NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Association of Chief Police Officers

Firearms & Explosives Licensing Working Group

Adrian Whiting AIExpE, Chair

Assistant Chief Constable, Dorset Police
Dorset Police Headquarters, Winfrith, Dorchester, DT2 8DZ
(01305 223706)

A report (Part 1) concerning the grant of a firearm certificate and a

shotgun certificate to Derrick Bird by Cumbria Constabulary and (Part 2)
observations regarding potential changes to the system of granting
such certificates and related provisions in law.

Part 1

1.0 June 2010

1.1 On 2nd June 2010 Derrick Bird murdered twelve people and grievously
injured eleven by using a shotgun and a rifle, which together with ammunition
for the rifle, he lawfully possessed by authority of a firearm certificate and a
shotgun certificate. He lawfully possessed shotgun ammunition, though a
certificate was not necessary for him to do so.

1.2 Mr Craig Mackey, the Chief Constable for Cumbria, sought an urgent
review of his Constabulary’s decision making and actions in respect of the
shotgun certificate and the firearm certificate granted to Derrick Bird. In the
circumstances of these events he sought assistance from the Association of
Chief Police Officers for England, Wales & Northern Ireland, (ACPO) through
the form of a peer review, and as the ACPO lead chief officer for firearms &
explosives licensing, I was asked by the ACPO President to undertake this
review.

1.3 For convenience I set out my terms of reference from the Chief
Constable below. Details regarding the process for the review arrangements
and details concerning my engagement in this area of policing are set out later
at Annex A.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 1

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2.0 Terms of reference

2.1 I was provided with the following terms of reference following

correspondence on the 7th June 2010;

Terms of reference concerning Cumbria Constabulary Firearms & Explosives

Licensing arrangements.

Overview
nd
On Wednesday 2 June 2010 it is believed that Derrick Bird murdered 12 people and injured
a further 11. It is then believed that he took his own life. In each case it is believed he used a
firearm or firearms that he possessed lawfully by authority of his firearm and shotgun
certificates.

Those certificates had been granted to him by Cumbria Constabulary.

Review
The objective is to review the circumstances surrounding the grant and any subsequent
renewal of Derrick Bird’s certificates by Cumbria Constabulary, and whether the decisions
made and actions taken were reasonable in all the circumstances taking in to account the
law, national guidance from the Home Office and the UK police service, and local force policy.

Based upon the findings, to make any recommendations and observations as may seem
appropriate on the above.

Additional matters
It is possible that the review may identify potential areas for improvement in respect of
national guidance and the law that would improve public safety.

Further guidance will be required from the Chief Constable of Cumbria and the ACPO
President as to any recommendations that might go on to offer comment on;

Legislative and guidance changes that, if implemented, may have been capable of acting
directly on the circumstances of this case.

Legislative and guidance changes that if implemented may generally improve public safety.

………………………………………………..
Mr Craig Mackey
Chief Constable for Cumbria

2.2 I have attended to these matters and report my findings in two parts.
The first part is this report to the Chief Constable and concerns arrangements
in his Constabulary. The second part will concern the control of firearms more
widely, including through the licensing system. This is in anticipation of ACPO
being invited to comment on any potential improvements that could be made
in this area in due course. This part of my report will be completed in
conjunction with the ACPO Criminal use of Firearms Working Group (ACPO
CuF) as I consider it essential to view the matter in the round and not to focus
simply on the system of licensing control when seeking to prevent armed
criminality. Indeed this approach is reflected in the primary firearms law. In
completing that section of the report I will have regard to the submission
already made to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into firearms
control.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 2

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

3.0 Key points summary

3.1 I have been able to assure the Chief Constable that the decisions
made and the actions taken in respect of the grant and renewals of Derrick
Bird’s shotgun certificate, and those in respect of the grant of his firearm
certificate (for the renewal point had not been reached) were in accordance
with the law, regulation, Home Office advice and ACPO policy. The decisions
made and actions taken by the Constabulary in terms of firearms licensing
were reasonable in the circumstances.

3.2 I have concluded that the arrangements for firearm, shotgun and
explosive certification in Cumbria are robust and that the people involved have
the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience. In particular I consider that
they are professional and committed to their work, and fully recognise the
critical public safety issues at stake.

3.3 The arrangements in Cumbria Constabulary for the discharge of these

functions are appropriately resourced, insofar as individual workloads have
not adversely affected any decisions and actions in this instance.

