FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

Sparks

Hi folks,
To recap for those who've not been paying attention, over the past two to three years, almost 200 cases of licence applications being refused have been lined up for Judicial Review in the High Court. In response to this, as laid out in Alan Shatter's Ministerial Briefing when he took office:



These three cases:

• Walls -v- MJ&E
• Herlihy -v- Superintendent of Gurranabraher Garda Station & Anor
• Conway -v- MJ&E (Anyone know for sure if it is conway? Some confusion here)

are currently in front of the High Court.

Because of some fun and games in an utterly unrelated court case last year, boards.ie has taken legal advice on discussion of court cases and the advice is (to summarise) we can't talk about the case while it's in front of the court (meaning from the opening day in court until the judgement is issued or the case struck out). And defaming people involved in the case is still defamation under the act, obviously.

End result - we can't discuss these cases here just yet. So all the mentions of them are going into this (locked, but stickyed) thread, and as soon as we have the okay, we'll open it up. Any newspaper reports or what have you, PM them to me and I'll throw them up in here if the thread's not open yet, and we'll link to the judgements in here as they become available.

the_syco

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/gun-owners-challenge-gardais-refusal-of-licences-535471.html

A number of legal challenges brought by shooting enthusiasts against refusals by gardaí to issue the gun owners with certificates for restricted firearms, has commenced before the High Court.

In three cases before the court, the gun owners are seeking orders quashing the Gardaí's refusal to issue them with licences. They claim the Gardaí's refusal amounts to a breach of their constitutional rights and amounts to a fixed policy of not issuing licences for guns that can be legally held.

The Gardaí, who are opposing the action, deny that there is any fixed policy and have argued they are entitled to refuse to grant the licences sought.

The actions are seen as important test cases as there are almost 200 similar actions pending before the court. The actions are being supported by The National Association of Regional Game Councils.

The first of the cases has been brought by Dublin man Mr Michael Walls, who is seeking orders quashing refusals in October 2009 by Garda Chief superintendent Gerard Phillips, who is based in Ballymun garda station, to issue firearms certificates in respect of seven pistols owned by Mr Walls, which are considered as restricted firearms.

Today, Conleth Bradley SC for Mr Walls said his client has been actively involved in shooting clubs and competitions, both nationally and internationally, for many years. Mr Walls has the guns for sporting purposes.

Mr Walls, counsel said, is ranked number two in the world in the WA1500 shooting competition where the minimum calibre of firearm permitted is .35 or higher for pistols.

Counsel said Mr Walls held licences for the seven guns, which were custom-built as sports firearms. He applied to the Gardaí in 2009 to have those license renewed.

In October 2009 Chief Superintendent Phillips informed him by letter that after giving consideration to his application, he was not satisfied that Mr Walls had shown a good reason for requiring a restricted firearm where a non-restricted firearm would not fulfill the purpose for which the firearm was required.

Counsel said that his client sought a meeting with Chief Supt Phillips to demonstrate his good reasons for requiring the guns. His request was not granted. Counsel said his client was not provided with proper reasons for his decision, which Mr Walls believes "is unjust".

Counsel added that it was also Mr Walls case that the Superintendent has refused to issue a single renewal in respect of similar applications and had applied a fixed policy of not licensing such firearms.

In a replying affidavit Chief superintendent Phillips denied he was applying a fixed policy of refusing to issue licences for restricted weapons.

He said that in making the decision he had specific regard to factors including the guns' characteristics and the purpose for which Mr Walls used them. He said in October 2009 after considering Mr Walls application and having weighed all of the relevant considerations, he was not satisfied Mr Walls had a good reason for requiring the guns in question.

He also said that following his refusal he did not think that a meeting with Mr Walls was necessary.

The Chief Supt. added that he also took into account factors including the dangers that handguns can pose to the public.

In light of crime statistics and the dangers involving guns of the type Mr Walls sought licences for, the Chief Supt added that he approaches applications for firearms with caution.

