Seanad exchange on the recent court cases

Sparks

It's not quite a question, but.

Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Seanad Éireann Debate
Vol. 214 No. 4

Senator Pat O’Neill: I wish to share time with Senator Paschal Mooney.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Pat O’Neill: I thank the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, for coming to the Seanad to deal with this issue and know he will pass on my comments to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter.

It is common knowledge that the firearms licensing system is problematic. The number of challenges in both the High Court and the District Court, in which over 95% of decisions have gone against the Garda, bears testament to this. I am particularly concerned about the remarks of Judge Hedigan on these cases which have highlighted the fact that the system cannot continue and needs to be reviewed.

The National Association of Regional Game Councils, or the NARGC as it is commonly known, which supported these cases was the strongest advocate of the new firearms legislation when it was introduced in 2009 and played a pivotal role in the consultation process, including chairing the most important user group, the Firearms Consultative Panel. It warned of deficiencies in the administration of the system, including the absence of a statutory declaration under the wildlife Acts on the licence application form to give effect to the hunting licence endorsement on the firearms licence, but its warnings were ignored. This resulted in an unnecessary High Court challenge which had the effect of forcing the State to amend the wildlife Acts on a temporary basis to get over a legal lacuna and the costs were paid for by the taxpayer.

Licenses will be renewed again in the coming months and we will be faced with this problem yet again because, thus far, no permanent solution has been suggested. In recent days the Garda Commissioner has issued an amended licence application form, but it still does not address the issue of the absence of a statutory declaration. As a result, the NARGC feels unable to continue its support for the system and the recent court cases are the consequence.

The NARGC is a largely rural-based organisation which has a long track record of responsible ownership of sporting firearms and setting high standards and organising educational programmes. In fact, it was one of the first organised sports shooters’ organisations in the State, providing structured education in the shooting disciplines since its foundation in 1968. One only has to visit its website to see this. As a rural Senator and farmer, I am very aware of how important game and shooting clubs and game hunting are to rural people and of how important the NARGC is in parishes as the national representative association. I am also aware that it is vital for the Garda to enjoy the confidence and support of rural communities and that anything which threatens this must be avoided. It is, therefore, lamentable that the NARGC which has always supported the rule of law should find it necessary to sue the Garda to have its concerns listened to and dealt with. In the vast majority of cases the courts have agreed with the NARGC. Why is this the case? Clearly, it is a knowledgeable and responsible association; why, therefore, is the State not listening to it? It obviously has a huge contribution to make and must be part of the solution. The courts seem to believe it is certainly not the problem.

The State would do well to pay attention to what the NARGC has to say when a problem arises, rather than trying to defend cases which are indefensible, with serious cost implications for the taxpayer, as we have witnessed in the aforementioned cases. Do we have so much money to waste? Any reading of the court transcripts of the Garda evidence and Judge Hedigan’s interventions in the High Court confirms beyond argument that gardaí were guilty of wrongdoing. Statements to the Oireachtas that cases were settled without admission of wrongdoing serve only to mislead and alienate the very people who were victims of the wrongdoing.

I have met the leaders of the NARGC and I am satisfied that their only wish is to have a firearms licensing system in place which is secure, fair, transparent and free of prejudice and which is administered in a consistent manner, with due regard for the provisions of the legislation as enacted by the Oireachtas. The State maintains it always wishes to work with stakeholders. It cannot be only when stakeholders are in agreement with the State on all matters. I will conclude by urging the Minister to ask the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to engage with the National Association of Regional Game Councils, NARGC, as a matter of urgency to bring to a conclusion what is an unsatisfactory state of affairs on many fronts.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I am grateful to my colleague, Senator O’Neill, for allowing me to participate in this debate because he and I are nominees of the National Association of Regional Game Councils in Seanad Éireann and therefore have an ongoing interest in this particular issue. I endorse everything Senator O’Neill said and my only additional contribution is to note this ongoing and unresolved problem has existed for a number of years. As Senator O’Neill noted, the previous Administration introduced what in my opinion and that of the NARGC was a stopgap measure in respect of the existing licences to address a lacuna in the law. I believe this will run out in 2013 or 2014.

Senator Pat O’Neill: It will run out next October.

