Offensive Weapons Bill (Second sitting)

James Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Vicky Foxcroft]

Q Mr Lynn, would you like to add anything?

Christopher Lynn: I am not sure I have anything to add.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

Q I have a slightly non-technical, subjective question. How easy is it in your assessment to obtain a gun for criminal purposes in this country?

Gregg Taylor: I keep mentioning the word “antique”, but I could literally find one on the internet tonight and buy one from a dealer. I will have a fully working firearm in my hand within 24 hours. The issue, as I have said, is finding the ammunition or making the ammunition to fit. As you have just discussed, there are ways around that. Again, you can buy all the components on the internet.

Detective Chief Superintendent Chilton: Two weeks ago I held the national annual criminal use of firearms conference. I invited a guest speaker, who is a former gang member, who has been convicted and sentenced for firearms offences. He came and gave a presentation. His view was that it is very easy to obtain firearms and ammunitions. He thought he could go and obtain them, no problem at all. From a street perspective—for a criminal, or someone who is aware of that world—the perspective was that it is very easy.

Christopher Lynn: I think it is about exploiting opportunities, and criminality is very good at identifying and exploiting weaknesses. That is why we see a lot of conversion of signal/alarm pistols, which are lawful in a lot of European member states, but unlawful in the UK. The criminal perception is that they can convert these, and we have seen many examples of conversion of those sorts of things. Those involved exploit the conditional exemption on antique firearms. They are looking for weaknesses, really. With the uplift in the use of shotguns, the presumption is that that is a theft issue. We have talked about the ease of acquisition of shotgun cartridges and ammunition, which is an exploitation of vulnerability.

[James Morris]

Q This question is more about sentencing, which I do not know if you have a view on. We introduced a mandatory sentence for the possession of a gun. Do you think that has been successful?

Detective Chief Superintendent Chilton: In terms of the five-year possession feedback from my colleagues, I don’t hear anyone saying it hasn’t been, but I am aware that there is a piece of work at the moment by the Sentencing Council to look at sentencing guidelines for all firearms offences. We have been involved in that consultation process to look at the wider firearms offences.

[James Morris]

Q Do you think that the mandatory five years for possession has had an effect on reducing the number of guns available? Has it had that kind of an impact? Do we have evidence around that?

Detective Chief Superintendent Chilton: I do not have any evidence to present to you here that that is the case. We are still seeing an increase, at the moment, in the criminal use of firearms. However, although we have an increase at the moment, we are still significantly down from 2005. As I said, what we see fluctuates—from things that are here in the UK and things that are smuggled in.

[James Morris]

Q There was reference made earlier to the licensing regime and the potential for prosecution for non-compliance. How many prosecutions were there last year for non-compliance on licensing conditions?

Mark Groothuis: I have no statistics around that, but, from over 40 years’ experience, I would say very few.

[James Morris]

Q And the reason for that?

Mark Groothuis: Possibly a lack of resources, training and understanding of the Firearms Act.

Assistant Chief Constable Orford: Combined with priorities in the local force and, potentially, the Crown Prosecution Service taking a view that it might not be in the public interest, in that if somebody has lost their certificate because they have been shown not to be fit and proper in relation to the security, then that may be perceived as “punishment enough”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Q Are we going to see more systematic, reliable and accepted figures in this area in the future?

Assistant Chief Constable Kearton: Yes. For the future, I have been able to gain some agreement from the Home Office that offences of corrosive substance attacks will form part of the annual data return to the Home Office. All 43 forces across England and Wales will be mandatorily required to report their instances to the Home Office on an annual basis.

[James Morris]

Q I want to ask Commander Ball about sentencing for knife crime. To what extent do you think the threat of a mandatory sentence is important as a deterrent? Has that made a material difference to your ability to deal with the problem?

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball: The issue of sentencing is quite complex. We recently saw the two-strikes legislation, and we have seen an increase in sentencing from that. On the question of mandatory sentencing, I would probably draw a distinction between someone who is potentially a first-time offender, where it is necessary to look at the circumstances behind an arrest and a potential conviction, and someone who we would call a habitual knife carrier, who carries knives regularly and has multiple convictions. My view is that we need a stringent sentencing regime, certainly for those who habitually carry knives and have previous convictions. I think it is entirely appropriate to have a robust position in terms of the two strikes.

Let me bring this back to some of my earlier comments about why a young person might pick up a knife. They might do so not because they are going out to use one, but because they are in fear of crime—it might be for self-defence. That does not make it right to carry one, but there is a balance between getting really robust sentencing and not criminalising young people for the wrong reasons.

[James Morris]

Q Do you think, though, that robust sentencing, including the threat of a mandatory sentence, sends a strong signal that actually has an impact on behaviour?

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball: I think it does send a robust message. I would question whether it is accepted across the spectrum. Again, it is not one size fits all—it might be a very robust deterrent for certain people but not more broadly. I guess it comes back to whether you can prevent it from happening in the first place. One of the things that needs to be actively considered alongside sentencing is what other opportunities there are, for example, to channel young people into diversionary activities and remove their need to carry knives in future.

[James Morris]

Q I want to ask you about clause 26, which changes the definition of an offence. Will that help you to get more convictions?

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball: Sorry, I will have to familiarise myself with that clause.

[James Morris]

Q Clause 26 amends the existing offence of threatening with an offensive weapon in public. It changes the definition from

“in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”

to

“in such a way that a reasonable person…who was exposed to the same threat as”

the victim

“would think that there was an immediate risk of physical harm”.

In a sense, it defines that threat in a slightly broader way.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ball: Yes. Sorry, I am with you now in terms of threat. Yes, it definitely provides further opportunities. The current definition can be quite limiting, but this gives other opportunities to prove ability, so I wholeheartedly support that area.

[The Chair]

I can fit in two more before we wrap up at 4.30 pm.