Goodison v Superintendent Sheahan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Michael Peart
• Judgment Date: 02 May 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 127
• Docket Number: Record Number: No. 299 JR/2006
• Court: High Court
• Date: 02 May 2008

Goodison v Superintendent Sheahan

Between:

William Goodison

Applicant

And

Superintendent D.J. Sheahan

Respondent

[2008] IEHC 127

Record Number: No. 299 JR/2006

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Certiorari

Firearm certificate - Refusal - Whether decision ultra vires and without any basis in law - Bases upon which superintendent can make decision to refuse firearm certificate - Application by bona fide recreational shooting enthusiast - Reasons given for refusal - Whether good reason for applicant requiring licence - Danger to public safety - Whether any provision which entitled respondent to consider applicant's suitability in relation to particular weapon where certificates were held in respect of others - Whether public safety peace could be endangered by type of firearm - East Donegal Livestock Mart Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 312, Dunne v Donohoe [2002] 2 IR 533 and Mishra v Minister for Justice [1996] 1 IR 189 considered - Firearms Act 1925 (No 7), ss 3, 4(a) and 5 - Certiorari granted (2006/299JR - Peart J - 2/5/2008) [2008] IEHC 127

Goodison v Sheahan

Facts: The applicant described himself as a long term recreational shooting enthusiast and contended that for over thirty years he had held firearm certificates issued to him in respect of firearms pursuant to the provisions of s. 3 of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended. On the 7th October, 2005, his application for a firearm certificate for a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol was refused. The applicant sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision and a declaration that the decision was ultra vires.

Held by Peart J. in making an order of certiorari that where a person had been the holder over many years of three firearm certificates for three other weapons and where no application had ever been made to revoke same, and no grounds put forward as to why the applicant’s possession of the other weapons posed a danger, there could be no grounds for refusing the application under s. 4(b) of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended.

Reporter: R.W.

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S3

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S3(1)

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S4

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S5

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S4(a)

EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE v AG 1970 IR 317

DUNNE & NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL GAME COUNCILS & ANOR v DONOHOE (GARDA SUPERINTENDENT) & ORS 2002 2 IR 533

MISHRA v MIN JUSTICE 1996 1 IR 189

FIREARMS ACT 1925 S4(b)

Judgment of

Mr Justice Michael Peart

1 The applicant describes himself in his grounding affidavit herein as a long term recreational shooting enthusiast, and states that for over thirty years he has held firearm certificates issued to him in respect of two double barrel shotguns, and one rifle of .220 inches, pursuant to the provisions of s. 3 of the Firearms Act,1925, as amended ("the Act"), and has never been refused an application for such a certificate until the 7^th October 2005 when his application for a firearm certificate in respect of a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol was refused by letter of that date for the reasons set forth therein.

2 That decision to refuse him a firearm certificate in respect of that particular weapon is the subject of the present application, wherein he seeks an order of Certiorari quashing that decision, as well as a declaration that the decision isultra vires and without any basis in law. Leave to seek these reliefs by way of judicial review was granted to the applicant by order of the High Court dated 13^th March 2006.

3 Before dealing with other relevant facts and the legal submissions of the parties I will set out certain relevant provisions contained in the Act.

4 Section 3 (1) empowers a superintendent to grant a firearm certificate and provides as follows:

5 (1) The Superintendent of the Garda Siochána of any district may, subject to the limitations and restrictions imposed by this Act, upon the application of any person residing in such district and upon the payment by such person of the fee (if any) for the time being required by law, grant to such person a firearm certificate.

6 There are a number of other subsections in s. 3, but none are relevant on the present application.

7 Section 4 provides for three matters of which such a superintendent must be satisfied before granting a firearm certificate:

8 4. Before granting a firearm certificate to any person under this Act the superintendent of the Garda Siochána ……… shall be satisfied that such person -

9 (a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for, and

10 (b) can be permitted to have in his possession, use, and carry a firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or to the peace, and

11 (c) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate.