Senator Paschal Mooney: Therefore, the Government must address this issue anyway. This obligation has been further enhanced, as Senator O’Neill has noted, by the recent court case which was indefensible and the judge’s judgment was clear in this regard. However, the simple message that has been put forward by Senator O’Neill and the council is to engage in consultation with those who are engaged in this process and who have expertise in this regard. They have no agenda other than to ensure the law is straightened out and they can continue to operate within the law, as they have always done.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I thank both Senators for raising this matter on the Adjournment. I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, who regrets he is unable to be present due to other business.

It is understood that the Senators are referring to a recent High Court case involving judicial reviews of decisions by chief superintendents in firearms cases. What was at issue were decisions by chief superintendents to refuse applications for licences for high-calibre handguns. That case was settled with no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the State and with an undertaking to consider applications afresh and give reasons to applicants where applications are turned down.

It is important to state the vast majority of licensed firearms holders have encountered no problems with the new licensing regime. The number of cases involved in this regard is 168, which constitutes a tiny minority of firearms licence applications. In general terms, Members may recall that for more than 30 years prior to 2004, all handguns effectively were banned in this jurisdiction. Following a series of judicial decisions, however, almost 2,000 handguns were licensed between 2004 and 2008. This situation did not come to pass as a result of a decision by the Oireachtas. The return of handguns also gave rise to new forms of target shooting, which is a cause of concern to the Garda Commissioner. It is worth noting that the use of handguns is illegal for hunting under the Wildlife Acts and as they are not licensed for personal protection in the State, there is a very limited potential use for them.

The Minister is particularly conscious of Mr. Justice Hedigan’s remarks that:

The licensing of powerful rifles and handguns is a matter of the gravest [concern]. The Oireachtas has legislated for the licensing of such...dangerous weaponry on a restricted basis. The Commissioner and, through designation by him, chief superintendents, have been charged with a heavy responsibility of decision as to who should be given such restricted arms licences. It is a grave responsibility because the consequences of a mistake may be devastating.

The judge went on to state:

These courts, let it be quite clear, like the Garda Síochána, know better than anyone else in this country the tragic and devastating consequences of gun crime. The strictest regulation of dangerous weaponry is essential if society is to be spared the menace of proliferating gun crime.

The Minister, Deputy Shatter, shares the judge’s views on this matter.

The Oireachtas in the Criminal Justice Act 2006 made the Commissioner responsible for licensing restricted firearms while the licensing of non-restricted firearms is a matter for superintendents. The Commissioner, by delegating his functions for licensing restricted firearms to chief superintendents, shows the importance he places on regulating this dangerous weaponry. At present, a chief superintendent is charged with making a decision on a restricted firearms certificate and he or she cannot be subject to directions in respect of how this discretion is exercised. Members of An Garda Síochána are the people best placed to make decisions on firearms licensing and it would be helpful if the NARGC came to terms with that reality. It must be stated frankly that recent intemperate material produced by that association undermines any requests which it makes for a spirit of co-operation in this area. In light of such issues, which arose in the proceedings referred to by Senator O’Neill, the Minister sought a report from the Garda Commissioner. The Minister has received an interim report on the matter and awaits a full report from the Garda Commissioner.

The Commissioner has indicated he shares the concern expressed by the judge in the case about the alteration of documents after proceedings had commenced. In the case of the evidence given by another member of An Garda Síochána, the Commissioner has indicated that, while an issue did arise regarding the completion of parts of the application forms, he is satisfied the applications were decided in accordance with that person’s understanding of the relevant firearms legislation, decisions were recorded in notifications to applicants, and those decisions were informed by understandable concerns of public safety in light of the difficult position concerning crime in his division. The Commissioner points out that the parts of the forms in question are not a statutory requirement under the firearms legislation and are geared towards the requirements of recording data on the PULSE system through the ticking of a number of boxes. The Commissioner is addressing as a matter of urgency the whole process of firearms licensing and the administrative functions associated with it in light of the outcome of those court proceedings and will report to the Minister again when he has completed that review.

Tragically, Members will have been reminded in recent weeks of the dangers which licensed firearms can pose for members of An Garda Síochána and others and of the dangers of firearms generally. For his part, the Minister is determined to ensure that in the operation of the firearms licensing system, the question of public safety is paramount.