3.4 There were no reasonable opportunities for the licensing system to

have been the instrument of intervention thus preventing the appalling
offences subsequently committed.

4.0 Background

4.1 The possession of firearms is governed in law by the Firearms Act

1968 and a significant number of amending pieces of law. The law describes
different categories of firearm. These categories are broadly;

1. Firearms controlled by Section 1 of the principal Act. These may be

possessed by private individuals by authority of a firearm certificate. A
bolt action rifle would be a typical example. They are generally referred
to as “firearms” although this can lead to confusion as the legal
definition of that word in law has a wider meaning. In this report I have
endeavoured to make it clear in which context I am using the word.

2. Shotguns controlled by Section 2 of the principal Act. These may be

possessed by private individuals by authority of a shotgun certificate.
Rather obviously these are generally referred to as “shotguns”.

3. Firearms that are prohibited from general possession by Section 5 of

the principal Act. A typical example would be a machine gun, since it is
capable of what is termed “automatic fire”. These require the authority
of the Secretary of State (Home Secretary) before an individual may
possess them. These are generally referred to as “prohibited firearms”.

The principal Act and its amending legislation are supported by a number of
regulations that set out matters of detail such as the format of the necessary
application forms and the fees charged. In turn these requirements are

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 3

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

interpreted by the Home Office and guidance to the police on these matters
has been published by that department over the years to date. ACPO has
then provided further administrative detail and advocated wider policies to be
adopted by forces in England and Wales. A similar service is provided by the
Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), or ACPO(S), for Scottish
forces. Whilst Northern Ireland would seek to follow ACPO advice and
guidance, the situation in law in Northern Ireland is different from the
mainland. The Home Office guidance has been updated periodically and I
have been able to access the versions relevant to the dates in question here.
The same is true for the ACPO guidance that supports it. The current
versions of both guidance documents date from 2002 and coincidentally the
Home Office guidance is currently undergoing review to reflect recent
changes. The same will then occur with the ACPO guidance.

4.2 The decision to grant and renew a firearm and/or shotgun certificate
rests with the chief officer of police for the area in which an applicant resides.
An applicant may appeal directly to the Crown Court against a refusal to do
either, or against any decision to revoke a certificate during the period of its
validity. This is an administrative function derived from the earlier
responsibilities of the pre 1971 Courts of Quarter Session. Individual cases
are not binding one on another however chief officers of police are expected
to consider previous judgements when reaching decisions based on the
merits of the case in question. As a result the Home Office guidance refers to
a number of specific cases as a reference for chief officers. Firearm and
shotgun certificates are currently valid for a five year period, but this has not
always been the case. I have referred to this below. In essence, an applicant
for a firearm certificate has to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper
person to possess firearms and ammunition, and that they have a good
reason for the possession of each firearm. There are controls set on the
amount of ammunition a person may acquire in any one transaction, and may
possess overall. They must be able to satisfy the chief constable that suitable
arrangements for secure storage of the firearm(s) and ammunition are in
place, although the nature of these is not prescribed in law and responsibility
ultimately rests with the certificate holder. An applicant for a shotgun
certificate has to similarly satisfy the chief officer as to the applicant being a fit
and proper person, who has a good reason to possess a shotgun, but the
applicant does not have to provide a separate good reason for each shotgun.
Whilst a certificate or other similar authority has to be shown to purchase
shotgun ammunition, this is not controlled by the certificate in the same way
as Section 1 firearm ammunition is.

4.3 The details of the offences committed by Derrick Bird are set out in the
investigation report compiled by the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO),
Detective Chief Superintendent Iain Goulding and so I do not set them out
here. He has briefed me on them.

4.4 Derrick Bird was first granted a shotgun certificate on the 19th
November 1974. At that time he was 16 years of age, and close to his 17th
birthday. In 1974 the licensing system was a manual one, with paper
records and the original register relating to this certificate grant has been kept

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 4

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

by the Constabulary. In 1989 Cumbria Constabulary brought a bespoke

computerised system into use within their Constabulary area. This was
known as “CMIS”. In 2001 they moved on to use the “Shogun” application, in
common with several other police forces.

