The High Court has refused a firearms dealer’s application to quash the Minister for Justice’s refusal to grant an occasional import licence for a Westley Richards .470 double-barrel rifle.
In a judgment dated 17 December 2004, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy dismissed Neil McVeigh’s judicial review application. The court held that the Minister could consider policy when deciding import licence applications and concluded that the refusal was not unreasonable. It did not order the licence to be granted.
The application arose under section 17(4) of the Firearms Act 1925, which allows an occasional import licence to be granted to a person who holds or could be granted a firearms certificate, or to a registered firearms dealer. The Minister’s letters initially referred to a policy governing firearms certificates. In a later letter, the Minister said that only specified categories of firearms could be licensed for import and acknowledged that the policy was not set out in legislation.
The court agreed with the dealer on one point: the grant of an occasional import licence to a registered firearms dealer did not depend on that dealer holding a firearms certificate from a garda superintendent. The court said the antecedent question of whether a certificate would be granted was not relevant to the import licence decision.
However, it found that this did not prevent the Minister from applying an import licensing policy. The court said the Minister had to consider applications fairly and impartially, but could also take account of appropriate policy considerations. It noted that the Firearms Acts distinguished between sporting and other firearms and allowed conditions to be imposed on imports.
The Minister’s department had submitted that the policy sought to balance the legitimate use of firearms in sport against their lethal potential and possible misuse. The court considered the statutory distinction between sporting firearms and other firearms provided some basis for the policy. It also said the dealer had not given a reason for an exception in his case.
The dealer had sought to quash the refusal, declarations that the policy and decision were unlawful, and damages for interference with his ability to trade. The damages claim was not pursued at the hearing, and the court noted that no evidence of loss had been referred to in his affidavit. The application was refused.