The High Court quashed a superintendent’s refusal to grant William Goodison a firearm certificate for a Glock 9mm pistol, but only because the public-safety reason given for the refusal fell outside the superintendent’s powers under the Firearms Act 1925.
In a judgment delivered on 2 May 2008, Mr Justice Michael Peart held that the Act’s public-safety test concerned whether the applicant could possess, use or carry a firearm without danger to public safety or the peace. Goodison had held certificates for three other firearms for many years, and no application had been made to revoke them. The court found no basis in the case for refusing the pistol application on that ground by assessing his suitability in relation to that particular weapon.
The refusal letter had also listed features of the Glock, including its military or police design, calibre and capacity, but did not explain how those features made it a danger to public safety compared with Goodison’s other firearms. The judge said the reason was unclear and incapable of review for that additional reason.
The court did not accept Goodison’s separate challenge to the superintendent’s finding that he had not established a “good reason” for requiring the Glock. Goodison had said before the decision that he wanted the pistol for target and club competitions. The superintendent understood target competitions to use lower-calibre pistols and was entitled to conclude, on the information then available, that Goodison had not shown why this particular firearm was reasonably required.
Goodison later stated in affidavits that he wanted to take part in competitive and practical shooting, including disciplines requiring a 9mm pistol. The judge said those details had not been provided to the superintendent before the refusal and could not be used to assess the decision. The applicant bore the responsibility of providing relevant information before the decision was made.
The court granted certiorari, quashing the refusal on the public-safety ground alone. It refused the requested declaration that the decision was ultra vires and without legal basis, because the “good reason” ground remained valid on the information available at the time. The judgment said Goodison could consider making a fresh application with fuller details of the competitions for which he required the pistol; the refusal letter also invited further representations.