Supreme Court Appeal [READ POST 115 BEFORE POSTING]

rrpc

quigley wrote: »

Does anyone know if the Law provides for the application of restricted usage of firearms like that applied in the recent case ie 3 times a year? If there is no basis in law, then the judgement is not legally binding. May I suggest that some comparison should be made with the law that covers classic motor vehicles - there is a reduced annual road tax applied to vehicles that comply with well defined criteria. Are there similiar criteria for historical/calssic firearms? In the present case, the criteria used was a reference to a historic figure

Sction 4(g)

(g) complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate,

BornToKill

Sikamick wrote: »

Below is a copy of an e-mail, which I had sent to the DOJ early this week; I have had to send it again as I have not received an answer.

Second question is, can you explain what section 9 and 3 are within the firearms act.)

You sent an email to a Government Department and haven't had a response within a couple days? You were right to send it again.

I'd presume you mean section 3 of the 1925 Act and section 9 of the 1964 Act. They relate to the grant and renewal respectively of firearms certificates.

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

You sent an email to a Government Department and haven't had a response within a couple days? You were right to send it again.

Maybe questionsfromsikamick@justice.ie is on holidays

I'd presume you mean section 3 of the 1925 Act and section 9 of the 1964 Act. They relate to the grant and renewal respectively of firearms certificates.

My bad, never thought of the 1964 act. I wonder why that is?

BornToKill

rrpc wrote: »

Maybe questionsfromsikamick@justice.ie is on holidays


My bad, never thought of the 1964 act. I wonder why that is?

I don't honestly know, rrpc. You must be slipping a little ...

Hey, I could be wrong too - I was just making a guess based on limited information. You did ask two days ago for details of the specific question but no response as yet. Maybe you need to ask again.

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

I don't honestly know, rrpc. You must be slipping a little ...

I'm a literal kind of guy, that kind of lateral thinking puts me in a spin

Hey, I could be wrong too - I was just making a guess based on limited information. You did ask two days ago for details of the specific question but no response as yet. Maybe you need to ask again.

I think I'll wait a week. What should I do then?

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Soon as it's over though rowa, full details (I think everyone wants to see the outcome of this one).
edit: (In case you didn't know the case, this is the appeal of the charleton judgement from last year)

Back on topic, the judgement is out and attached to this post.
Short version, the charleton judgement was upheld, as was a judgement saying that the Superintendent can attach conditions to an individual licence; and there was a third judgement which my initial reading (which is admittedly just a fast skim) says that the Minister's policy of not granting import licences for anything other than shotguns/air rifles/smallbore rifles was illegal, but there's not point in chasing after it now since it's been superseded.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

........... the Minister's policy of not granting import licences for anything other than shotguns/air rifles/smallbore rifles was illegal, but there's not point in chasing after it now since it's been superseded.

What about those that were refused import licenses in the last year?

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Back on topic, the judgement is out and attached to this post.
Short version, the charleton judgement was upheld, as was a judgement saying that the Superintendent can attach conditions to an individual licence; and there was a third judgement which my initial reading (which is admittedly just a fast skim) says that the Minister's policy of not granting import licences for anything other than shotguns/air rifles/smallbore rifles was illegal, but there's not point in chasing after it now since it's been superseded.

Two potentially very damaging judgments here:

1. "Once he has accepted that there is a good reason, apparently the Superintendent is not permitted to make any judgment as to the suitability of the proposed firearm. That interpretation would make no sense; the reason and the weapon are inseparable."

2. "It remains a powerful indicator that superintendents may impose appropriate and reasonable conditions."

The first one is probably the most significant in that it now inextricably links 'good reason' with the firearm sought. In other words, a deciding officer can look at the reason and the firearm together and make their decision on that basis.

The second one is more familiar to us and anyone who read Dunne v Donohoe would have extrapolated the above corollary from that decision. It however does give a more explicit blessing to the imposition of individual conditions to firearms cert holder. On the plus side, it is tempered with the use of the words 'appropriate' and 'reasonable'.

rrpc

Some useful statements from the McVeigh case:

A person fails to exercise a discretion where he acts on the instructions or dictation of another party or applies an inflexible policy...

...It follows from this passage [from Dunne v Donohoe] that a decision reached by a superintendent in compliance with a general instruction or directive from a superior officer or, perhaps, from the Minister acts unlawfully and his decision may be set aside on that ground. In addition, however, the same result may follow where the decision-maker himself lays down a rigid policy from which he does not permit himself to depart.