Senator Pat O’Neill: I accept the Minister’s comments. As for the 168 cases that were brought before the High Court and Mr. Justice Hedigan, one should note these were not new applications but pertained to people who had held handguns and who were renewing their licences. The fact they were forced to bring these cases means the licensing system does not appear to be working. As I noted earlier, 95% of these cases have been upheld by the courts. While I do not suggest the Garda is always wrong, the point the NARGC and I are making is the licensing system must be examined. At present, 120 people in the country make the decisions in this regard. In other words, in each Garda district, the Commissioner, assistant commissioners and superintendents make such decisions, whereas I propose that consideration be given to a centralised licensing system. I note such a system is in operation in Northern Ireland and while all Members are aware of the problems experienced there with regard to guns, they were not caused by licensed guns and one should be worried about unlicensed guns instead.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I will reply briefly to both Senators and will respond in particular to the comments just made by Senator O’Neill. I will speak personally to the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on this matter. I will refer in particular to the last point he raised, which is that consistency and a single point of licensing might obviate some of the problems experienced.

Senator Pat O’Neill: It also would free up gardaí.

tac foley

Senator O'Neill has hit the nail squarely on the head -

'Senator Pat O’Neill: I accept the Minister’s comments. As for the 168 cases that were brought before the High Court and Mr. Justice Hedigan, one should note these were not new applications but pertained to people who had held handguns and who were renewing their licences. The fact they were forced to bring these cases means the licensing system does not appear to be working. As I noted earlier, 95% of these cases have been upheld by the courts. While I do not suggest the Garda is always wrong, the point the NARGC and I are making is the licensing system must be examined. At present, 120 people in the country make the decisions in this regard. In other words, in each Garda district, the Commissioner, assistant commissioners and superintendents make such decisions, whereas I propose that consideration be given to a centralised licensing system. I note such a system is in operation in Northern Ireland and while all Members are aware of the problems experienced there with regard to guns, they were not caused by licensed guns and one should be worried about unlicensed guns instead.'

tac

Sparks

The latter point you've highlighted is certainly true enough tac, though I'd dispute the first point; the fact that we have 200,000 or so licences granted without issue is not an indication that the system isn't working. It's not perfect, but at worst, it's like finding a chunk of unwanted pineapple on your slice of pizza. You can either shrug your shoulders, pick it off and enjoy the pizza... or you can be the screaming six-year-old in the restaurant ruining everyone's quiet evening off.

Me, I pick off the pineapple and enjoy the pizza. But hey, that's just me, I'm in it for the pizza, not the screaming.

Moving this out to its own thread to try to keep the PQ thread as an archive thread...

rowa

But its not just shooter frustrated with the licencing system , the local fo isn't happy with it either as it takes 30-40 mins to enter each application onto the computer system.
It also appears the issue of the chief supers interfering with the application forms has been given a nice coat of whitewash and "no wrong doing" is the party line now :rolleyes: , fianna fail in all but name this shower.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

But its not just shooter frustrated with the licencing system , the local fo isn't happy with it either as it takes 30-40 mins to enter each application onto the computer system.

But that's just PULSE. (And possibly the same kind of problem that has seen seven-year-olds become a necessary tool to use for parents to set the time on DVD players and microwaves...)

(and by "just" I mean that it applies to everything the Gardai do with PULSE - it's not just firearms. It's bad and needs to be fixed but it's nothing to do with us directly)

It also appears the issue of the chief supers interfering with the application forms has been given a nice coat of whitewash and "no wrong doing" is the party line now :rolleyes: , fianna fail in all but name this shower.

Yup, but if we sign up to a court settlement absolving them of all wrongdoing, we can hardly complain!

sfakiaman

Sparks wrote: »

It's not perfect, but at worst, it's like finding a chunk of unwanted pineapple on your slice of pizza. You can either shrug your shoulders, pick it off and enjoy the pizza... or you can be the screaming six-year-old in the restaurant ruining everyone's quiet evening off. ...

To equate law abiding citizens who bring an injustice to court with screaming six year olds is facile. You may be happy to pick the pineapple off your pizza, but spare a thought for those who have lost their pizza and now have to buy a piece of pineapple.

Sparks

sfakiaman wrote: »

To equate law abiding citizens who bring an injustice to court with screaming six year olds is facile. You may be happy to pick the pineapple off your pizza, but spare a thought for those who have lost their pizza and now have to buy a piece of pineapple.

You've misread the analogy. Those who're forced to go to court aren't the six-year-olds. Those who think that because less than 0.1% of applications result in problems, people need to be fired, the whole system torn down and rebuilt from scratch; those are the six-year-olds in the analogy.

And frankly, when the six-year-olds run around screaming and throwing food because of a bit of pineapple after ordering a slice of Hawaiian pizza in the first place, it's hard to feel much empathy.

And I think we might have broken the analogy at this point.