Supreme Court Appeal [READ POST 115 BEFORE POSTING]

knockon

+ 1 on that dCorbus.

With all the misinformation and scaremongering that has taken place since 2008 from all quarters it is understandable that the chinese whispers will circulate. Myself and the 2 boys had a very dood decision go our way last Friday. I have been assured by our Barrister that CS Sheahan is now obliged by the DC ruling to issue the FAC. If not he does not he will find himself in Contempt of Court.

Unless you are the CS or one of his 3 staff all other comments are pure speculation.

knockon

dCorbus wrote: »

A sleeper perhaps?

Excellent:D

dCorbus

Hmmmm......

Unless you are the CS or one of his 3 staff

I wonder?;)

bunny shooter

Lads, all I will add is NARGC won the "gun-safe" case and now unless you only own a single shotgun under the new legislation you have to get a safe, no new c/f licences can be issued ............................... anything shooters have "won" they have legislated so we loose ............. there is a clause in the new legislation that Minister can prohibit anything for any reason ......................... :mad:

I am getting a bad feeling here

Grizzly 45

Yo DCorbus!,
I appreciate the sentiments and your feelings on this,but I know Kramer I]havent seen him in ages[/I]:) [I]HINT 2 Kramer[/I and what you are saying about him is abit out of order too.
So I'll vouch for his credintils on this one

I'm sure Kramer posted this in good faith and in a spirt of wanting to help and without any malice aforethought to stir the [EMAIL="sh@@te,or"]sh@@te,or[/EMAIL] weird me and the lads out of it.

Trouble is ;it was proably somthing better said and done in a PM or email off the board where he could be more open.Or if he felt it was urgent enough arrange a face to face meet with me.

As I said unless you are wanting to stand over your info in public it is best kept to yourself,or passed on in a confidential manner.[IE face to face] Then it can be taken at a lot more value than just a posting on an open forum.Otherwise it comes across as unsubstntiated rumour or unverifable info on the internet.Which can be dangerous as well,as we can lose out on a vital warning.
So lets not shoot the messangers folks.Good messangers are hard to come by.They just have to know HOW to deliver the message!;)

dCorbus

Ok fair enough, grizzly45, point taken and you can obviously vouch for the lad. But I find it odd and annoying that lads think they can just "lob these grenades" and then fail to explain, corroborate, or back-up their rather sweeping, and oftentimes controversial statements.

I accept your point on kramer as you know him. But he does have a habit of making these kind of statements. Ok, that's the way some lads are - but if we're to glean any information or knowledge using this particular forum, all this hearsay is worse than useless, it's actually counterproductive.

what you are saying about him is abit out of order too.

As you are "vouching" for kramer and seeing as my post was in support of you lads in particular, I apologise for any offence I may have caused him and I take back my insinuations as to where he may have been coming from with all this. Sorry.

Can I just request one thing in return for my apology: When lads post things they purport to have heard or know on the QT, either keep it on the QT and don't post it, or let us know all the facts, and not drip feed the information?

But seeing as it was 98b who said you were not getting your licences coz he heard from a man who told a dog whose cat was the best friend of the commissioner, does anyone or can anyone vouch for this poster? or Can he back up his statement?

Grizzly 45

bunny shooter wrote: »

Lads, all I will add is NARGC won the "gun-safe" case and now unless you only own a single shotgun under the new legislation you have to get a safe, no new c/f licences can be issued ............................... anything shooters have "won" they have legislated so we loose ............. there is a clause in the new legislation that Minister can prohibit anything for any reason ......................... :mad:

I am getting a bad feeling here

You mean CF Handguns??
As for the safe ?Best bit of the whole sad sorry mess.Considering the stupid way some people were storing their guns.IE left out in sheds for ten years,never seen and liscensig them as normal,and they were nicked !On that part it is a pity it didnt include even single guns,as it seemingly is farmers single guns that are nicked the most.

Yeah,if can prohibit anything for whatever reason.Why the didnt he clear out the CF handguns when he had the chance??REASON compensation,and messy EU law on property.

bunny shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You mean CF Handguns??

