEN
40. That, I may say, is blindingly obvious,
and I appreciate the point, but you do not see this as a reason,
therefore, in a sense, to ban a whole class of weapons, punish
a lot of innocent children with airguns, just because of the behaviour
of a badly-behaved minority?
(Mr Hart) It is a very difficult line to draw, this,
is it not?
41. Yes, well, let us try to draw it?
(Mr Hart) Yes, let us be specific. There are some
replicas which, quite clearly, set out to be manufactured to look
identical to the real thing—
42. A B-B gun does, yes.
(Mr Hart) And there really should be some effective
control around that sort of device.
Chairman
43. In a public place?
(Mr Hart) In a public place, yes; because, simply,
as Superintendent Morris was explaining, the difficulty in actually
trying to determine, in an operational context, what is real and
what is replica is extremely difficult. The pressure that police
officers are placed under, in making that decision in fast time,
is very, very difficult.
Mr Malins
44. But not in private, you are not going to
try to ban these privately, and airguns, in private gardens, are
you?
(Mr Hart) It is not for me to make the ban, with respect,
but my advice would be that what happens in private perhaps is
less critical to public safety than what happens out in the street
or in public places generally.
45. I suggest we have to be very careful, with
an inquiry like this, that we do not all develop into spoil-sports,
and hobbies that have carried on for years, airguns firing at
rabbits on farms, pigeons, and so forth, B-B guns, which are all
the normal way that young boys, and sometimes girls, grow up,
we must be very careful not to be too prescriptive and harsh in
terms of banning that kind of approach to life?
(Mr Hart) I quite agree, and I was at pains to say,
in my opening comments to the Chairman, that, in fact, the police
are not spoil-sports in this; clearly, we support legitimate use
of legitimately-held firearms for legitimate purposes. What we
are discussing now is some difficulties around the margins that
do, I am afraid, rest on clarity of definition.
(Mr Broughton) Can I respond to that, just briefly.
We have done a lot of work over the last eight years on imitation,
replica weapons, looking at how we might change legislation; we
decided, in our evidence, not to deal with that. Imitations and
replicas is a nightmare of trying to define what you are actually
talking about; and so I would not want air weapons to be swept
up in that particular point. Air weapons, firearms and shotguns,
and, we would suggest, crossbows, are a group of weapons which
are specifically a target for us, in terms of certification. And
the issue of toys, imitation, replicas, is so complicated, and
we have done a lot of work, with some parliamentary help, on how
we might define that, and we are not convinced that we are able
to differentiate between the plastic, Roy Rogers gun, sold for
£1 in the toyshop, and some of the replicas, and how you
actually define that in law is very tough for us. That is not
to say that I do not agree that it is a problem, it is a major
problem for us, dealing with replica firearms, but I would not
want that swept up with this air weapon issue.
Mr Howarth
46. If I can reinforce, Mr Hart, the point made
by Mr Malins. My son, too, has a B-B gun, and, frankly, I think
it is no good your sitting there, saying, well, actually, that
is a matter for Mr Malins and me to determine what we do with
our own children, indeed, I would argue, you are absolutely right,
but that is not stopping you and your colleagues from making representations
to us, and we, as parliamentarians, obviously have got to decide
on what can be done and what needs to be done to preserve the
balance between the right of the individual and public safety.
So I hope that you will take that on board. And may I put one
specific question to you. In dealing with air weapons, Mr O'Brien
mentioned the Webley; well, I happen to have an old Diana air
rifle, which cannot hit anything, and certainly cannot shoot straight,
and that has a very low foot poundage. Do you think that there
may be a case for changing the requirement for an air weapon which
is over 12 foot pounds to be registered and reduce that to a lower
value; or, if you do not want to answer that, perhaps one of your
colleagues might like to answer it?
(Mr Hart) Certainly I think there is a case for allowing
some form of air weapon, of low power, which may be used in the
sorts of situations that you and Mr Malins have described. We
have a couple of technical experts from my Committee sitting behind
me. If the Chairman wished, I am sure they would be able to give
you a technical answer to that question.
