Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 86)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JAMES HART,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
PETER GAMMON,
SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN
MORRIS, MR
FRED BROUGHTON
AND MR
PAUL O'BRIEN
80. And have you any evidence of the current
regimes, the current systems, actually posing a threat to public
safety as a result then, only from the fact that they may be reactivated?
(Mr Hart) Back to the point I made earlier on, it
is sometimes very difficult to tell whether a weapon is reactivated
or not, whether it is a legitimate firearm or not; the fact that
the weapon is held, at least with the capability of being used,
is often a serious problem for the police to respond to. If it
makes a bang and an officer or member of the public feels that
this is actually a real firearm, and they will have perhaps no
reason to think that something did not come out of the end that
was capable of killing them, we would certainly have to respond
as though it were a Part 1 firearm. So we are back into this business
of the police report and how the police respond and the threat
to public safety.
Mr Fabricant: It does seem, listening to the
questions and answers, that there is this confusion, if you like,
about the different types of firearm and the overlap that there
is. Mr O'Brien, in answer to an earlier question, said really
that he would like to see things treated far more simply, by having
airguns, shotguns and handguns all treated in the same way. Now
the 1997 Act, following the Dunblane tragedy, using Mr Winnick's
correct terminology for it,—
Mr Winnick: Is there any other way to describe
it?
Mr Fabricant
81. No; absolutely right. So, following the
Dunblane tragedy, we saw the 1997 Act saying the possession of
handguns should be banned; so, following Mr O'Brien's logic, should
all weapons, possession of, be banned, including airguns and including
shotguns?
(Mr O'Brien) If you are asking me, no, they should
not, and there is no necessity to do so. Parliament, in its wisdom,
decided that there was no case for continued possession of handguns.
Certainly, in the evidence to Lord Cullen, we were the one organisation
that actually said that we thought a consistent approach was necessary,
in that, if Parliament were to ban handguns then it should ban
all handguns, because a 2.2 is just as dangerous as a 3.8 or a
4.5, particularly at the appropriate range. So, in effect, you
have altered the ground rules, you have taken out handguns. I
am not aware, however, of any urgency, great call, evidence of
misuse, to actually warrant that kind of, what some would call,
draconian step, I would not, but many would call draconian response
to that tragedy. Yes, I do believe you need to go further, I believe
you need to adopt a consistency that is currently lacking in firearms
legislation and treat all weapons, because they are lethal, that
is just the broad generic term, in exactly the same way.
82. Some might say the 1997 Act was draconian,
and certainly some might question whether the 1997 Act was effective.
I understand that since the 1997 Act was enforced there have been
162,000 handguns which have been handed over, and yet the number
of recorded offences committed with weapons identifiable as handguns
in 1998 has reduced by only 2.5 per cent. Perhaps I would like
to ask Mr Hart, first of all, being charitable, do you think that
the 1997 Act was a natural knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane
tragedy, or do you think actually that it was a worthwhile Act
which has reduced crime?
(Mr Hart) I think it is difficult for me to try to
put a personal angle on what might have been in the minds of parliamentarians
in 1997. Certainly what was in my mind was the horror of Dunblane
and the trauma that everybody suffered, particularly the families
of those people that were killed; a horrible tragedy, without
doubt. You will know better than I whether or not the legislation
that followed was, to use your expression, a knee-jerk or not.
Actually, I think it is fairly difficult to identify legitimate
activities that you could undertake with a handgun, off a range,
in a totally sporting context. You made a judgement about that
issue and legislation was passed. I think, as far as the use of
handguns is concerned, today, the majority of them, all of them,
that come into the country, obviously illegally-held, there is
a traffic in weapons, there is a repeated use of the same illegally-held
weapons in crime, and that, as a policeman, is a concern to me.