4.5 Essentially the vast majority of forces used one of two main systems at
that time (the other being the “Cedar” application). These were operated as
stand alone systems and did not necessarily link together across forces.
Improving this arrangement, the National Firearms Licensing Management
System (NFLMS) came into use through 2006/7 in England & Wales,
including in Cumbria, and in so doing exceeded the basic requirement set out
in Section 39 Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 for a national database for
police forces in this area of work. The NFLMS is linked to the Police National
Computer (PNC), which in turn is linked to the Scottish equivalent. These
arrangements ensure that the details of all applicants (thus including those
people refused a certificate or who have had one revoked) are available to all
police forces. The system has an arrangement to automatically notify a force
of any of their certificate holders coming to the adverse notice of police in a
different force area, or when another prosecuting agency commences certain
proceedings against an individual. This latter facility is known as “an
impending prosecution report”.

4.6 Derrick Bird’s most recent shotgun certificate renewal took place in
2005, his next would have fallen due by the 18 th November 2010. Details of
his current certificate and the shotguns he possessed are correctly held on the
NFLMS.

4.7 Whilst the NFLMS holds a range of details in this instance, quite
properly most previous records have been weeded in accordance with force
policy. Force policy in this area is in accordance with that promulgated
nationally at the relevant times. This means that whilst the details of the
shotguns possessed by Derrick Bird from 1995 to the time of these offences
are held, no details are held of the shotguns he possessed prior to 1995.

4.8 Immediately prior to the offences Derrick Bird possessed three

shotguns. These were;

1. A “side by side” shotgun chambered for standard 12 gauge shotgun

cartridges, using a non ejector, external hammer action.

2. An “over and under” shotgun, again chambered for standard 12 gauge

shotgun cartridges, using an automatic ejector mechanism.

3. A single barrelled shotgun chambered for standard 20 gauge shotgun

cartridges.

4.9 I am advised the evidence indicates that only the first of these, the
“side by side” hammer action shotgun in 12g was used in the offending. It
appears that the “over and under” shotgun had been disposed of the previous
evening to another certificate holder (albeit that during the course of the

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 5

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

offending Derrick Bird unsuccessfully sought to regain possession of it. This

may have been because of its type of operating mechanism, described
above). The single barrel 20g remained entirely unused in these events,
being recovered by police subsequently. It did not appear that Derrick Bird
possessed any ammunition for it. The evidence indicates that Derrick Bird
shortened the barrels of the shotgun he used just hours prior to committing
the first murder.

4.10 In 2007 Derrick Bird applied for, and was granted, a firearms certificate
authorising possession of one rifle chambered for the .22” rimfire cartridge,
together with authority to acquire up to 500 rounds of ammunition for it at any
one time and to possess a maximum of 1500 rounds of such ammunition.
The certificate authorised his possession of a sound moderator for that rifle,
and also permitted him to possess ammunition with a predictably expanding
bullet. I offer some more detail on these items below.

4.11 Derrick Bird had previously come to the notice of police, and the force
holds relevant records relating to this.

4.12 In 1982 he had been convicted of “drink-driving”, he was fined £100

and disqualified from driving for 12 months.

4.13 In 1990 Derrick Bird was convicted on two counts of theft and one
count of handling stolen goods. The offending was against his then employer,
British Nuclear Fuels Limited and concerned the theft of decorating materials.
He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 12 months
on each count concurrently.

4.14 In January 1998 he came to the notice of the police in connection with
an argument with his girlfriend. Police attended and neither party wished to
make any complaint. Two small cuts were noted on one of the girlfriend’s
fingers but there was no evidence forthcoming as to their cause. Derrick Bird
agreed to allow his girlfriend to remain at the premises overnight, and with the
situation calm, the police departed.

4.15 In November 1999 Derrick Bird was arrested in connection with an

investigation into allegations concerning the making of a demand for payment
with menaces, and was released without charge following interview. There
was no evidence to suggest he had acted with a violent nature.

4.16 The Health authorities have advised that he had had little contact with
his General Practitioner and had never been engaged with any services
regarding mental health. It appears that the health services held no
information that would have given any concern over his possession of
firearms. The same, I am advised, is true in terms of local people, who it
appears held no concerns such as would have caused them to express them
to the authorities. A number of local people, including family, were aware of
his ownership of firearms. As a member of the public in a rather
geographically distant part of Great Britain, I have to offer that the West
Cumbrian people seem to have displayed their customary strength and dignity

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 6

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

throughout, and to their great credit have consistently refused the financial
inducements to raise a concern only once events had taken place. I have
been made aware that Derrick Bird was being investigated in respect of his
tax affairs. Had that investigation reached the “impending prosecution” stage
then the police would have been made aware of it, and in turn the firearms
licensing team would have been alerted to this through the NFLMS-PNC link.
However that stage had not been reached. Whilst I do not think that any
earlier notification to police would have caused a different train of events to
have emerged, I do offer comment on other agencies being aware of a
person’s status as a certificate holder in part 2.