The hearing before Mr Justice John Hedigan continues and is expected to last for several days.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/gun-owners-challenge-gardais-refusal-of-licences-535471.html#ixzz1jCUW9Jmn

I wonder what the outcome of this will be? It's" nice" that the person who is bringing the case forward is a sportsman, though... less wiggle room for the Gardai imo.

SVI40

An interesting article in today's Irish Independant

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/senior-garda-altered-firearms-forms-court-told-2995707.html

Feidhlim Dignan

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/calls-for-probe-after-top-garda-altered-gun-licence-forms-2997224.html

Sparks

From today's Independent:

Calls for probe after top garda altered gun licence forms
Tuesday January 24 2012

PRESSURE is mounting on the Government to launch an inquiry after one of the country's most senior gardai admitted altering application forms for firearms licences.

The alterations by Crumlin Chief Superintendent John Manley, described last week as "disturbing" by a High Court judge, took place after legal action was brought by almost 200 shooting enthusiasts who were refused firearms licences.

Another senior garda responsible for issuing gun licences has admitted, in a series of test cases brought by three sports enthusiasts, that he failed to complete mandatory sections on statutory application forms.

Chief Superintendent Gerard Phillips, of Ballymun garda station, explained to Mr Justice John Hedigan that the failure to fill in mandatory sections on the official forms and to accurately record the outcome of the applications was an oversight.

Chief Supt Phillips, who presides over policing in the Garda's Dublin Metropolitan North region, has been approved by Justice Minister Alan Shatter for promotion to the ranks of Assistant Commissioner.

The admissions by the two Dublin chief superintendents could have major implications for the operation, by gardai, of the national gun licensing system.

And the State may move to settle the legal action today after the case was dramatically adjourned to allow the authorities to decide whether it could stand over the current system.

Ireland's firearms laws were changed in 2009 to make it more difficult, on public safety and security grounds, to obtain a licence.

But shooting enthusiasts have complained that their applications have been refused on a blanket basis by gardai without adequate reasons.

The gardai have denied claims by the licence applicants that there is a fixed policy of refusing licences.

However, it has emerged that there are potential problems in up to 17 garda districts throughout the country where there are high refusal rates.

Last Friday, Mr Justice Hedigan invited the authorities to consider whether they would stand over the Garda Siochana's firearms licensing system after hearing evidence that a number of application forms were altered after the legal action began. The judge found that the evidence in two of the three test cases so far showed that the recording process had not been correctly followed.

The judge said that the licensing of powerful handguns and rifles was a matter of "the gravest nature" and noted that it had been admitted that a substantial number of application forms had been altered, after having been previously signed and finalised.

"The system which refuses restricted licences is the same system which grants them. If the system put in place is not being followed, then both the granting and refusing process is clearly flawed," he said.

Yesterday, almost 50 appeals against refusals by gardai to issue gun licences were adjourned at Dublin's District Court.

Under the current system, the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana is responsible for issuing gun licences.

This power, in turn, is delegated to chief superintendents who decide whether a gun license should be approved or revoked.

Some 200 cases are pending the outcome of the gun-licensing test cases, which are being supported by the National Association of Regional Game Councils.

- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

Sparks

From today's Examiner:

Firearms licence forms altered by gardaí, High Court hears
By Vivion Kilfeather
Wednesday, January 25, 2012

A High Court challenge by shooting enthusiasts to a garda refusal to grant them firearms licences was adjourned yesterday to facilitate talks between lawyers over the altering by gardaí of application forms.

Last Friday, Mr Justice John Hedigan invited the authorities to consider whether they would stand over the licensing system after hearing evidence that a number of application forms were altered after the legal action began.

The judge found the evidence in two of the three test cases so far showed the recording process had not been correctly followed.

He adjourned the matter until yesterday for a week to facilitate further talks. He stressed he wanted to hear what the state had to say about the altering of the forms before continuing with the case.

