Currently gun licence reviews are carried out every five years.  This needs to be changed and reviewed more frequently given how much can happen and change in the space of five years for examples, episodes of depression, developing drug habits, financial difficulties. We are proposing this is changed to every two years. However, if an individual wants to change their licence for example from a hand gun to a shotgun, then a full review should be carried out

Historically a full medical was conducted with the GP in person, but due to a lack of resources this changed to just the completion of a form, which is then processed presumably by a professional who has no contact or knowledge of the applicant.  Furthermore, in Robert Needham’s case, the application process was only partially completed and yet still a licence was issued. 

We believe we need to go back to a full medical and a conversation (either face to face or on video chat) which could be paid for by the applicant to cover the GP’s time.  This allows there to be a face to discussion as well as assessing the mental health and stability of the patient. 

In our case, Robert Needham had four episodes of depression on his record and three of those we believe were treated with medication. One of those episodes led to a consultation with  a psychiatrist in Secondary Care where Kelly’s fiancé admitted to thoughts of being “better off dead”. 

Whilst the police state ‘lots of people with depression have a gun’, we feel strongly that this needs closer scrutiny and monitoring. If gun holders regularly suffer with their mental health, enough to seek medical help and medication, then their gun licence should be reviewed. The period of escalation which can occur and the damage and trauma as a result of that is surely worth this type of review. 

Currently if you have a long-term condition and work in certain professions for example as a pilot, then a flag is put onto the system so a GP is aware.  This triggers the sharing of information (see 5). These same flags should be used for gun licence holders. In Robert Needham’s case, as a result of changes to gun licence guidelines, a flag was initially input, then removed and then when it was to be reinstated, there was no record who had a flag in the first place. This staccato approach cost valuable information to be lost and represents another missed opportunity. 

We believe information sharing between key agencies must happen in order to grant and review licences. This starts with the placing of a flag on a GPs system (see 4) for all gun licence holders. It is then incumbent on the GP to inform the police and the Home Office when changes occur to a gun holders health (see 3). 

Currently, it is not mandatory to state the reason for applying for a gun or the purpose for an upgrade. We believe this should be an integral part of the licence application and the answers should be verified by looking at social media and talking to the licence holder’s family, as is the case in New Zealand. These are dangerous and deadly weapons and the application process must reflect that. 

The application process should robustly include a removals process for licence holders who fail to comply with the terms of the licence or who experience a change in circumstances (see 3). This should be carried out swiftly by the police and the Home Office and should include a period when a renewal cannot occur. Equally, if further licence is granted, the agencies concerned should be satisfied, without a doubt, that the reason for the removal now ceases to exist and that this is verified by the relevant agencies, the family and social media. 

The tax-payer currently subsidises the gun licence process Gun Control Network (gun-control-network.org) )his is wrong. Anyone wishing to hold a licence should be made to pay for all the necessary checks and balances which must take place. This includes the GPs time to interview an applicant, the research into renewals and removals. The cost of bringing a pet to the UK is not subsidised by the tax payer, why should owning a gun, with the potential to maim, hurt and kill be. 

Guns should be kept in a facility away from the home, be this a gun club or a locked storage facility off their property. This is to prevent licence holders from having their gun to hand and to be able to use it inappropriately during an episode of anger, rage or psychosis. Random checks should be carried out to ensure this happens. 

If you lie and are found out to be lying during the application process you shouldn’t be allowed to continue with the application and/or to have the licence granted.  Robert Needham lied a number of times on the initial application form to request a gun and despite it stating that misinformation could result in a fine or prison sentence Robert got neither of these but did get awarded with a gun licence, which makes a mockery of the process.  The peer review that was conducted stated they wouldn’t have done anything differently which is particularly concerning.  We believe if you are incapable of being honest on your application and are found out to be lying, questioning your integrity, you should not be able to continue with the process.