The High Court quashed a Superintendent’s refusal to issue a firearms certificate for a Killarney-area hunter’s .308 rifle and remitted the application for reconsideration. The court did not itself grant a certificate.
In a judgment delivered on 24 April 2008, Ms Justice Clark held that the refusal was so illogical and unreasonable that it met the demanding threshold for intervention in judicial review. The Superintendent must re-examine the application in accordance with the court’s findings.
The applicant had sought to replace his .243 hunting rifle with a bolt-action Steyr Mannlicher .308 rifle for deer hunting. He was an experienced shooter and had held firearms certificates and a wildlife licence. The Superintendent refused the application, saying the existing rifle was sufficient and that the .308 would pose an additional risk to public safety, including to hill walkers in the area. He also regarded the calibre as having military associations.
The applicant argued that the refusal reflected a fixed objection to the .308 calibre and failed to assess his application under the statutory criteria. The Superintendent disputed that account, maintaining that he was not satisfied the applicant had a good reason for this particular firearm or could use it without danger to public safety. He said the rifle’s greater power and the area’s recreational use supported the refusal. A Garda ballistics report advised that the .243 was adequate for deer hunting in Ireland and described both the .308 and .30-06 as unnecessary for that purpose.
The judge accepted that the Superintendent could seek expert advice and had to exercise his own statutory discretion. But she was concerned that the applicant’s ability to use the rifle safely had not been addressed. The reasoning focused on the firearm’s calibre and its capacity to fire military ammunition, rather than evidence that this applicant was more likely to endanger the public with the .308.
The court also considered the Superintendent’s indication that a .30-06 application would be viewed favourably. The judgment noted evidence that the .30-06 could deliver a projectile faster than the .308, making it difficult to reconcile the contrasting safety assessments. The judge said the inconsistency made the safety argument illogical.
The court therefore quashed the refusal and returned the application to the Superintendent for a fresh examination. The ruling addressed the decision-making process; it did not determine that the applicant was entitled to the certificate.