4.17 It is accepted practice that the responsibilities of the chief officer may
be delegated appropriately. I have been given copies of all the relevant
authorisations in force for such arrangements and have satisfied myself that
the individuals are both aware of their responsibilities and have the necessary
knowledge in order to discharge them properly.

5.0 Decisions made and actions taken by Cumbria Constabulary in

respect of the shotgun certificate.

5.1 Whilst the details have been weeded, given that Derrick Bird had no
convictions or other adverse reports to police in 1974 it would appear that the
decision to grant him a certificate then was reasonable. In fact the law then,
as now is worded so as to require a chief constable to grant a shotgun
certificate unless certain factors can be shown to apply. These factors include
the applicant being a prohibited person or not being a fit and proper person to
safely possess a shotgun for example.

5.2 I anticipate that his 1982 conviction for “drink-driving”, which occurred
at Whitehaven Magistrates Court, would have caused his shotgun certificate
to have been reviewed. Although subsequent to this instance, the case of
Chief Constable of Essex v Germain (1991) is the common reference for
justifying that a chief officer may consider a “drink-driving” conviction as
potentially indicating irresponsibility and a lack of self control such as may
compromise a person’s suitability to possess a shotgun, however it has never
been the case that such a conviction would automatically lead to revocation.
In this case I consider that any decision not to revoke was within the bounds
of reasonableness, especially when considering that this appears to have
been a first offence.

5.3 In 1990 the conviction for dishonesty (if not the investigation leading up
to it) should also have caused his shotgun certificate to be reviewed. Given
the length of time ago, the file has been weeded of any record of this. On the
basis that the certificate was not revoked then the weeding itself is
reasonable, albeit that any record of the rationale not to revoke is now not
apparently available.

5.4 However I do not regard this as an especially difficult issue as the

apparent decision not to revoke is in itself reasonable in the circumstances.
By this I mean that the conclusion is one that a similarly informed peer may

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 7

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

also reasonably have come to. There is however one area of detail to be
attended to because the question of whether Derrick Bird fell to be a
“prohibited person” turns on the judgement in a particular case that has led to
guidance to the effect that he would not be.

5.5 Had the sentence not been wholly suspended then Derrick Bird would
have become a “prohibited person” (as defined by s21 of the Firearms Act
1968), for a period of five years from the date of his release. Had that been
the case then the chief officer would have had no option but to revoke his
shotgun certificate. Of course Derrick Bird would have been eligible to have
made a fresh application for grant well ahead of the events of 2010, but the
fact that he would have once been “prohibited” would have been a specific
consideration in any such decision to grant again. Whilst I recognise this is a
very hypothetical consideration I consider it needs attending to because of the
nature of the argument that suspended sentences do not attract prohibition.

5.6 The argument holds that because the wording of Section 21(2)
Firearms Act 1968 refers to a “date of release” for calculating when prohibition
ceases, prohibition cannot apply to a person whose sentence is wholly
suspended because there is no date of release.

5.7 Suspended sentences were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act

1967 and although this pre-dates the Firearms Act 1968, the 1968 Act was a
“consolidating Act” and was not intended to alter the law. Accordingly the
provisions in relation to prohibited persons had not been drawn up with the
concept of suspended sentences in mind (the 1968 Act drawing upon the
1937 one, as amended by the 1965 Act).

5.8 In 1969 the case of R v Fordham, in the Assize Court in Kent

concerned the very argument in question. The court held that because of the
wording described above, prohibition could not apply to wholly suspended
sentences. This interpretation has not been challenged by Parliament or
others since.

5.9 In any event, prohibition for a sentence of at least three months but
less than three years attracts prohibition for five years as opposed to life, so it
has been clear that Parliament, from 1968 to date, has always anticipated that
a person so sentenced may be capable of “redeeming” themselves sufficiently
to be granted a shotgun and/or a firearm certificate.

5.10 Home Office guidance since 1969 has included advice that suspended
sentences do not attract prohibited person status under the Firearms Act
1968.

