The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Ronan McCarron to a superintendent’s refusal to grant him a firearm certificate for a .40-calibre Glock pistol, finding that the refusal was within the superintendent’s legal discretion and was not unreasonable.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 4 July 2008. The application concerned a refusal made in 2006 under section 4(a) of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended. The superintendent’s written reason was that he was not satisfied Mr McCarron had a good reason for acquiring that particular pistol because he did not consider it suitable for target practice.
Mr McCarron argued that the superintendent had no statutory basis to refuse the certificate once he had applied in good faith, was eligible to hold a firearm and had training in its use. He also alleged that the superintendent applied a general policy against higher-calibre handguns. The superintendent denied having such a policy, saying applications were considered on their merits. The judge accepted the superintendent’s evidence and was not satisfied that the refusal resulted from a prior decision or a general direction from Garda Headquarters.
The court held that an applicant must satisfy the superintendent that there is a good reason for requiring the specific firearm sought. In assessing that reason, the superintendent may consider public safety, the proliferation of firearms and characteristics including calibre, ammunition, velocity, lethal effect and intended use. The judge said the more dangerous the weapon, the greater the burden on an applicant to show good reason.
The court applied the ordinary judicial review test: whether the decision was fundamentally at variance with reason and common sense. It found no basis to set aside the refusal and stressed that judicial review did not allow the court to substitute its own decision or award a firearm certificate.
The judgment noted that legislation introduced an appeal route to the District Court for people aggrieved by a refusal of a firearm certificate. The High Court nevertheless decided the judicial review application before it: it refused the application. The judgment also criticised the division of firearm-control rules across multiple statutes and said codification was needed.