47. I do actually want to have an answer. Are
we saying that the power of 12 foot pounds is too great and that
there are weapons which maybe are at eight pounds, that is where
the cut-off point should be? I think Mr O'Brien is going to answer
this question anyway.
(Mr O'Brien) I could not tell you what the cut-off
point should be, but, as far as I am concerned, it is covered
by the term `lethal'; lethal, dictionary definition, firearms,
that definition, it can kill. Now I am not talking about something
that is held literally against the head to be able to do so, but
I am sure that the technical people could turn round and say what
would be defined as `lethal', i.e. anything that can kill, over
four feet, ten feet, whatever it is, is lethal, and that should
be covered by the certification process.
Chairman
48. Mr Hart, would you want one of your experts
to answer this, or have you taken advice?
(Mr Hart) My brief advice, Chairman, if I may, is
that an arbitrary cut-off point would be inappropriate, as the
weapons may be easily converted and reconverted.
Mr Howarth
49. There is an arbitrary cut-off point, that
is 12 foot pounds, that becomes a weapon, I think, under Section
1?
(Mr Hart) That is right, yes.
50. So what I am asking is, do you think that
arbitrary cut-off point needs to be changed? Mr O'Brien says yes;
what do you say? Do you want to take advice?
(Mr Hart) I think that does need to be changed, because
some of the weapons that are capable of delivering muzzle velocity
of that sort of power have been known to cause serious injuries,
and that is the issue with their weapons. The forensic issue of
whether or not seven foot pounds, eight foot pounds or nine foot
pounds is the right cut-off, I am afraid I am not qualified to
answer. My advice is, and I reiterate, that, even if there were
a cut-off point and it were low, there seems to be some technical
capability of re-energising these weapons to a higher level. Now
part of our submission, in another part of the document, is that
the reactivation of deactivated weapons is an issue for us also.
So I think I would suggest that there needs to be some forensic
submissions put before you, Chairman, on this point.
(Mr Gammon) I think the law actually identifies those
with over 12 foot pounds kinetic energy as being especially dangerous,
and that is why it has been put into the category of being a Section
1 firearm. That is not to conclude that those below that are not
dangerous, but I think the technical people have said that that
is when they actually become Section 1 firearms. The issue, of
course, is that if you listen to us then we may end up with a
licensing of all air weapons, irrespective of the kinetic energy.
51. Can I then put another point. You have said,
Mr Hart said, in answer to Mr Malins, that what he does in his
private garden is a matter for him, and what I do in my private
garden—
(Mr Hart) You are not going to let me off that hook,
are you?
52. No; no, it is alright, do not worry, it
is good to have the acknowledgement. But, of course, that is fine
for people who live in suburban or rural areas, but people living
in inner cities, of course, do not have that privilege, and, therefore,
if they are responsible parents and they want their children to
have that same pleasure, there is only one choice, which is to
go out into the countryside, which is, by definition, a public
place, and I know that it has been impossible to define what constitutes
an urban and a rural area, I accept that, but do you not think
that there is a case for those parents whose children do not have
the facilities of a private garden in an urban area that they
should be able to enjoy the facility in the open countryside?
(Mr Hart) I think that is a very real point. But may
I answer your question in this way, that, that being the case,
people going out into countryside and into open areas, to which
other members of the public have access, with weapons, referring
back to the point I made to the lady earlier on, it is actually
extremely difficult to tell what is an air weapon and what is
not, at any sort of distance, and the reaction, almost certainly,
from other members of the public would be a `phone call into the
police to say that there is somebody with a weapon in such and
such a place. Our response, our standard response, would be to
dispatch an armed response vehicle to that scene, and, immediately,
there is a corresponding threat to public safety; and I think
that that is an issue, a very real issue. I empathise entirely
with the wants and ambitions of young people that may want to
go and play games with guns in open places, toy guns, I did it,
I am sure you did it, and I am sure it is a jolly good thing to
do, to run around in the fresh air with a toy gun, but I regret
to say that, in this day and age, the anxiety that is caused by
that sort of behaviour is maybe disproportionate in the response,
the police response.