5.11 Since 1989 the Home Office guidance has also made reference to the
case of R v Spencer-Stewart (1989) in which the Crown Court upheld an
appeal against revocation that had been imposed on the basis of a conviction
for handling stolen goods. In this case the chief constable had revoked the
certificate but the court overturned that decision and restored it. Whilst it is
well understood that each case must be assessed on its merits, and previous

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 8

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

matters such as this are not binding on subsequent cases, it has long been
the expectation that chief constables will take into account the previous
judgements of the court when reaching their own view.

5.12 When considering the circumstances relating to Derrick Bird, these

matters would most likely have been known to the decision makers. They
contribute to my opinion that deciding not to revoke was a reasonable
decision at the time.

5.13 I have to observe though that a conviction for this type of offending
would be a serious consideration in terms of revocation. Theft is a Schedule 2
offence under the Firearms Act 1968 and with other considerations may
indicate a lack of trustworthiness on the part of a person so as to lead to a
decision to revoke or refuse to grant. Although exact details are not readily
available, in 2004 ACPO estimated that approximately 10% of certificate
holders have a criminal conviction. Having undertaken some preliminary work
it is my view that each police force area has at least one certificate holder with
a criminal conviction. This is unsurprising since a simple policy never to grant
a certificate to a person with a criminal conviction (or to automatically revoke a
certificate upon any criminal conviction) would be easily challenged in court.

5.14 As I have indicated above, the holders of shotgun certificates do not

have to give police a good reason for the possession of each shotgun, in
contrast to the requirements for firearms subject to control under Section 1
Firearms Act 1968. Whilst this aspect is considered further in part 2, it is of
interest here because Cumbria Constabulary knew the details of the shotguns
possessed, and had they been remarkable could have enquired further. It is
my view that the possession of three shotguns of these types is not
remarkable, and so there would be no reasonable expectation that the force
would have taken any particular interest in them. This is because the “side by
side” configuration is a traditional one preferred for game and pest shooting,
the “over and under” configuration is popular for shooting “clay pigeons” and
can equally be used for game shooting and pest control, and a single
barrelled 20g shotgun is a common preference for younger shooters or for
longer shooting days as the weight is significantly less both in terms of the
shotgun itself and the relative weight of the same quantity of ammunition
when compared to a 12g shotgun.

5.15 When Derrick Bird came to the notice of police in 1998 and 1999 I
would have expected the firearms licensing team to have been made aware.
It is apparent that if they were then no action was taken to revoke his shotgun
certificate but nor would I expect there to be. It would be far more likely that a
force would potentially task an enquiry officer to make further checks with
other officers and staff in the force to monitor a certificate holder’s behaviour
more closely, and to ensure that a third party had a ready point of contact to
express concerns in such circumstances.

5.16 I am advised by the SIO that there is no information held by the force in
another department etc but unknown to firearms licensing that would have any

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 9

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

relevance to his suitability to hold a shotgun certificate. There do not appear

to have been any faults with internal communication.

5.17 In pursuit of their decisions Cumbria Constabulary have adopted

enquiry forms covering the points recommended by ACPO advice and
conduct the full range of visits similarly recommended.

5.18 I have two relatively minor observations on the detail of the

arrangements. The first is that the counter signatory for the 2005 renewal was
a different person from the one in 2000. The record of enquiry does not
conclusively record that the counter-signatory was fully aware of the
significance of that role. It would be a generally accepted good practice to
show this, although it is not required by law or guidance. However the
application has been completed correctly by the counter–signatory and so I do
not regard the absence of a definitive conclusion on this to be material in the
circumstances.

5.19 Secondly, in the course of my review I established that on the

Constabulary website there was an assistance document that was worded so
as to give an impression that certain visits on the renewal of shotgun
certificates were not carried out in accordance with ACPO advice (advice
based upon the views of Lord Cullen and wholly endorsed by the Home Office
and Independent Police Complaints Commission). I have established that the
document was a historic one and did not reflect Constabulary policy or actual
activity. There had been a period of time when some renewal visits had not
been conducted, which was during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease,
when it was considered by the Constabulary that renewal visits should be
suspended where this would bring conflict with arrangements to defeat that
disease. It is possible that the errant document had existed in connection with
that arrangement, however I have established that visits are undertaken, and
indeed were undertaken specifically in Derrick Bird’s case. I understand that
the document will be revised or removed to reflect reality.