Sorry, yes

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As for the safe ?Best bit of the whole sad sorry mess.Considering the stupid way some people were storing their guns.IE left out in sheds for ten years,never seen and liscensig them as normal,and they were nicked !On that part it is a pity it didnt include even single guns,as it seemingly is farmers single guns that are nicked the most.

+1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah,if can prohibit anything for whatever reason.Why the didnt he clear out the CF handguns when he had the chance??REASON compensation,and messy EU law on property.

+1 or to act the b******s with people like us people who dare to stand up to the Gardai or DOJ

Grizzly 45

Ok fair enough, grizzly45, point taken and you can obviously vouch for the lad. But I find it odd and annoying that lads think they can just "lob these grenades" and then fail to explain, corroborate, or back-up their rather sweeping, and oftentimes controversial statements.

I concur with you 100% on that point.

but if we're to glean any information or knowledge using this particular forum, all this hearsay is worse than useless, it's actually counterproductive.

FACT!

Can I just request one thing in return for my apology: When lads post things they purport to have heard or know on the QT, either keep it on the QT and don't post it, or let us know all the facts, and not drip feed the information?

Very true,either it is confident ,then keep it that way ,or be willing to stand over the information and your source.It's the way journalists work,and if it is TRUE and FACTUAL,you have nothing to worry about.

But seeing as it was 98b who said you were not getting your licences coz he heard from a man who told a dog whose cat was the best friend of the commissioner, does anyone or can anyone vouch for this poster? or Can he back up his statement?

[/QUOTE]

Ive asked him and via PM to please tell us the story either here or in a PM or F2F.Up to him.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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"

I doubt it - DC rulings can be appealed to the Circuit, High and Supreme courts (albiet under specific circumstances, it's not just a case of "darn, wrong decision, try again). So the courts are the final arbitrator, rather than a specific court.

Terrier

WILLIAM EGAN & ASSOCIATES have a review document of the 3 supreme court cases on the NARGC website

Suffering Jbox

Terrier wrote: »

WILLIAM EGAN & ASSOCIATES have a review document of the 3 supreme court cases on the NARGC website

Reading W Egan doc you would swear shooters won the cases! Heroic attempt to keep the gravy train rolling.

Grizzly 45

Maybe you should read the analisis of the judgement again??? It states quite clearly three times,and twice in the decision that it is virtually irrevelant as the decisions are already superceeded by the current legislation.All it does is bind certain decisions to current law which are in our favour.

Unless of course you are a lawyer or Senior Counsel ?????? If so I,and I am sure all here would like your interpertation of the decision????

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Maybe you should read the analisis of the judgement again??? It states quite clearly three times,and twice in the decision that it is virtually irrevelant as the decisions are already superceeded by the current legislation.All it does is bind certain decisions to current law which are in our favour.

Unless of course you are a lawyer or Senior Counsel ?????? If so I,and I am sure all here would like your interpertation of the decision????

The Charleton Judgment was in June 2008, some two years after the act that's being referred to as 'being superceded' came into law.

In any event, this is the actual kernel of that case as stated in the Supreme Court Judgment at least three times:

Mr. McCarron submits that the garda superintendent had no power to consider the calibre of the weapon, once he, as applicant, had provided a “good reason,” namely target practice, for wishing to use it

and also here (which might seem familiar to those going through DC cases at the moment):

Mr. McCarron challenges the Superintendent’s decision to refuse his application for a firearms certificate for a .40 Gloc [sic] pistol on the narrow ground that the reasons given by him related entirely to the nature of the firearm.

And finally here:

Mr. Gerard Hogan, Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Superintendent made his decision on the basis of a purely subjective appraisal of the type of firearm sought to be licensed, notwithstanding that the appellant had demonstrated good reason for possessing that firearm. A constant theme of Mr. Hogan’s argument was that the ultimate policy decision was a matter for the Oireachtás. It was, he said, unlawful for the Superintendent to have any policy regarding the types of firearms which should be licensed.

