FIREARMS LICENSING CASES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

rowa

Has anyone heard anymore on this ? Someone i know got a letter today from wilie egan saying they maybe liable for extra costs !
I find it baffling that after being taken to court by restricted firearms owners over mostly groundless licence refusals, admitting in court that they were interfering with the application forms to suit themselves, that they should then expect the aggrieved party to pay for it all.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

admitting in court that they were interfering with the application forms to suit themselves

But that was agreed by both sides to not constitute wrongdoing. Which is probably a large factor in the costs decision. But on the other hand, if the deal hadn't been accepted, all 168 cases would have had to be heard because we don't have class action lawsuits in Ireland. Those would be 168 seperate cases, heard one after the other, and if any one of them failed for any reason, the precedent would apply to subsequent cases. Given our record for cases in the High and Supreme Courts (which is 50/50 in the Supreme Court last I looked and not a 100% record in the High Court -- I think it was about 75% wins, but I'm not sure), and given the damage even one lost case can do (like the one lost case which set the precedent that the Super could consider the firearm and not just the applicant), that would have been a huge risk.

Honestly though, the best move would not have been to have taken all 168 cases as a pseudo-political sort of thing at all, but to have gone via the FCP route and taken whatever cases had to be taken as they came up (and some things really do need judicial opinions, like the gray area surrounding licenced firearms with barrels below the 50/62cm limits).

My honest opinion is that I think what we've been left with is an expensive (and not just monetarily - this cost us our official route into the DoJ and stalled reloading horribly) mess that hasn't accomplished anything in the wider view and for the applicants, didn't actually net them anything they didn't have to begin with and has possibly now exposed them financially (though thankfully, not to the kind of level High Court costs would have).

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

My honest opinion is that I think what we've been left with is an expensive (and not just monetarily - this cost us our official route into the DoJ and stalled reloading horribly) mess that hasn't accomplished anything in the wider view and for the applicants, didn't actually net them anything they didn't have to begin with and has possibly now exposed them financially (though thankfully, not to the kind of level High Court costs would have).

Ok , but why didn't the doj sort the restricted pistols situation out when they had the opportunity ? after all it went on for years, Did no one any good and always had the risk of blowing up in their faces.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Ok , but why didn't the doj sort the restricted pistols situation out when they had the opportunity ? after all it went on for years, Did no one any good and always had the risk of blowing up in their faces.

What motive had they for doing so?
No, seriously, think about it a moment.
We want it sorted; if we all sold our firearms tomorrow and took up tiddlywinks, they lose nothing.
They've said it themselves so many times it's become a catchphrase - the DoJ's job is not to promote sport.

So what's their motive to sort out the restricted pistols mess?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

What motive had they for doing so?
No, seriously, think about it a moment.
We want it sorted; if we all sold our firearms tomorrow and took up tiddlywinks, they lose nothing.
They've said it themselves so many times it's become a catchphrase - the DoJ's job is not to promote sport.

So what's their motive to sort out the restricted pistols mess?

Well they lost the gunsafe case, the nick flood case, the neil mcveigh case, the brophy pistol case to name a few higher profile cases, so i presume they lost plenty of taxpayers money previously in legal costs, surely their motive would be to save scarce money in tough times, not to mention the cost of thousands of garda man hours lost in district courts the Length and breath of the country fighting hopeless refusals.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Well they lost the gunsafe case

And responded with one paragraph in the Criminal Justice Bill 2004.
So we went from High Court to Supreme Court and won (but invested lots of time and money - and yes, money, you don't get all your costs back even if costs are awarded in your favour); but they just rewrote the law so that the Commissioner could issue guidelines to the Supers, which was the entire point of that case in the first place.

the nick flood case

Wasn't won because it was never heard. It was settled on the steps, with no precedent set and with all the time, expense and so on already invested.

the neil mcveigh case

And again, after the time and money invested and an initial High Court loss, the Supreme Court appeal judgement went our way but to quote the judge:

Justice Fennelly wrote:

In my view, it was such as should have been quashed on judicial review. However, it is difficult to discern, at this stage, any advantage to be gained by quashing the decision of the Minister made more than seven years ago. I would simply make a declaration that the Minister had made an unlawful decision by basing it on an inflexible policy.