6.0 Decisions made and actions taken by Cumbria Constabulary in

respect of the firearm certificate.

6.1 In 2007 Derrick Bird applied for a firearm certificate. His application
was made properly and in it he sought authority to acquire a single .22” rifle
chambered for the .22” rimfire (.22”RF) cartridge. He stated that his good
reason to possess this was primarily to shoot vermin on farmland, and he
supported this with written permission from an appropriate person authorising
him to shoot over that land. He also indicated his intention to target shoot.

6.2 Cumbria Constabulary undertook enquiries in accordance with the law,

Home Office guidance and ACPO advice in pursuit of coming to a decision.

6.3 The .22” RF cartridge is very common for vermin control and for target
shooting. Some informed commentators have estimated that it may be the
most common of all the types of ammunition controlled by Section 1 Firearms
Act 1968. In that respect the application was for a rifle and ammunition that

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 10

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

the force might reasonably have expected to be used for the stated purpose.
The police inspected the land to ensure that it was suitable for that type of
shooting and completed the appropriate enquiries. The necessary details
were provided by the required two referees.

6.4 As the shooting was to be over land as part of vermin control

arrangements there was no expectation that Derrick Bird would need to be a
member of a shooting club. It is quite usual for this to be the case.
Membership of a Home Office Approved shooting club is only required of
people who possess certain firearms solely for target shooting.

6.5 The application to acquire one rifle would be at the lower end of
numbers of firearms sought to be possessed. I say lower end because
applications are sometimes made to be able to use a firearm or firearms
belonging to another (when they are not present for example), in which case
no firearms are sought to be owned, simply shared. This is because the law
controls the possession of firearms, as opposed to simply who owns them.

6.6 Derrick Bird acquired a CZ 452-2E ZKM bolt action rifle in .22”RF and it
is believed he possessed a 5 round and a 10 round magazine for it.
Magazines are not subject to certificate control. This is because they are not
considered to be “component parts”, which would be controlled by law.
Although no actual definition of a component part exists in law, the
understanding of the term over the years has developed so as to be taken to
mean a pressure bearing part without which the firearm would not operate as
intended. Generally speaking magazines do not bear pressure in the firing
sense and the firearm can operate without them. That would certainly be the
case in respect of these magazines.

6.7 Derrick Bird sought authority to acquire 500 rounds of ammunition in

any one transaction and to possess no more than 1500 rounds at any one
time. In terms of what is considered reasonable then these are reasonable
amounts, with 1500 rounds to be possessed towards the upper end of the
range. Such possession is subject to appropriately secure storage
arrangements and enables the certificate holder to possess sufficient
ammunition to avoid a frequent need to resupply. In turn this reduces the
number of transactions overall.

6.8 Given the intention to shoot vermin Derrick Bird was granted authority
for the .22”RF ammunition to be “expanding”. Such natures of ammunition
can usually be reasonably easily recognised because they have a “hollow” or
“soft” point to the bullet. “Hollow” means an indentation or cavity of varying
degree, in some cases quite pronounced, “soft” usually means that the lead
core of the bullet is exposed (as opposed to being covered by a harder metal
jacket, typically copper). Usually ammunition designed to “expand in a
predictable manner” would be prohibited and not be able to be possessed by
a firearm certificate holder. However exceptions to this restriction have been
made in law in respect of shooting animals because such ammunition assists
in ensuring a swift despatch. On that basis the decision to authorise
expanding ammunition was reasonable.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 11

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

6.9 Similar considerations apply in term of the sound moderator. These

are frequently sought in order to protect a person’s hearing (not only the
shooter’s) and to reduce the environmental impact of shooting. In addition
they may avoid unnecessarily alerting the quarry to previous shots.

6.10 As a matter of detail the specific good reason for the moderator was
not set out in the application or in the enquiry form, there only being reference
to vermin control. However I do not regard this as relevant to the matters in
question here. Moderators are reasonably readily authorised once the good
reason etc for the rifle has been established because usually the safety
benefits outweigh the public safety concern (which is that if it fell into criminal
possession then it would assist in shots being fired more discreetly). I am
advised that whilst the moderator remained attached to the rifle during the
murders and assaults it may only have been relevant in the first murder in
terms of suppressing the report on firing. It should be noted that a moderator
could be fitted permanently to a rifle, in which case there would be no
requirement to seek authority for it on the firearm certificate. Where a
moderator is to be fitted permanently a registered firearms dealer can carry
out this work and no entry needs to be made on the relevant firearm
certificate.

