A CONSULTANT orthopaedic surgeon whose guns were seized by police has lost a battle to win them back.

Ahmed Khashaba, 39, who owns land near Crown Point in Burnley, had fought Lancashire Constabulary for the return of his shotgun and firearms certificates, which were revoked in July.

Mr Khashaba, who was first granted licences in 2004, had wanted back his .22 and .222 rifles, and his shotgun.

He had also originally asked for an upgrade to a .243 rifle to hunt deer for food, but later abandoned that part of his appeal and said he no longer wanted to shoot them.

Mr Khashaba, who the court also heard was a property developer and bouncer, had earlier applied to police for a handgun, a 6mm semi automatic pistol, to “humanely dispatch” injured sheep, or lambs, although he didn’t have any.

Lancashire Police had told the appeal hearing, at Burnley Crown Court, he should not have the certificates at all.

A farmer neighbour had claimed he had seen Mr Khashaba “showing off” by firing a shotgun from the hip and that he was not safe to have a gun.

A police officer also claimed the appellant was “like a man on a knife edge”.

Mr Khashaba, of Carrwood Green, Padiham, not only lost his weapons, but was also faced with a near £10,000 bill for costs after the five-day hearing.

Lancashire Police had asked for costs of more than £11,000 after his appeal against the revocation was dismissed.

But, Judge Jonathan Gibson, sitting with two magistrates, ordered he pay £9,171 after the appellant objected to the amount asked for, and said he didn’t think he ought to be punished twice.

Judge Gibson said Mr Khashaba had no good reason to have the .22 or .222 rifles as he had no livestock, or any pressing need for the control of foxes.

He added Mr Khashaba was of “positive good character”, but told the hearing the bench was concerned the appellant had been seeking to build up a substantial collection of guns.

They were also significantly concerned over his knowledge, and handling, of firearms generally, he said.

After the decision was announced, Mr Khashaba commented that the judge had said he had to err on the side of caution, but he thought he had erred on the side of caution a bit too much in his case.