Was that worth the cost and the risk had we lost?
(BTW, read that full judgement, because while McVeigh was at least nominally won, McCarron and Magee were both lost, both set horrible precedents, both seemed terribly, terribly weak cases from the start, and that entire Supreme Court appearance was what could fairly be called a disaster for shooting in Ireland).

the brophy pistol case

Yup, worth taking and was won; but as mentioned earlier in the thread, never had to be taken in the first place had we accepted the deal in the mid-90s to bring back air and .22 pistols and worked from there on up.

i presume they lost plenty of taxpayers money previously in legal costs, surely their motive would be to save scarce money in tough times

(a) wouldn't appealing the costs decision fall under that category?
(b) not their money, so it's not really a huge motivator; besides, the costs get borne by the people in the case, which is usually the Gardai, not the DoJ. Different budget, so it doesn't really affect their motivation.

not to mention the cost of thousands of garda man hours lost in district courts the Length and breath of the country fighting hopeless refusals.

You know that bit the Minister rolls out whenever he's asked a detailed question about the Gardai? The bit where he says that "that would be an operational matter and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that"? The whole "seperation of powers" thing?
It prevents the Minister taking any flak from lost garda manhours, especially when the total manhours lost on shooting cases is only noise on the line compared to the total manhours lost on all the other cases for all the other minor things that gardai have to appear in court over.

Sparks

Was sent the link to the DC costs appeal this morning.

Oh feck.

I am therefore satisfied that, absent any statutory power to award costs on an appeal under Section 15A of the Firearms Acts, Order 51 DCR 19987 does not avail the applicant, and does not give the District Judge jurisdiction to award costs to the applicant.

In english, it appears now that no licencing case appeal to the District Court can ever again even ask for costs if successful; the High Court has determined that the District Court cannot award them. You'd have to take a supreme court case and have that High Court ruling appealed in order to get round it.

This is a pretty good example of the kind of really bad thing that can go wrong in a court case and why the courts should be the last thing we try - because if it goes wrong, it's not just the applicant who gets it in the neck, it's everyone else as well.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Was sent the link to the DC costs appeal this morning.

Oh feck.



In english, it appears now that no licencing case appeal to the District Court can ever again even ask for costs if successful; the High Court has determined that the District Court cannot award them. You'd have to take a supreme court case and have that High Court ruling appealed in order to get round it.

This is a pretty good example of the kind of really bad thing that can go wrong in a court case and why the courts should be the last thing we try - because if it goes wrong, it's not just the applicant who gets it in the neck, it's everyone else as well.

Is it just firearms cases or is it all types of cases that the dc cannot now award costs in ? I thought the flow was going the other way in legal proceedings as there was complaints that the ordinary layman had very limited access to the law, as it was basically the preserve of the rich.
So this means in three years the guards can have another witches coven and decide that they are not going to relicence restricted firearms, and if you want to take it to the dc you have to fund the case win or lose ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Is it just firearms cases or is it all types of cases that the dc cannot now award costs in ?

IANAL, but from my reading of it it seems to be firearms cases because of the way the law is written and how it interacts with the District Court rules. The judgement goes into the details of it.

So this means in three years the guards can have another witches coven and decide that they are not going to relicence restricted firearms, and if you want to take it to the dc you have to fund the case win or lose ?

As I read it, yes. You currently have to fund at least part of the case win or lose anyway - your solicitor sends you a letter setting forth home much that'll be (that's the section 68 letter) and that amount wouldn't be refunded even if you won and costs were awarded; but now the whole lot has to come out of your pocket.

yubabill1

I remember the Southern Hotels (Sligo) vs Iarnrod Eireann case 2007. It is a landmark and relates to other types of licensing, with the addition of firearms as of this judgement.