6.11 Acquisitions of assembled ammunition that is subject to control under

s1 Firearms Act 1968 have to be recorded on the Firearms Certificate.
Derrick Bird’s certificate shows that he had purchased quantities of two types
of ammunition. The first was “CCI Mini-Mag” and the second “RWS
subsonic”. Subsonic ammunition is often used in conjunction with a sound
moderator to particularly lower the sound signature of the rifle when fired.
Both natures of ammunition utilise a hollow point bullet (see paragraph 6.8
above).

6.12 Derrick Bird acquired a telescopic sight that was mounted on the rifle.
Sights are not subject to certificate control because they are not component
parts of a firearm (see para 6.6 in respect of magazines).

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 12

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

7.0 Conclusions.

7.1 In terms of both of the above certificates I have concluded that Cumbria
Constabulary has made decisions and taken actions in accordance with the
law, Home Office guidance and ACPO advice.

7.2 In terms of the work I have reviewed I offer an assurance that the
delivery of the licensing system in Cumbria is undertaken by competent,
committed and professional people who take their duties seriously and who
entirely appreciate what they are seeking to achieve. Arrangements for the
delegation of authorities are clear and complete and there is a clear
understanding of who in the Constabulary holds which responsibilities in this
area. It is my opinion that arrangements in the Constabulary are among the
most robust.

7.3 Other than attending to the misleading guidance document on the

Constabulary website I can offer no substantive recommendations for
improvement within the existing legislative and guidance framework. It is my
view that there were no opportunities for the Constabulary to have intervened
and stopped these murderous events by any better application of the existing
licensing system.

7.4 Whilst the second part of this report will attend to potential changes that
might be made in terms of legislation, guidance and practice, to improve
public safety further, I think it appropriate to offer an immediate comment now
in this respect. This is simply to observe that as a result of what I am now
aware of in this case, I do not think there are any immediate changes that
could be implemented urgently that would have prevented these offences.
Whilst there are a number of areas where I think improvements can be made,
even these would not have applied directly to this case. In effect they are
general improvements rather than case specific ones. To prevent
circumstances of this type then a far more fundamental change in respect of
the private ownership of firearms and ammunition would be necessary, and
this would be something I anticipate would require far more significant debate
and consultation.

Adrian Whiting
Assistant Chief Constable
Dorset Police
Chair – ACPO Firearms & Explosives Licensing Working Group

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 13

1-11-10
 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Annex A

Details of the review arrangements.

On 7th June 2010 Chief Constable Craig Mackey wrote to the ACPO
President, Sir Hugh Orde, requesting the assistance of the association in
undertaking peer reviews of certain aspects of his force’s work. One of these
concerned the operation of the licensing system. As the ACPO lead in this
area I was asked to undertake the review.

I have met with the Chief Constable and his command team, and key
individuals within the force. The Chief Constable provided me with Terms of
Reference. I have then been provided with all material I had considered
necessary and was briefed in detail on the course of events by the Senior
Investigating Officer. I have then been able to work through the details in
reaching my conclusions, set out above.

In the course of these events I have been afforded every assistance by

Cumbria Constabulary.

In terms of my relevant experience in this area, I have been a member of the

ACPO Firearms and Explosives Licensing Working Group (FELWG) since
2003. I have had the privilege of chairing the group since 2006. In addition I
coordinate the Technical sub group whose work concerns determining matters
such as the legal classification of potential firearms and working with
interested parties on matters of definition etc. I chair the Home Office based
Firearms – Improvement of Governance Group which brings together a range
of agencies engaged in achieving effective firearms and explosives control at
UK borders and within the UK itself.

I have operational experience of the command of complex armed policing

operations and I am accredited by the National Policing Improvement Agency
as a Police Strategic Firearms Commander. I have passed the examinations
required of a police explosives liaison officer and I am appointed under the
Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 as an inspector in this regard. I hold
Associate Membership of the Institute of Explosives Engineers. I regularly
provide input to the national police Firearms Enquiry Officer courses.

I concurrently lead for ACPO in the area of Counter-Terrorist Search which

has very close links to firearms and explosives control.

I have practical experience as a firearm, shotgun and explosives certificate

holder.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED 14

1-11-10