If, behind your question, you are suggesting that a change to
reintroduce the legitimate possession of handguns in certain circumstances
would be an advantage, it would seem to be a retrospective step,
from where I am sitting today. What I would urge you to consider
is how we can tighten the controls and penalties of those individuals
that use handguns illegally in the prosecution of crime, because
that does engender enormous public fear and anxiety, and I think
we all have a duty to tackle that.
83. Certainly, the statistics suggest, and,
as I say, it is worth repeating, the amount of crime using handguns
has been reduced by only less than 2.5 per cent, so, clearly,
the majority of these crimes have nothing to do with the legitimate
possession of handguns, licensed handguns, as they were before
1997, they are the illegally-imported or obtained weapons.
(Mr Gammon) Can I disagree there, Mr Fabricant, because
the problem we have with handguns, as we have spoken about before,
is that some of these handguns used in crime may actually be replicas,
some may be airguns; it is only when a firearm is fired, or the
police obtain that weapon following the commission of the offence,
that we can say for any certainty what type of weapon it is.
84. Can you make any estimate, or do you have
any statistics to hand, as to what proportion of these offences
are committed by those people possessing replicas and those actually
possessing illegally-owned, actual firearms?
(Mr Gammon) Again, no, we have not.
(Mr Morris) No, unless it has been fired.
(Mr Gammon) Unless it has been fired, yes.
85. And you say you have no evidence of that?
(Mr Hart) This again returns, we seem to return to
this point very regularly, do we not, this difficulty of actually
identifying the weapon at the time; we are often dependent on
witnesses who, at interview, will try to describe the weapon that
they saw as best they can, and whilst the interviewing officers
may well ask them, show them photographs, show them all sorts
of things, to try to identify features on real weapons, compared
with what they saw the suspect holding, actually it is extremely
difficult to determine whether it was a replica or the real thing,
unless somebody will give evidence of a bang, or whatever.
86. Mr Hart, before Mr Gammon came in with his
helpful point, you started to say that we should be thinking about
ways of actually preventing the amount of illegal weapons from
being used in the United Kingdom. Do you believe that there are
sufficient controls at border points? As we all know, Customs
and Excise tends now to concentrate more on the illegal importation
of drugs; do you believe that there should be greater emphasis
on the illegal importation of firearms, which can be obtained
quite easily on the Continent?
(Mr Hart) The situation as I understand it at the
moment is, and I must ask my colleagues to interrupt if they do
not feel this is correct, because this is only anecdotal, there
does seem to be an enormous amount of illegal firearms and ammunition
coming as far as northern Europe; it does not, at the moment,
seem to be crossing the Channel into the United Kingdom. Now I
must just put a health warning on that comment, because somebody,
particularly from Customs and Excise, might say something different,
but that is my information at the moment. What I also know is
that the same weapons are used repeatedly in criminal activities,
so there is an issue there about the same weapon being sold on
to somebody else, being sold on to somebody else, and so on. And
I think that the thought from a public safety perspective of a
crime being aggravated by the use of a firearm is something that
makes communities shudder, and you will be as well aware of that
as I am. Dealing with the community fear that follows the incidence
of such a crime is considerable, and that is why I am enthusiastic
about curbing that particular type of crime.
(Mr O'Brien) Chairman, could I revert very briefly
to a point Mr Fabricant was making about the accessibility of
handguns, and the like, and therefore possibly the ineffectiveness
of the 1997 legislation. I have got the Home Office book of stats
here, and there is a whole section on firearms, and it is admitted
how difficult it is just to pick out one at random. The number
of firearms stolen, misappropriated, during 1997: handguns, 305;
305 distributed round this country, in one year, will make a sizeable
proportion into the criminal fraternity. Nearly 1,500 air weapons;
over 500 shotguns. I have gone through this particular document
on several occasions, I do not profess to have picked everything
out of it of value, but I really would commend it to you, because
there is a great deal of information in here.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for your
time and trouble this morning. We knew this inquiry would not
be easy and I think you have demonstrated that. You have given
us a lot to think about. Thank you.
|