One for the next consultation round, IMHO.

BattleCorp

I've a simple little brain and therefore all the legal speak goes over my head so forgive me if I sound naïve with the following question.

How is it justice when you go to court and prove that the other side did things incorrectly, win your case, and after all that, you have to put your hand deep into your own pockets and cough up for the proceedings, even though you did nothing wrong?

So, legally speaking, fair play is only available for those with very deep pockets and a willingness to spend their dosh on court cases?

That's not right.


An afterthought: so now am I right in thinking that there's no point going the DC route, you'd be better off skipping it and going straight to the High Court because you can get costs there if you win, but you pay if you win in the lower court?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

One for the next consultation round, IMHO.

What next consultation round?

Taking these cases burnt the consultation route and lost us the FCP. You can't go to the press and ask if the Gardai have "lost it" and say all manner of nasty things about the Minister and DoJ; and then expect to be able to sit down at a table with all three groups and have a productive meeting about anything (for a start, you won't even get an invite to the table -- nobody will believe you're there in good faith to find a workable solution to anything).

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

What next consultation round?

Taking these cases burnt the consultation route and lost us the FCP. You can't go to the press and ask if the Gardai have "lost it" and say all manner of nasty things about the Minister and DoJ; and then expect to be able to sit down at a table with all three groups and have a productive meeting about anything (for a start, you won't even get an invite to the table -- nobody will believe you're there in good faith to find a workable solution to anything).

This was discussed before. Why don't all the interested parties move on without the party that threw all its toys out of the pram.

Maybe I'm totally wrong about this but it seemed to me like the FCP was over before the court cases.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

How is it justice when you go to court and prove that the other side did things incorrectly, win your case, and after all that, you have to put your hand deep into your own pockets and cough up for the proceedings, even though you did nothing wrong?

To quote Holmes, "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice"...

So, legally speaking, fair play is only available for those with very deep pockets and a willingness to spend their dosh on court cases?

If the courts are the one tool you use, yes.

An afterthought: so now am I right in thinking that there's no point going the DC route, you'd be better off skipping it and going straight to the High Court because you can get costs there if you win, but you pay if you win in the lower court?

No, for two main reasons:
(1) The HC has no authority to grant a firearms licence - the law gives that authority to the DC and the DC alone (and the super/chief super, but if you're in court we're past that stage);
(2) It's fairly probable (I'm basing this opinion from informal opinions I've heard from various legal folk in the family) that trying to go directly to the HC instead of through the DC and appealing upwards as needed, would basicly tick off the HC who'd see it as a waste of their time. So you'd be on the back foot from the start.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

This was discussed before. Why don't all the interested parties move on without the party that threw all its toys out of the pram.

Because the cries of "backstabbers!" would have gone up the instant anyone even suggested it; and when it's going up from the largest individual group, things would become unworkable in short order. So that party could destroy the whole thing on its own; but it can't actually fix the whole thing on its own either so now we're in deadlock.

And as the ICPSA and LCPSA row can tell you, deadlock in the courts can last for years without resolution.

Maybe I'm totally wrong about this but it seemed to me like the FCP was over before the court cases.

That line was being passed around allright; but it wasn't true. It was in the best interests of one party for the average shooter to think it was true; but we have a word for that when TDs do it...

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

What next consultation round?

Taking these cases burnt the consultation route and lost us the FCP. You can't go to the press and ask if the Gardai have "lost it" and say all manner of nasty things about the Minister and DoJ; and then expect to be able to sit down at a table with all three groups and have a productive meeting about anything (for a start, you won't even get an invite to the table -- nobody will believe you're there in good faith to find a workable solution to anything).

Maybe its as well there is no consultation, after all who would want to sit down and discuss anything with senior police who would interfere with applications. As for the minister, Ahern agreed to grandfather centrefire pistols and then turned a blind eye to all sorts of trickery and nastiness by the guards to get rid of them, shatter I wouldn't think is much better, is he even talking to the guards himself after the way he was treated recently ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Maybe its as well there is no consultation, after all who would want to sit down and discuss anything with senior police who would interfere with applications.