12 A consideration of paragraphs (a) and (b) of s. 4 are central to the present application, since they circumscribe the bases on which the superintendent could, as in this case, make a decision to refuse the firearm certificate applied for by the applicant. Paragraph (c) has no relevance to this applicant.

13 A power to revoke a firearm certificate appears inSection 5 of the Act which provides:

14 5. The superintendent of the Garda Siochána of the district in which the holder of a firearm certificate resides may at any time revoke such certificate if he is satisfied that the holder of such certificate -

15 (a) has no good reason for requiring the firearm to which the certificate relates, or

16 (b) is a person who cannot, without danger to the public safety or to the peace, be permitted to have a firearm in his possession, or

17 (c) is a person who is declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate, or

18 (d) where the firearm certificate limits the purpose for which the firearm to which it relates may be used, is using such firearm for purposes not authorised by the certificate.

19 On about the 6^th October 2004, the application made a written application for a firearm certificate for the Glock 9mm pistol already referred to which he had purchased from an authorised dealer but had not yet taken possession of pending the granting of the certificate. While he had already been granted certificates for two shot guns and a rifle, he had never applied for a certificate for a pistol because, according to his grounding affidavit, there had been a long-standing fixed but non-statutory policy that a certificate would not be granted for a pistol. He states that this policy emanated from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and was directed to all superintendents with regard to the exercise of their discretion under s. 3 of the Act.

20 He has exhibited a number of letters received in recent years by other applicants (with their consent) from a number of different Garda superintendents who have refused certificates for pistols based on such a policy. He has exhibited also a letter dated 10^th April 2002 from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which described the policy as follows:

"The policy regarding the licensing of firearms is that, following a Government Decision in 1972, the Garda Siochána only licence sporting firearms, i.e. shotguns having barrels of not less than 24 inches in length, unrifled air guns and rifled firearms of a calibre not exceeding .22 inches. Crossbows, which were classified as firearms in 1990 are also licensed. A further Government Decision in 1993 replaced this policy to allow for the licensing of bolt action rifles of a calibre up to .270 for the purpose of deer hunting and target shooting only.

The policy is not set out in a statutory instrument."

21 The applicant avers that this policy no longer exists as a result of a number of court challenges by unsuccessful applicants for such certificates. According to his affidavit, a situation now exists where some superintendents around the country, in the exercise of their discretion, have commenced issuing such certificates in respect of firearms which exceed .22 calibre.

22 The applicant states that he was glad to see the reversal of what had been a rigid policy of not issuing certificates for such weapons, since it opened up the possibility for him that he could compete and participate in a sport which he loves, and he set about the purchase of such a weapon for use in target practice and for competitive use at gun clubs. He also states that the reversal of this policy has led to a proliferation of pistol shooting in the State, and that there are now a number of new pistol clubs and frequent competitive events. It is not disputed on this application that the applicant is a bona fide recreational shooting enthusiast.

23 Having submitted his application to his local Garda station for a certificate for the Glock 9 mm pistol. According to the first replying affidavit filed by the respondent the application was "processed" by a Garda Killeen, and the applicant states that he was informed by Garda Killeen that it would be necessary for his gun cabinet to be inspected.

24 This inspection took place in October 2004 when Sgt. Tim Cronin came to the applicant's home for that purpose. It was apparently indicated to him on that inspection that he would need to install a new cabinet for the purposes of his pending application, and he duly purchased a suitable cabinet and installed it in his home. This new cabinet was inspected by Sgt. Cronin, and, according to the applicant's affidavit, Sgt. Cronin was satisfied with it and informed the applicant that the certificate would issue in two to three weeks time. The respondent disputes this, and states that the applicant misunderstood the advice by Sgt Cronin that he would need to install a new cabinet. In his said replying affidavit the respondent states that he has been told by Sgt. Cronin that...