Part-time farmer loses appeal seeking expenses in action against police over recall of firearms certificate

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SAC (Civ) 18
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar

Kenneth Prentice, who had held a shotgun certificate since 1989, raised a claim against the Chief Constable of Police Scotland arguing that the decision to revoke his certificate was vexatious, malicious, and made in bad faith. On expenses, he argued that the sheriff had made his decision prematurely and failed to consider issues indicating malice or improper motive on the part of the respondent’s officers.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar KC. The pursuer and appellant appeared as a party litigant while the defender and respondent was represented by Cartney, solicitor.

Caused to retaliate

On 21 July 2015, the appellant notified the police that he had held an unregistered shotgun for 35 years that was not included on any of the certificates he had held. The police seized the shotgun, before returning it and adding it to his shotgun certificate. The appellant was reported to the procurator fiscal who issued him with a warning letter for a contravention of section 2(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. No further procedure arose from the matter.

During 2019, the appellant was involved in an employment dispute that ultimately settled in 2022. An undisclosed third party notified the police of that dispute and indicated that the appellant was a danger to staff at his employment, having displayed aggressive and bullying behaviour. Following that report, the appellant held discussions with the respondent’s officers in which he alleged that the third party had made a disclosure which was malicious and unlawful.

The constable who investigated the allegation concluded, without speaking to the third party or any employee of the appellant’s former employer, that the disclosure had been made in good faith. That same constable later reviewed the appellant’s firearms file when he applied for renewal in 2020, which led to the appellant being required by warrant to surrender his firearms. By letter dated 11 March 2022, the respondent revoked the appellant’s certificate.

Following proof, the sheriff recalled the respondent’s decision of March 2022, issued declarator that he was not an unsuitable person to hold a shotgun certificate, and directed the respondent to issue a new certificate. He did not accept the appellant’s position that the police’s conduct showed improper motive or malice and found no expenses due by either party.

In his submissions, the appellant took the view that his previous complaints about the investigation of his employment dispute, which had not been carried out properly, had caused the respondent’s officers to retaliate by revoking his shotgun certificate. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that there was no basis to interfere with the sheriff’s exercise of his discretion.

Afforded latitude

In her decision, Sheriff Principal Anwar said of the available evidence: “There was no evidence before the sheriff as to the correct approach to be taken to the statutory guidance; the relevant paragraphs of the statutory guidance were not placed before any witnesses; no witness spoke to its terms and importantly, the decision maker, Inspector Gillon, was not challenged on its terms. In those circumstances, and in light of his assessment of the evidence before him, the sheriff was correct to determine that information which subsequently indicated an absence of a prescribed form of suitability review did not lead to an inevitable conclusion that the respondent’s officers had acted in bad faith, with improper motive, irrationally or unreasonably.”

She continued: “He concluded that there may have been some administrative failings; however, the 10 criticisms made by the appellant (many of which were directed at the opinions expressed by the officers relating to the appellant’s behaviour upon being asked to voluntarily surrender his weapons) did not amount to a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the respondent’s officers had acted dishonestly or with an intent to deceive when seeking the search warrant.”

Considering whether the sheriff made a decision prematurely, Sheriff Principal Anwar said: “I find no error in the sheriff’s approach to determining the issue of expenses on the basis of submissions alone nor do I find that he made the decision prematurely (which I take to mean without recourse to evidence). The sheriff was clearly anxious to assist a party litigant and in doing so issued three notes on the issue of expenses in which he carefully explained the reasons for his decisions. The appellant has been afforded a considerable degree of latitude in presenting his submissions, more than might have been considered necessary.”

She concluded: “I accept that the appellant has a deep-rooted sense of injustice which is related to his perception of the manner in which he has been treated by the respondent’s officers. It was clear that the issues in this appeal affected not only him but also members of his family, each of whom he described as leading productive and pro-social lives. The appellant’s sense of injustice does not, however, translate to a basis upon which he is able to claim the expenses of these proceedings.”

The appeal was therefore refused, with no expenses due by either party in relation to the entirety of the appeal procedure.