Three test cases — which will affect the outcome of almost 200 similar cases brought by shooting enthusiasts and which is supported by the National Association of Game Councils — are being heard.

Mr Justice Hedigan said it had been admitted that a substantial number of forms had been altered, after having been previously been finalised.

Large sections of the mandatory forms, had not been filled in, leading to licences being refused.

The judge noted this was described as "inadvertence", or an error by the authorities. "If the system put in place is not being followed, both the granting and refusing process is clearly flawed," he said.

Ireland’s firearms laws were changed in 2009 to make it more difficult, on public safety and security grounds, to obtain a licence. Shooting enthusiasts complained that their applications were refused on a blanket basis without adequate reasons.

Gardaí have denied claims there is a fixed policy of refusing licences.

In the first test case, Dublin firearms dealer Michael Walls is seeking orders quashing refusals in October 2009 by Garda Chief Superintendent Gerard Phillips, based at Ballymun, to issue firearms certificates for seven pistols, which are considered as restricted firearms.

The court heard Mr Walls has been actively involved in shooting clubs and competitions.

He claims that he applied to renew the licences in 2009 but was refused.

Chief Supt Phillips told him, in a letter, that he was not satisfied Mr Walls had shown a good reason for requiring a restricted firearm where a non-restricted firearm would not fulfil his purpose.

Mr Walls asked for a meeting with the officer but was refused, and he was also not provided with reasons for the decision, it was claimed.

In a replying affidavit, Chief Supt Phillips said he was not satisfied Mr Walls had a good reason for requiring the guns. He did not think a meeting with Mr Walls was necessary.

The Chief Supt added he also took into account factors including the number of gun-related crimes in the division in which he is stationed, and the dangers that handguns can pose to the public.

Sparks

From today's Irish Independent:

Letters rejecting gun licences had same mistakes
By Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Thursday January 26 2012

LETTERS sent by senior gardai to shooting enthusiasts turning down their gun-licence applications shared the same spelling and factual mistakes.

An analysis of refusal letters by 23 garda chief superintendents responsible for issuing firearm licences has concluded that 17 displayed evidence that they were not "independently produced".

Garda guidelines for restricted firearm certificates state that "each case ought to be judged on its own merits, being mindful of the need to apply the legislation in a fair and equitable manner to all applicants".

This, said a linguistics expert asked to analyse refusal letters penned by 23 chief superintendents, implied that each refusal letter should, in principle, be unique in terms of form and content.

But as the authorities move to quell a massive legal action involving up to 200 failed firearms applicants, it has emerged that refusal letters issued by many chief superintendents shared the same grammatical and factual mistakes.

A series of test cases were adjourned last week after one Dublin chief superintendent admitted altering application forms after the legal action began.

Another chief superintendent, who is in line to become an assistant commissioner, admitted that he had failed to complete mandatory sections on statutory application forms, leading to the refusal of many licence applications.

The gardai have denied claims that there is a fixed policy of refusing firearm licences.

And the Department of Justice has not confirmed if a review of the firearm licensing scheme will take place following last week's revelations.

An analysis provided by forensic linguist Michael Coulthard has found that 12 of the letter writers each used the word "shooters" in their letters instead of the word "shooting" in reference to the National Target Shooting Association.

Other similarities included mistaken repetitions of phrases and the typing mistake of "no" instead of the word "not".

Prof Coulthard was asked to examine firearm refusal letters by 23 different chief superintendents and found that the refusal letters of six chief superintendents appeared to have been based on one template, and 11 other chiefs' letters appeared to be based on a second template.

He found that the degree of similarity points "incontestably" to an underlying template letter on which all of the letters have been based.

"There is absolutely no way in which the amount of shared text could have been composed independently nor any possibility of the shared grammatical and factual mistakes being the result of individual superintendents just happening to make those same errors and no others," he said.

"The odds against are incalculably high," said the linguist, who has worked with the Metropolitan, Northern Ireland, Scottish, South Wales and British Military police.