Mr Stinchcombe
53. I wonder if I might ask just a couple of
further questions of clarification, and confess, at the outset,
a degree of instinctive bias against the views emanating from
the other side. I would be quite appalled at the prospect of my
children running around, playing with air weapons, whether it
be in my garden or, indeed, the garden of any of their friends,
without adequate supervision at the very least. You indicated,
I believe, throughout the massed ranks of the police that you
represent, both that you support an extension of the licensing
regime to air weapons, and also that you believe there should
be greater rationalisation of the existing legislative regime.
You agree, then, that the present legislation is, in any event,
deficient. And yet, on the very first time that it is put to you
that a youngster could play with one of these weapons, which could
be fatal, in their own garden, you eschew any intervention. Or,
if you do not eschew intervention, what interventions should there
be? Should there be control over age? Should there be control
over supervision? Should there be control over the type or design
of these weapons? Should there be additional control over the
power of these weapons? What controls should there be?
(Mr Gammon) I do not think we have tried to avoid
the question. I think that the current legislation in respect
of young people using air weapons demands that they be supervised,
and I think the Police Service has never been in any doubt that
young people with any type of firearm should be properly supervised
by an adult and, indeed, on private property, they are there not
only to make sure that the youngster is safe and handling the
firearm properly but to make sure that any round from that firearm
does not go beyond the boundaries of that private property. So
we have not avoided the question. I think the way that the questions
have been phrased so far has not brought that point out.
54. In which ways then, which specific ways,
would you wish the regime of licensing to change in order to better
control the kinds of activities of concern to so many people?
(Mr O'Brien) As far as the Police Federation are concerned,
we would bring every weapon that is defined as lethal, and that
includes an airgun, within the certification process, as set out
currently in Section 1 of the Firearms Act, full stop.
55. Do you all agree?
(Mr Hart) We would not disagree with that at all.
56. What implications would that have then upon
the age of people able to use such weapons in their own garden,
and their ability to do so without supervision?
(Mr O'Brien) The lack of clarity, one of the areas
of inconsistency at the moment, is in relation to ages. Let us
face it, for the vast majority, shooting is a perfectly legitimate
sport, it is one I used to enjoy myself, and I fully accept the
desire of the shooting fraternity to train people in the safe
usage of weapons. The Police Federation notably does not actually
recommend a specific age yet. We do think actually that there
is work to be done, where you could, in effect, say a certain
realistic age is X, 16, 17, 18, we do not know; we would value
that discussion, that debate, taking place, we think it is necessary,
rather than just plucking an arbitrary figure out of the air.
For us, as an organisation, we prefer to take part in that debate,
obviously with the shooting fraternity, as to what would be a
realistic age, a cut-off point for possession, and so forth.
57. But Mr Malins, in your view, should be seeking
a licence in order to buy the B-B weapon?
(Mr O'Brien) I do not know what a B-B gun is, but
if it is shooting peas then I would have thought that it would
not have been termed `lethal', and therefore would not come within
the certification process.
(Mr Broughton) Therefore, it is a toy.
Mr Howarth
58. Can we move on, gentlemen, to the question
of shotguns. The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe
which differentiates between shotguns and other firearms in the
form of certification. For our benefit, can you just define what
is a Section 1 firearm? We know what a shotgun is, roughly speaking,
I think, but could you define a Section 1 firearm?
(Mr Hart) In summary, a Section 1 firearm is any weapon
that has the capability of discharging a round through either
a rifled barrel or through a barrel that engenders some sort of
twist on the round, and, in a nutshell, that is a Part 1 firearm.
59. Can you give some examples of the sorts
of weapons we are talking about?
(Mr Hart) Any sporting rifle, any—
|
