PFD report

Robert Wilkinson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Oct 2013•County Durham and Darlington

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to conduct face-to-face meetings with certificate holders when making revocation decisions
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable firearms licensing decisions
  2. Failure to clearly and directly communicate revocation decisions to certificate holders
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Include value-adding face-to-face meetings with certificate holders in the structured firearms licensing review process.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 October 2013.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    A face-to-face meeting is not considered necessary where it would add no value to a firearms certificate refusal or revocation.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to conduct face-to-face meetings with certificate holders when making revocation decisions

Wider context from the report

“(1) As part of the process leading to the decision to revoke, although there had been contact with the deceased/his family/medical practitioner, there had not been a face to face meeting between a member of the firearms licensing team and the deceased. Such a meeting would have provided better quality of information to enable those considering the issue of revocation to have made the decision on the best possible information. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable firearms licensing decisions.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to clearly and directly communicate revocation decisions to certificate holders

Wider context from the report

“(2) The revocation letter was never personally served. The deceased was in hospital for some of the time. Contact had been made with the deceased's family, in particular his son, and whilst it may not have been said in clear terms, the inference clearly was that the deceased was to have his certificates revoked and it was the deceased's son who communicated this information to his father and not the Police. Further consideration needs to be given as to the most appropriate means by which a decision to revoke should be made known to the certificate holder. It is accepted that this was a difficult case for the Police to manage, but clearly if the deceased had not had access to his guns on the day that he shot himself then he would not have been able to take his own life in the way that he did on the day that he did. Thus, an objective review how this case was managed should be undertaken so that improvements to the system might be identified with the result that similar fatalities in the future might be avoided. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Include value-adding face-to-face meetings with certificate holders in the structured firearms licensing review process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The benefit of a face to face meeting between a certificate holder and a member of the Firearms Licensing Team. I acknowledge that such a meeting could provide better quality of information to enable more informed decision making. Indeed I am aware that Chief Inspector ████████ acknowledged this point in his evidence before you, on the 18th October 2013. I would confirm that when such a meeting”

Source location

2013-0269-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
Page 1 · response
Published 21 October 2013

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A face-to-face meeting is not considered necessary where it would add no value to a firearms certificate refusal or revocation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“would add value to any review of a shotgun/firearms certificate holder then this will be undertaken and now forms part of the structured review process. I would add that it is important that such a meeting should have a specific aim in view of the numbers of reviews currently undertaken by Durham Constabulary.”

Source location

2013-0269-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 21 October 2013

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Rationalise and index the 8,500 live firearms certificate files to improve information retrieval.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 October 2013.
  2. 2

    Work with the Local Medical Committee and county GP surgeries on a pilot to identify medical risks relevant to firearms and shotgun certificate holders.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 21 October 2013.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Existing IPCC scrutiny and a Professional and Legal Services review were considered sufficient to review how the case was managed.

    Stated by Durham ConstabularyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Rationalise and index the 8,500 live firearms certificate files to improve information retrieval.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My Professional Standards Department reported that procedures were indeed followed. Lessons were also identified and these highlighted the potential weaknesses with the current paper format of Firearms Licensing files; the number of systems used to record actions and decisions and the volume and apparent dis-organised state of the (Robert Wilkinson) Licensing files which made prompt retrieval of information problematic. These matters are currently being addressed with a considerable investment in time by the Firearms Licensing Department in the rationalising and indexing of the 8,500 live certificate files. The aim is to convert all of the certificate files into a more efficient electronic format.”

Source location

2013-0269-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 21 October 2013

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Work with the Local Medical Committee and county GP surgeries on a pilot to identify medical risks relevant to firearms and shotgun certificate holders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are also working closely with our Local Medical Committee and the Counties ninety GP surgeries in a pilot that seeks to more effectively and proactively identify medical risks relevant to firearms and shotgun certificate holders. This has national implications and our work is being closely followed by ACPO and Home Office.”

Source location

2013-0269-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
Page 3 · response
Published 21 October 2013

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing IPCC scrutiny and a Professional and Legal Services review were considered sufficient to review how the case was managed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After the sudden death of Mr Robert Wilkinson was reported to the police a Gold Group was set up and managed by Deputy Chief Constable ████████ and the facts of the case reported to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). As a consequence the decision making around this case was scrutinised by the IPCC who forwarded the Constabulary a number of key questions to answer. ████████ also referred the matter to the Professional and Legal Services Department (PS & LS) for investigation with a specific focus on the rationale around the circumstances of Mr Wilkinson retaining his firearms and the related record keeping. I know the IPCC were satisfied once their queries were answered that this case should be investigated locally.”

Source location

2013-0269-Response-by-Durham-Constabulary
Page 2 · response
Published 21 October 2013

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026