You'd rather say nothing while they continue to do the same thing?

As for the minister, Ahern agreed to grandfather centrefire pistols

Instead of banning all pistols outright just because Jim Deasy was making fun of him - and the centerfire pistols are only grandfathered by convention; we already know they could be brought back in a few days with one signature and without needing to go to the Dail if the Minister was willing.

and then turned a blind eye to all sorts of trickery and nastiness by the guards to get rid of them, shatter I wouldn't think is much better, is he even talking to the guards himself after the way he was treated recently ?

I think we're a long ways down his list - hell, he can't even keep the garda stations in his constituency open. Frankly, poking at him with a court case is most likely going to result in short sharp treatment; like entering a no-contest plea or settling the court case and then drafting a single paragraph in whatever the next miscellaneous section of a criminal justice bill is, saying "all pistols are banned". Name me one paper who'd decry him for banning firearms given the level of ignorance attached to them in our society and the rising level of gun crime from drug gangs? (You think us having nothing to do with them would save us? Why? It didn't save us in 2009, or in 1972, or on a dozen other occasions).

yubabill1

Battlecorp - Ok you have to pay your costs, win or lose, but so does the other side.

Sparks - "consultation" will happen the next time they want to tighten gun legislation.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

What next consultation round?

Taking these cases burnt the consultation route and lost us the FCP. You can't go to the press and ask if the Gardai have "lost it" and say a.ll manner of nasty things about the Minister and DoJ; and then expect to be able to sit down at a table with all three groups and have a productive meeting about anything (for a start, you won't even get an invite to the table -- nobody will believe you're there in good faith to find a workable solution to anything).

Well, where do we go from here?

We are going backwards at a rate of knots without some sort of civilised contact with the PTB. Would it not make more sense to at least try and restart dialogue with the PTB?

Fair enough, two of the parties don't like each other because of things that happened in the past. But we have to move on. And if one party won't sit at the table, I say move on without them.

Is this approach not a possibility?

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

]How is it justice when you go to court and prove that the other side did things incorrectly, win your case, and after all that, you have to put your hand deep into your own pockets and cough up for the proceedings, even though you did nothing wrong?

As a eminent barrister once said to me..".If you want justice,you'll have to wait until you get to Heaven."Justice is a very abstract concept in law.Courts deal in written law,and providing arguements on the merits or demerits of the evidence to come to a conclusion.Whether just or unjust.

So, legally speaking, fair play is only available for those with very deep pockets and a willingness to spend their dosh on court cases?

Looks that way..Always has been always will be.:(
Justice for all[if you can pay for it!] should be inscribed under the statues of justice.:pac:
And if anyone expects fair play in Ireland with anything to do with firearms.....Well I own a nice historic stone down by the Shannon,going cheap,along with a fine bridge over in Brooklyn.:)

That's not right.

Nope,but to use a glib Irish statement "Thats the way it is."Untill people decide that it has to be changed and vigoursouly protest and stay well aware of any further encroachments on their liberties,all this and ,more will come to pass.

An afterthought: so now am I right in thinking that there's no point going the DC route, you'd be better off skipping it and going straight to the High Court because you can get costs there if you win, but you pay if you win in the lower court?

If you have tens of thousands..No problem!!However the high court wont grant your lisecnse either.It will uphold or examine points in law in your fvaour or not,and give directions on the case back to the DC.
It still boils down to the two men in your garda district who "grant" certs.

My feeling is seeing that I will no doubt be back in the DC in Limerick before Xmas on my pistol.That the Supers and Cheifs are using these court cases now as an absolvement of responsibility.:(:mad:
IOW if someone looses it and shoots up a schoolyard, or the gun is stolen and used in such they can say " Wasnt me..It was a Judge X who over ruled my BETTER judgement on who should have a gun or not.We tried to stop it but were over ruled in court and now this happened..Go talk to Judge X."
Along with a fair bit of egotism in beliveing that as they have absolute authorithy they make the law and interpert it as they see fit,not uphold it as it is written.:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well, where do we go from here?

