Gun laws could be tightened in Britain to ensure that the “catastrophic” failings leading up to the Plymouth shooting can never be repeated.
Families of Jake Davison’s victims said gun ownership is “a privilege not a right”, and that legislation dating back to 1968 needs to be urgently rewritten to stop potentially dangerous people being handed deadly weapons.
Davison, 22, murdered his mother before roaming the streets with a pump-action shotgun and killing a three-year-old girl, her father, and two other passers-by in August 2021.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has also formally called for legal changes, as has the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, following harrowing inquests into the victims’ deaths.
A coroner will consider their proposals as part of a report on the “prevention of future deaths”, which will make formal recommendations to the government that could dramatically change gun ownership in Britain.
Almost 540,000 people are licensed to own a gun in England and Wales, with 522,627 shotgun certificates and 151,218 firearm certificates currently held.
Legally owned guns have been used in a series of murders, including the recent shooting at Epsom College in which George Pattison shot his wife, Emma, and their seven-year-old daughter dead before killing himself.
Relatives of Plymouth victims Lee and Sophie Martyn, Kate Shepherd and Stephen Washington said the shooting was “predictable” and showed the need for radical reforms that would lead to fewer guns being in circulation and more robust safeguards.
“The home secretary must take action and place primary legislation before parliament,” their submission to the coroner said. “If she does not, she is failing in her duty to protect the public. Any failure by the home secretary to take this action would amount to a betrayal of the victims in this case, and the victims of other such tragedies.”
The families said the Firearms Act 1968 needed to be amended or replaced in order to remove the current legal presumption that a firearm or shotgun certificate “shall be granted” unless specific circumstances are met.
The families said that a legal distinction between “firearms”, which include rifles, and shotguns is dangerous and should be scrapped.
They said that a requirement should be added for applicants to demonstrate a “good reason” to own such a weapon, and that any claim of sport shooting should require proof of affiliation with an approved club.
Relatives also called for tightened restrictions on the types of firearms and ammunition that can be purchased and how they are stored, creating the power to stop some people from keeping guns in their homes.
They warned that the threshold for banning someone from owning a gun on the basis of previous criminal offences is too high. Davison was given his shotgun back after committing a violent attack, partly because he had not been prosecuted for it.
Other measures the families asked for include stricter vetting, a requirement for medical records to be checked, and changes to the way in which people can appeal licence refusals.
Several of the families’ demands were backed by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, who said that, while he does not “shy away” from the damning findings of the inquests in relation to his force, the root of the problem is “predominantly national”.
In submissions to the coroner’s report, he said that existing laws and Home Office guidance are “no longer suitable to address the issues of safe firearms licensing”, and are being used inconsistently by regional police forces.
Arguments on behalf of Chief Constable Will Kerr said the Firearms Act should be rewritten so that the presumption is that a licence “shall not be granted” unless the applicant has satisfied the police that they are safe to hold a gun.
He called for a mandatory requirement for doctors to share relevant information on risk, which was never received in Davison’s case, and for police to have strengthened powers to seize guns from private property.
A separate report by the police watchdog also made numerous recommendations for change, including a requirement for enhanced checks on applicants to flag previous police involvement that may not have resulted in a criminal conviction.
The IOPC said the Home Office should add autism spectrum disorder to the list of relevant medical conditions in police guidance, and also backed the removal of any legal distinction between shotgun and firearms certificates.
The watchdog called for a higher bar for the references required in licence applications, to ensure people have “in-depth knowledge of the applicant’s character, circumstances, temperament, and overall fitness to be entrusted with a firearm”, and for open-source research to be carried out for all applicants.
In Davison’s case, that would have revealed his vocal online interest in incel culture as well as his discussions on social media of his mental health issues and hatred of his mother.
A separate inquest into Davison’s death will further probe his ideology and the extent to which it affected his actions, although police did not declare the shooting a terror attack because they believed he was primarily driven by mental health issues and personal grievances.
Ian Arrow, the senior coroner for Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon, will publish his “preventing future deaths” report with recommendations for change at a future date.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Once received, we will reflect on the coroner’s report, including any recommendations, and respond in due course.”