This very clearly specifies that decisions must be arrived at through a process rather than from a 'policy'. It goes on to say:

On the other hand, it would be wrong to preclude a decision-maker from formulating guidelines by reference to which he makes it clear that he will make his decisions. It would be inimical to good administration and to consistency in decision-making to oblige all decision-makers to treat each decision entirely on its own, without reference to previous decisions or to criteria designed to serve the public interest.

Which again backs up the process vs policy argument, and which he concludes by saying:

Clearly, it will be difficult to draw the line between permissible guidelines and impermissible rigid and inflexible policies.

No sh*t Sherlock :rolleyes:

98b

What does this mean to anyone with an appeal pending or for those cases in Limerick last week as I was informed today that the chief down there in Limerick will now refuse to issue those licences .

BornToKill

"a dialogue of the deaf": sums it all up really well.

knockon

98b wrote: »

What does this mean to anyone with an appeal pending or for those cases in Limerick last week as I was informed today that the chief down there in Limerick will now refuse to issue those licences .

The CS will be held in contempt of court as the DC as allowed the appeal.

Sparks

knockon wrote: »

The CS will be held in contempt of court as the DC as allowed the appeal.

That would be very interesting as it'd mean that the DC was of the opinion that the Super was no longer the persona designata as a result of the Misc. Bill (which is how I think the situation is at the moment). Where we'd go from there, I'm not sure.

BornToKill

knockon wrote: »

The CS will be held in contempt of court as the DC as allowed the appeal.

What did the District Court actually direct? Did it order the CS to issue certificates or did it direct that he reconsider the applications or what?

Suffering Jbox

Sparks wrote: »

That would be very interesting as it'd mean that the DC was of the opinion that the Super was no longer the persona designata as a result of the Misc. Bill (which is how I think the situation is at the moment). Where we'd go from there, I'm not sure.

Sparks, not sure what you mean here....can you explain

Sparks

Suffering Jbox wrote: »

Sparks, not sure what you mean here....can you explain

The Misc.Provisions act said that a Super's decision on a licence can be appealed to the District Court, who can direct the Super to issue a licence; whereas before that point, even the High Court couldn't direct the Super to issue or not (they could only question his grounds for the decision and direct him to reconsider - the super could then refuse again, but on different grounds).

I've not seen any case so far where that particular point has been ruled on, but if a Super was instructed to grant (which I think was the case in Limerick), and then decided not to; that'd be a court case that would settle whether it was the Super or the Judge that was the licencing authority.

Suffering Jbox

I see... could the Super issue the licences and later revoke them citing this latest Judgment?

Sparks

Well, it's not so much "could he" as "would it be legal". As that last appeal today pointed out, even the Minister can make illegal decisions and it takes a court appearance to get it sorted, if it can be sorted.

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

The Misc.Provisions act said that a Super's decision on a licence can be appealed to the District Court

I think it was the CJA 2006 that contained the provision and inserted a new section 15A on appeals.

Bananaman

They'll tear you apart for having the nerve to claim to know something they didn't.

Better be sure you have your commas in the right places.

Brace yourself for a tirade of useless information .........

B'Man

meathshooter1

Suffering Jbox wrote: »

I see... could the Super issue the licences and later revoke them citing this latest Judgment?

some have been quoting mc carron all along which has completely different circumstances as it relates to applications for certs that where refused and certs that where never issued in the first place compared to DC appeals that applicants who have been previously granted certs and their circumstances haven't changed.what you will definitely see is more law abiding citizens and tax payers money been wasted in the courts.the whole idea of the new licencing system and guidelines was to bring all issuing authorities singing off the same sheet which is clearly not the case and has been an operational disaster

Grizzly 45

BornToKill wrote: »

What did the District Court actually direct? Did it order the CS to issue certificates or did it direct that he reconsider the applications or what?

Judge O Donnell stated that the certificates were to be issued to anyone present at court at that time.END OF!

Grizzly 45

98b wrote: »

What does this mean to anyone with an appeal pending or for those cases in Limerick last week as I was informed today that the chief down there in Limerick will now refuse to issue those licences .

Would you mind qouting WHO EXACTLY told you this??As this would be most helpful to our legal council.A PM would be fine as well.

BornToKill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Judge O Donnell stated that the certificates were to be issued to anyone present at court at that time.END OF!