We are going backwards at a rate of knots without some sort of civilised contact with the PTB. Would it not make more sense to at least try and restart dialogue with the PTB?

Fair enough, two of the parties don't like each other because of things that happened in the past. But we have to move on. And if one party won't sit at the table, I say move on without them.

Is this approach not a possibility?

We go nowhere..fast.:(
IMO There are both merits and demerits from talking to the PTB. I could see why the aggreived wouldnt talk to them,after all if everytime you talk to someone and belive in dialouge they take all your advice and suggestions and turn it against you so that you end up the worse of the deal.Is there much point in talking to them??
IOW does a condemned man need to help in building his own gallows??
But before any of that takes place for a dialouge to begin between any two parties there has to be a measure of trust between them,no matter how small.
THE DOJ/AGS does not trust us the Irish gun owner in any shape or form,period! There is ample evidence of this historically and politically due to our turblent past .
How then,can we trust a govt that fears our hobby/lifestyle in essence us the gun owner?? And then vise versa?? We get one thing assured,and then it is turned on its head or used against us.
Certainly always leave the diplomatic channells open and certainly" wag your tounge as much as you like ,but please dont wave your gun."[Old Russian proverb]
However,until there is some modicum of trust on all parties,as well as our side trying to sing of the same book not to mind the hyme.We are in deadlock,and we can see how long and costly deadlocks in Ireland can be over the last 38 years.:(

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Battlecorp - Ok you have to pay your costs, win or lose, but so does the other side.

Which they do from your taxes, so you really pay both sides...

Sparks - "consultation" will happen the next time they want to tighten gun legislation.

Why would it? The Minister has all the excuse he or any of his predecessors would ever need now - he just has to say that they tried wider consultation and it resulted in the kind of political stuff we've seen these cases made into, and that therefore they're going with the technical expertise that Garda Ballistics provides. Do you really think anyone with a media presence is going to argue the point with him on this topic?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well, where do we go from here?

Honestly? I don't think we go anywhere for a few years. Until the NARGC makes nice with the DoJ and Minister (and honestly, I can't see that ever happening after all the stuff that the NARGC's said in print about them), I don't see us making any real progress for a long while. We might see the odd court case won here and there, but the wider picture will be one of temporary minor gains followed by widespread changes in the law to get round those gains and push back beyond where the status quo was.

We are going backwards at a rate of knots without some sort of civilised contact with the PTB. Would it not make more sense to at least try and restart dialogue with the PTB?

Most of the NGBs have informal contact with them and good relations with them; but with the current state of shoutiness the PTB aren't going to do anything. As far as they're concerned, it's not their job to safeguard, let alone grow, our sport; so this is our problem to solve, not theirs.

macnas

Okay, so now the 168 will be getting a bill for the costs incurred for month after month of adjournments, probably owed to whatever local brief was used. What were the High court costs? What were the costs for the supporting cases?

Somebody made a few quid out of this, the NARGC called the shots, now the 168 have DC costs to cover.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

Was sent the link to the DC costs appeal this morning.

Oh feck.



In english, it appears now that no licencing case appeal to the District Court can ever again even ask for costs if successful; the High Court has determined that the District Court cannot award them. You'd have to take a supreme court case and have that High Court ruling appealed in order to get round it.

This is a pretty good example of the kind of really bad thing that can go wrong in a court case and why the courts should be the last thing we try - because if it goes wrong, it's not just the applicant who gets it in the neck, it's everyone else as well.

_______________________________________________________________

The bigger worry here is that if someone was to bring a case against the State for any reason i.e. Bin Charges, House hold Tax, your Local Bus service and you win the case but end up having to pay your own cost.