Last Friday, Mr Justice John Hedigan invited the authorities to consider whether they would stand over the garda firearm-licensing system after hearing evidence that a number of application forms were altered after the legal action began. He found that the evidence in two of the three test cases so far showed that the recording process had not been correctly followed.

The test cases resume next Tuesday.

- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

Still can't discuss the case yet folks, sorry - it's only adjourned at the moment so any open thread on it would be Technical Contempt according to the legal eagles. Not long now though.

clivej

NARGC statement

http://www.nargc.ie/news-container/press-release---firearms-licensing-cases.aspx

FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL GAME COUNCILS (NARGC)

Following settlement this morning in the High Court of 168 cases challenging refusals by Chief Superintendents of An Garda Siochana to grant firearms certificates, The National Association of Regional Game Councils, which is supporting the cases is outraged, but not surprised at the behaviour of Senior Gardai in the operation of the firearms licensing system. Recent revelations in the High Court simply confirm what thousands of firearms licence holders already knew or suspected.

BattleCorp

What does "following settlements" mean?

Does that mean that the court has acknowledged that the gardai were wrong not to licence the centerfire pistols?

If so, will the lads get their licences or do the licences have to be applied for again (and maybe still not be issued)?

homerhop

their applications have been granted by the courts

rowa

Great news , wonder what will happen next though ? Will shatter take revenge on the shooting community ?

BattleCorp

The ranges will be a bit louder now so :-)

BattleCorp

I only asked the question because I didn't think that the courts had the power to order the Chief Supers to issue the licences. I thought that they could only instruct the Chief Supers that they made an error when processing the applications and to go back and review the application again.

Great news for the lads involved.

rowa

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/shooting-enthusiasts-settle-legal-challenge-537947.html

Bananaman

Congratulations to all involved.

I look forward to having to queue for a lane on the Pistol Range again

It's been too long.

B'Man

homerhop

rowa wrote: »

Great news , wonder what will happen next though ? Will shatter take revenge on the shooting community ?

I wouldnt put anything past them. They believe they are a law unto themselves and dont have to answer to anyone. Hope it is not let go and their conduct and attitude is brought to heel.

clivej

BattleCorp wrote: »

What does "following settlements" mean?

Does that mean that the court has acknowledged that the gardai were wrong not to licence the centerfire pistols?

If so, will the lads get their licences or do the licences have to be applied for again (and maybe still not be issued)?

.................." This morning at the High Court, when the matter was briefly mentioned before the court, Mr Justice John Hedigan was informed that the matter, which has been seen as an important test case had been resolved between the parties following talks."
Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/shooting-enthusiasts-settle-legal-challenge-537947.html#ixzz1l2t6PK47


It means that the Garda dropped their cases against the plaintiffs and Mr Justice Hedigan did not have to make any decision. As there is not now an objection to the 168 cases before the court then it should follow that the restricted applications before the court will now be deemed granted.

It may also mean that anyone that was refused but did not take any action could now reapply for their restricted licenses. But it need not follow that they would be granted their apps. automaticly.



BUT don’t take my word on this as I’m only a layman when it comes to anything legal.

rowa

clivej wrote: »

It means that the Garda dropped their cases against the plaintiffs and Mr Justice Hedigan did not have to make any decision. As there is not now an objection to the 168 cases before the court then it should follow that the restricted applications before the court will now be deemed granted.

BUT don’t take my word on this as I’m only a layman when it comes to anything legal.

Wheres sparks ? He speaks legalese.

homerhop

rowa wrote: »

Wheres sparks ? He speaks legalese.

He is over at the 2012 intershoot comp

dCorbus

Good news for those involved.
But it really depends on what the terms of the settlements were.
Also, AFAIK, since this was settled out of court, the judge makes no judgement, if you know what i mean - and no precedent is set and no direction given by the judge.

clivej: It was the shooters taking the case, not the gardai - so it is the shooters who have settled the case and withdrawn their appeals.

