FAC with a criminal record - experiences?

[PJH]

Hello chaps, first post here.

So I suppose I should give some background, 6 years ago when I was 17, I borrowed my mothers car and took it for a spin. I received a caution from the police for:

Taking without owners consent
Driving without a proper license
Driving without insurance

Later that year, I was a bit tipsy and borrowed a bike from a shed to get home but I never gave it back. I got caught because I left a beer can in the shed, and the police used DNA recorded in the car incident to match it up with the spit I'd left behind! :roll: For this I was charged with Burglary from an outer dwelling (I think that's the wording) and I received a reprimand.

So that was 6 years ago, the punishments are now considered 'spent', but of course, if I apply for an FAC they are going to come up on a police check. Does anyone have experience of getting an FAC with some criminal offences on their record? Or at least know enough about the process to say what my chances are?

Thanks for any advice :)

[Watcher]

About 35 years ago I rode my pals moped without L plates and without insurance and got a conditional discharge. I've always fully declared them and been OK for an FAC for the last 25 years or so.

Don't know about the burglary bit though; might be a bit of a problem. Why not ask your firearms liaison?

[Gaz]

Here's chapter and verse, Section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/21

[ordnance]

Anyone can take up shooting, and with it the opportunity to own their own firearms, unless they are a prohibited person, this, in short, is a person who has been imprisoned for a sentence of 3 or more years. Persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months or more but less than 3 years must not possess firearms until five years have passed since the date of release.

[IainWR]

I think PJH is concerned about the way in which the Chief Officer of Police may exercise his discretion under S27 Firearms Act 1968 when considering whether PJH is a fit and proper person to be permitted to possess firearms.

The following from the Home Office Guidance my be relevant.

12.5 Consideration should also be given to any previous convictions or cautions held by persons who do not fall within the provisions of section 21 and, in particular, any conviction which involves the use of a firearm and offences involving violence, or offences involving dishonesty or a disregard for public safety, or cautions held by persons for offences such as a failure to comply with conditions on a firearm certificate (taking account of the seriousness of the breach of conditions). Although convictions overseas do not count towards prohibition, they might be relevant to questions of “fitness”. Chief officers of police will also want to be aware of the following judgements. Although these cases were decided on their particular facts, they offer broad guidance that may have applicability elsewhere:

a) Dabek v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall (1991), where the court ruled that a woman of good character should not possess a gun where her husband had two ancient drug convictions but still associated with drug users;

b) Chief Constable of Essex v Germain (1991),where the court ruled that a chief officer was entitled, in revoking a shot gun licence, to take into account the certificate holder’s drink driving convictions. It was
felt that this demonstrated irresponsibility and lack of self-control and justified the chief officer believing there was a future risk to the peace involving the shot gun;
and
c) Spencer-Stewart v Chief Constable of Kent (1989), where the court ruled that the certificate holder’s handling stolen goods conviction was considered not to pose any future risk in relation to possession of a
shot gun, and thus the revocation of the licence was not justified.

12.6 Information contained in criminal intelligence should be assessed paying particular regard to alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use or threat of violence or firearms, or evidence of associations with known criminals. Chief officers of police should consider that any such information might have to be placed before a court if the applicant appeals.

[PJH]

I think PJH is concerned about the way in which the Chief Officer of Police may exercise his discretion under S27 Firearms Act 1968 when considering whether PJH is a fit and proper person to be permitted to possess firearms.

The following from the Home Office Guidance my be relevant.

12.5 Consideration should also be given to any previous convictions or cautions held by persons who do not fall within the provisions of section 21 and, in particular, any conviction which involves the use of a firearm and offences involving violence, or offences involving dishonesty or a disregard for public safety, or cautions held by persons for offences such as a failure to comply with conditions on a firearm certificate (taking account of the seriousness of the breach of conditions). Although convictions overseas do not count towards prohibition, they might be relevant to questions of “fitness”. Chief officers of police will also want to be aware of the following judgements. Although these cases were decided on their particular facts, they offer broad guidance that may have applicability elsewhere:

a) Dabek v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall (1991), where the court ruled that a woman of good character should not possess a gun where her husband had two ancient drug convictions but still associated with drug users;

b) Chief Constable of Essex v Germain (1991),where the court ruled that a chief officer was entitled, in revoking a shot gun licence, to take into account the certificate holder’s drink driving convictions. It was
felt that this demonstrated irresponsibility and lack of self-control and justified the chief officer believing there was a future risk to the peace involving the shot gun;
and
c) Spencer-Stewart v Chief Constable of Kent (1989), where the court ruled that the certificate holder’s handling stolen goods conviction was considered not to pose any future risk in relation to possession of a
shot gun, and thus the revocation of the licence was not justified.

12.6 Information contained in criminal intelligence should be assessed paying particular regard to alleged or known involvement in criminal offences, particularly those involving the use or threat of violence or firearms, or evidence of associations with known criminals. Chief officers of police should consider that any such information might have to be placed before a court if the applicant appeals.

Hmm yes. If I was to talk to the Firearms guy about it I could explain that I was young and stupid etc. but I'm not sure if I'd be making things worse.

[FGarre]

Hi

Not sure if that will be a problem but be sure you do not "forget" anything because they will find out and then is when you will have problems...

Regards

[SevenSixTwo]

I have assault with ABH and I got mine ok.

It all depends on severity / how recent.

As mentioned though, it's critical that you're 100% honest.