Mr. Hogan was attempting to characterise the Superintendent's decision as being of a 'blanket' nature and thus running against the judgment in Dunne v Donohoe. The Supreme Court weren't buying that line of argument:

The Court is required to decide, on this appeal, a comparatively straightforward question of statutory interpretation. Only section 4(a) of the Act of 1925 is relevant, since that is the provision invoked by the Superintendent. Before he grants a firearms certificate section 4 requires the Superintendent to be satisfied that the person applying for a firearms certificate “has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for…” I fail to understand the distinction drawn between the need to be satisfied regarding the existence of a good reason and whether there is a good reason for “requiring” the particular firearm. Both must necessarily be considered together. The Oireachtás has imposed an obligation on each Superintendent to satisfy himself of both matters. The “good reason” cannot be considered in isolation from the firearm required. I particularly fail to understand how the Superintendent can be said, in some way, to have usurped the province of the Oireachtás. The Act does not specify any particular firearm. Insofar as I understand the submission, it is that the Superintendent is limited to considering whether the applicant has put forward a “good reason.” 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.

So the court wasn't even concerend with a blanket policy as Mr. Egan states but with the attempted division of 'good reason' from the firearm required, which some may have felt was implied by Ms. Justice Harding Clark in O'Leary v Maher.

The bold bit above is the real kernel of that judgment, it means that you cannot state that because you have a good reason you can therefore have any firearm you want. The deciding officer can link the reason with the firearm and decide in totality that one is not suitable for the other.

Bananaman

I also read the judgement and William Egans analysis and I agree with that analysis

The Supreme Court upholding some of the high court decisions is a blow for those that brought the appeals but it makes no substantive difference to me or you

The Gardai can take the type of firearm into account when processing an application - they always could - if they refuse someone for daft reasons such as the type of firearm is evil there is still a case to be heard


The Gardai can attach conditions to a license - they always could - again if they attach daft conditions, that cannot be reasonably met or do not allow you to fulfil the purpose for which you applied for the license, then there is still a case to be heard

So like I said I do not see these decisions having any real impact on you, me or the dog

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I also read the judgement and William Egans analysis and I agree with that analysis

The Supreme Court upholding some of the high court decisions is a blow for those that brought the appeals but it makes no substantive difference to me or you

The Gardai can take the type of firearm into account when processing an application - they always could - if they refuse someone for daft reasons such as the type of firearm is evil there is still a case to be heard

They always could with the caveat as to whether it would be legal or not to do so. That was the kernel of the McCarron case and the Supreme Court has now stated unequivocally that they can. O'Leary v Maher could have answered this question two years ago except that the Superintendent in that case had rendered the question moot by suggesting that the applicant would get a licence for a marginally more powerful calibre rifle than the one sought and thus the substantive question was never answered there.

The Gardai can attach conditions to a license - they always could - again if they attach daft conditions, that cannot be reasonably met or do not allow you to fulfil the purpose for which you applied for the license, then there is still a case to be heard

Nope, they can now because of section 4(g) of the Firearms Act which only came into force last year, but prior to that there was no definitive statement in the firearms acts that they could impose any conditions to a cert. It was implied that they could in Dunne v Donohoe but not decided on as that case hinged on 'blanket' preconditions which were being imposed by the then Commissioner and were found to override the persona designata status of the deciding officer. That case established persona designata status for the first time and has now been further strengthened by the Supreme Courts statement that:

No doubt Mr. McCarron was disappointed with the Superintendent’s refusal of his application, particularly since other Superintendents in other areas had granted certificates for similar weapons. That is an obvious consequence of a system based on decisions of individual Superintendents each in his own district.

Which effectively means that not only is the Superintendent persona designata in licensing matters but if there's inconsistency between his decisions and another Superintendent's, well tough, that's the system and that's how it was designed.

So like I said I do not see these decisions having any real impact on you, me or the dog
B'Man

There'll be plenty of opportunities to find that out in the coming months.

Grizzly 45

Which effectively means that not only is the Superintendent persona designata in licensing matters but if there's inconsistency between his decisions and another Superintendent's, well tough, that's the system and that's how it was designed.

That is questionable now as well.

There'll be plenty of opportunities to find that out in the coming months.