Re the pistol cases this will put others off bringing any case, why would you incur massive cost for a gun that might only be worth 700 or 800 euro. Personally I think this decision is unconstitutional. Think of the effect on the wider public.


Sikamick

yubabill1

"Why would it? The Minister has all the excuse he or any of his predecessors would ever need now - he just has to say that they tried wider consultation and it resulted in the kind of political stuff we've seen these cases made into, and that therefore they're going with the technical expertise that Garda Ballistics provides. Do you really think anyone with a media presence is going to argue the point with him on this topic?"

Politically, "consultation" is a very widely-used fig leaf. What the parties who are consulted say or want is secondary to their having been "consulted"

Reference the EU Firearms consultation ongoing at the top of the page.

Grizzly 45

Sikamick wrote: »

_______________________________________________________________

The bigger worry here is that if someone was to bring a case against the State for any reason i.e. Bin Charges, House hold Tax, your Local Bus service and you win the case but end up having to pay your own cost.

Very much so,but if you read the judges decision,it is within the law not for a DC to grant costs.All he has done is confirm the law as it stands.So it is just not just against gun owners.

Re the pistol cases this will put others off bringing any case, why would you incur massive cost for a gun that might only be worth 700 or 800 euro. Personally I think this decision is unconstitutional. Think of the effect on the wider public.

Here it comes down to your principles...Whether you belive someting is worth fighting for no matter what.Or do you belive in just rolling over and spending the rest of your life wondering could you have made a differnence? Its easier to take the latter option and say "you cant fight city hall or the govt",but then that gives you NO right whatsoever to complain either and that "somebody should do someting" either.Not to mind thats what Govt wants you to do anyway.
You are the resistance as was said.Even if you dont do anything or cant fight a case in the courts,you can still help,it surely would be nice to see more shooters just even bothering to turn up at a local DC to support those who are fighting a case.It can be a bloody awful lonely place a courtroom if you are doing this by yourself,and a friendly pro gun ownership face is a hell of a morale booster I can tell you.:cool:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

if you read the judges decision,it is within the law not for a DC to grant costs

Well, close - it actually says that it's not within the law for a DC to grant costs, which sounds like splitting hairs but isn't - it means that a DC can't grant costs even if the judge wanted to, not that the judge can refuse costs.

Here it comes down to your principles...Whether you belive someting is worth fighting for no matter what.Or do you belive in just rolling over and spending the rest of your life wondering could you have made a differnence?

What if you believe in results and don't give a rat's ass about ideology or the joy of sticking it to the man?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Politically, "consultation" is a very widely-used fig leaf. What the parties who are consulted say or want is secondary to their having been "consulted"

And who the parties are. In other words, they talk to the FPU, they talk to Ballistics, they talk to the Brady Campaign, they talk to IANSA, they talk to ICABS - and then they can say they consulted with shareholders and have drafted legislation in response to that input. And we're screwed, but that's what happens when you're outside the room. Which is why being inside the room was so damn important.

And anyone who didn't see that coming from the moment one party sabotaged the FCP, just wasn't paying attention.

yubabill1

Sikamick wrote: »

_______________________________________________________________

The bigger worry here is that if someone was to bring a case against the State for any reason i.e. Bin Charges, House hold Tax, your Local Bus service and you win the case but end up having to pay your own cost.

Sikamick

not pretending to ne a legal boffin here, but I think this only relates tp licences in the DC. Civil matters are treated differently, if I read the judgement right.

Grizzly 45, let us know next time you are in court. I will try to come and give moral support.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

What if you believe in results and don't give a rat's ass about ideology or the joy of sticking it to the man?

Where did I mention ideology??I said it was a personal principle if you want to keep shooting or not with the gun of your choice
Results are..People went out on an individual basis and had to "stick it to the man" as you say by themselves to keep their firearms...And in most cases they do,and not done with a light hearted attitude either..You have been refused,you have NO other option but to go to court if you want to keep shooting,even after having a nice chat with your CS about the gun and all that..Unless we have all missed something???