I wasn't there. I'm only just asking. Specifically, did the Judge specify who was to issue the certs to the appelants present in court on the day?

Grizzly 45

I know you wernt there BTK,But to answer your question, it was the CS that was directed to issue.At least thats what I heard in the judical mumble up at the bench.

Kramer

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

END OF!

From what I'm hearing, that might just be the case, as in:

END OF ............... centrefire pistols
END OF ............... semi auto centrefire rifles
END OF ............... restricted rifles (eg. over .308 etc.)
END OF ............... anything out of the ordinary

I do hope you Limerick DC guys get your licences but I'd be chasing them up pretty sharpish. I too have heard they won't be issued automatically with a view to not issueing them at all
It'll be all down hill from here I reckon, now with the backing of the highest court in the land

Grizzly 45

Guys..[Im not having a go here at you Kramer BTW]
If you are going on "you have heard" this ,that and the other PLEASE PROVIDE WHO YOU ARE HEARING THIS FROM!!!!WHO is telling you this???? You can PM me or Knockon if you dont want to post this openly...We and proably in the end ALL OF US will need this information to fight this..If you know somthing and it is genuine please speak up.Otherwise quit spreading rumours!!!Because if you are not willing to back this up with some,who what,why,where.Thats all they are and will be teated as such! I am sick to DEATH of people coming up with this.We had all this sort of BS thru the ourt case as well.Right up to the day of the case.Be willing to stand over your info or dont post it at all!!

Kramer

Grizzly,
It's been a while since I last met you & as you know, I'm not one for rumours or repeating the BS I regularly hear from all corners. However, I'm not one to betray a confidence either.
I'll leave it at that & do hope you guys come out alright with your licences. All I'm suggesting is that you keep your eye on the ball & get after them pronto

Regarding the SC ruling, can no one see the ramifications of it?
It renders future DC appeals meaningless. SC find a Super & by inference CS can issue whatever conditions &/or refuse any application without challenge.
What DC judge is going to ignore a SC ruling?

That's certainly the way it's being looked at in "Dublin"

Not wishing to piss on anyone's parade & I didn't want to go to the trouble of PM'ing all those involved in the DC appeal so I decided to post openly.
Take it or leave it, just trying to help, or so I thought :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Kramer wrote: »

Grizzly,
It's been a while since I last met you & as you know, I'm not one for rumours or repeating the BS I regularly hear from all corners. However, I'm not one to betray a confidence either.

Kramer,your pedigree is fine with me.HOWEVER this is the problem of all this in Irish shooting circles. "I've heard that XYZ is true." But I cant say who said it."Well either it is true and no one has a problem with it bein g in the public domain,or they are selling manure.WHY is everyone so scared of speaking up???It WILL eventually get out and the sooner the better it can bethen counterd.

I'll leave it at that & do hope you guys come out alright with your licences. All I'm suggesting is that you keep your eye on the ball & get after them pronto

Every intention of it .

What DC judge is going to ignore a SC ruling?

Ahem...just about any of them in these cases.Since this is now written into law that the DC is the final arbitrater of this.

That's certainly the way it's being looked at in "Dublin"

Not wishing to piss on anyone's parade & I didn't want to go to the trouble of PM'ing all those involved in the DC appeal so I decided to post openly.
Take it or leave it, just trying to help, or so I thought :rolleyes:

Things like this it is worth the effort to PM,or even email.You still have mine?Or meet F2F.

dCorbus

Ah now, Kramer & 98b, WTF?

IMHO You can't just come on here , knowing full well that the very men involved in the case are regular posters, and proceed to lob grenades, such as:

From what I'm hearing, that might just be the case,

and

I was informed today that the chief down there in Limerick will now refuse to issue those licences

And then try to hide behind such pathetic excuses as:

I'm not one to betray a confidence either

You've already betrayed the confidence.

And now you won't even have the decency to back up your statements, either publicly or by PM. Shame on you, Sir! And I'm not f***in' joking this time.:mad:

Scaremongers, Scandalmongers, and Tattle-talers!

I note that 98b has two posts only - and one of them is this unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statement mentioned above. A sleeper perhaps?

These lads (grizzly45 et al) have gone to the trouble of appealing and winning back their licences, reporting to us all for our information how they got on, and all some of you can do is niggle and dig away with your insinuations and backstabbing and undermining - There's shooters' support for ya! Well done, Gentlemen!

(EDIT: Toned down a wee bit. But only a wee bit.)