While this is great news for all those involved and hopefully the terms of their own settlements will mean they can have their pistols back, it really doesn't amount to much of a hill-of-beans other than to show how twisted and f**ked up the procedures are/were.

Some of the Judges comments on the administration of the system, whilst at first glance, may feel nice to see him getting the boot in: what he has said, may or may not come back to bite us in the arse.

It's great news for the shooters themselves - but it may at best be of no consequence to the rest of us - and at worst, may lead to another sh1t-storm (otherwise known as a "review").

Ever-the-Pessimist, yours, dC

tac foley

That is the best news I've heard out of Ireland for a good long while.

As a remote poster, I'm not going to add anything more.

tac

homerhop

Was it not the NARGC bringing the cases on behalf of the shooters? And if so would they not have known that by settling in such a way would leave the shooting community open to the same ****e again since there is no Judges ruling? Now dont take me up wrong am not slating the NARGC in my comments they did sterling work getting a settlement, just they have been on top of this from day one and would not leave themselves open for such a thing?

rowa

(quote);It's great news for the shooters themselves - but it may at best be of no consequence to the rest of us - and at worst, may lead to another sh1t-storm (otherwise known as a "review").


Yes , i can see that happening too , the doj/gardai have never let a defeat (or what amounts to a defeat) in court slide , there is always a comeback.

Dusty87

The NARGC just 'supported' the cases homer.

dCorbus

homerhop wrote: »

Was it not the NARGC bringing the cases on behalf of the shooters? And if so would they not have known that by settling in such a way would leave the shooting community open to the same ****e again since there is no Judges ruling? Not dont take me up wrong am not slating the NARGC in my comments, just they have been on top of this from day one and would not leave themselves open for such a thing?

I don't know the details: but AFAIK it was the shooters taking the cases themselves, with the "support" (whatever that may have entailed) of the NARGC. Don't get me wrong: Fair play and kudos to those who stood their ground and went forward with the cases.

As for no-one leaving anyone open, the shooters would undoubtedly, and understandably, have settled their cases once they had, presumably, gotten agreement on what they wanted from the GS.

But (and I emphasize I'm not a legal eagle and I am not privy to any more information about these cases than anyone else here), I'd be pretty sure that this sets ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT before we all get too excited.

It MIGHT have been better for the shooting community in general for the cases to have gone forward and the Judge to have made a judgement - but no one can in all fairness expect individual shooters to turn down a favourable settlement and continue with a High Court case, once they have what they set out to get in the first place.

rowa

Who pays the legal costs in this case ?

dCorbus

Again, who knows: Depends on the settlement agreements, I'd say. And those are private between the parties presumably.

I know: there's a lot of "depends", "presumes", if, buts and maybes - but I'd say we i.e. the wider shooting community will never know what was agreed. And nor should we IMO: It's none of our business and we weren't paying for the cases. So, fair f88k's to those who put their hard-earned dosh into running with these cases and I do hope they got what they wanted out of it in the end.

clivej

rowa wrote: »

Who pays the legal costs in this case ?

Costs were allowed/awarded to the shooters.

ouch. :):):)

clivej

Presedent may not have been set BUT things were said and therefore mentioned in the court and so are on record.

johngalway

dCorbus wrote: »

It MIGHT have been better for the shooting community in general for the cases to have gone forward and the Judge to have made a judgement - but no one can in all fairness expect individual shooters to turn down a favourable settlement and continue with a High Court case, once they have what they set out to get in the first place.

Can't blame anyone for settling if they're getting all or most of what they have fought for, to have that settlement on offer, or roll the dice with a judge I'd pick settle everyday and twice on Sundays! Court can be a funny place.

juice1304

So if everyone gets their licences dose that mean they will have to accept new applications for restricted short firearms? I've had a goo on me for an ed brown 1911 for as long as i can remember:o:D:D