Normal Doom and Gloom service will be resumed as soon as possible here on Boards.:rolleyes:

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That is questionable now as well.

Meaning?

Normal Doom and Gloom service will be resumed as soon as possible here on Boards.:rolleyes:

It's not all doom and gloom. If you read my second post on this subject regarding the McVeigh decision and the introduction of the words 'appropriate' and 'reasonable' with regard to licensing conditions (which waren't specifically used in the Firearms Act), there are some positive results from these decisions.

Just not sure how it'll pan out in real world DC decisions, which is why I said there'd be plenty of opportunities to find out.

Grizzly 45

Well, if the Super or CS is persona designata,and they are over ruled by a District Court judge.That would make the Judge the final arbitrater ??

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well, if the Super or CS is persona designata,and they are over ruled by a District Court judge.That would make the Judge the final arbitrater ??

Only if the Judge believes he has erred in law or in the carrying out of his functions under the law.

And since the Supreme Court has said that inconsistency is a built in part of the law, that road has narrowed somewhat.

Grizzly 45

rrpc wrote: »

And since the Supreme Court has said that inconsistency is a built in part of the law, that road has narrowed somewhat.

Meaning?

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Meaning?

That there are less grounds for appealing a decision since inconsistency is no longer an issue.

Grizzly 45

Dont see why it should make much of a difference.After all the granting of FACs was pre this decision a total incostintent matter and still is.All the SC judgement says is that it confirms inconsistency is a given in this process??

Rovi

Folks, while all this dissection of the judgements is very interesting and all, can we please bear in mind that many people still have cases before the courts and that these judgements can and will be used by the defendants for their own purposes of defending and justifying their original decisions?
Let's not be making their job easier for them by pointing out possible ways the judgements could potentially be viewed as being to the detriment of shooters.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Dont see why it should make much of a difference.After all the granting of FACs was pre this decision a total incostintent matter and still is.All the SC judgement says is that it confirms inconsistency is a given in this process??

True, I've not said it wasn't. It has been used as grounds for judicial review in the past though.

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

Folks, while all this dissection of the judgements is very interesting and all, can we please bear in mind that many people still have cases before the courts and that these judgements can and will be used by the defendants for their own purposes of defending and justifying their original decisions?
Let's not be making their job easier for them by pointing out possible ways the judgements could potentially be viewed as being to the detriment of shooters.

This is a bit of a new departure on here and in marked contrast to this:

Sparks wrote: »

Soon as it's over though rowa, full details (I think everyone wants to see the outcome of this one).

I suppose we should all be flattered to think that the finest legal minds in the land will be poring over our meanderings here for future legal strategies

BornToKill

Suffering Jbox wrote: »

Reading W Egan doc you would swear shooters won the cases!

In fairness, you would. Time will tell what exactly the losses mean but losses they were whatever gloss W Egan puts on it.

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

In fairness, you would. Time will tell what exactly the losses mean but losses they were whatever gloss W Egan puts on it.

You have to wonder how much that cost.
A high court case, taken to the supreme court and lost - that's what, four to five hundred thousand euro these days? That's a pretty hefty blow to any groups financial health.

I have a few more thoughts on the ruling and egan's comments, but I'll write them up later after some rest (I must be getting old ).

I will just make one point - the last time we got this heavily into the courts, we saw the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 come out and our sport was decimated. Frankly, I would have thought that the lesson that the Judicial branch is not a stick to beat the government with would have been learnt. Taking individual cases which obviously need arbitration to a DC, that's one thing and personally I think it's a necessary evil (though I think it should be a matter of last resort, following trying to sort it out through the NGBs and FCP and FPU first); but taking large numbers of high and supreme court proceedings, that doesn't strike me as being of use to anyone except the solicitors and barristers involved, and while the financial hardships and large unemployment rate in the legal sector are being publicly noted by the Law Society these days, I don't think we need to be the ones generating salaries for them...

Bananaman

You say that now - but when they come for the air pistols.........

B'Man

rowa

Bananaman wrote: »

You say that now - but when they come for the air pistols.........

B'Man

yep , that'll be any day now......