The Supreme Court declared unlawful a 2002 refusal by the Minister for Justice to grant firearms dealer Neil McVeigh an occasional licence to import a .470 calibre rifle, finding the decision had been based on an inflexible policy. The court did not quash the refusal, saying it was difficult to see what would be gained by doing so more than seven years later.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 11 May 2010, also dismissed appeals by Ronan McCarron and Joseph Magee over firearms certificates. The three appeals concerned decisions made under the Firearms Act 1925, as amended by the 1964 Act. The court noted that later legislative changes meant the outcome had limited, if any, practical importance for the future.
McCarron had sought a certificate for a .40 Glock pistol for target practice. The local superintendent refused, saying he did not consider it suitable for that purpose. McCarron argued that once he had shown a good reason for wanting a firearm, the superintendent could not judge whether that particular weapon was suitable. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation: the applicant’s reason and the firearm sought had to be considered together. It dismissed his appeal, which challenged the superintendent’s legal power to refuse on that ground, rather than the reasonableness or fairness of the decision.
Magee challenged conditions attached to a certificate for a .22 Sig pistol, including restrictions on possession, travel and use at an authorised firing range. He argued the superintendent could not impose such conditions. The court held that the statutory scheme gave superintendents power to attach appropriate and reasonable conditions when granting certificates, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court order.
McVeigh, a registered firearms dealer, applied in October 2002 to import a Westley Richards double-barrel .470 rifle. The Minister refused, citing a policy that restricted the firearms eligible for certificates and import licences. The Minister later said the policy was not set out in legislation. In response to McVeigh’s judicial review case, a Department of Justice official said the policy could be adjusted and that McVeigh had not given a particular reason for an exception.
The Supreme Court said decision-makers may use guidelines for consistency but must still consider each case individually. The Minister’s correspondence conveyed a rigid policy and offered McVeigh no opportunity to address an exception or the merits of the rifle. The court declared the refusal unlawful on that basis. It made no finding that McVeigh was entitled to the licence; the source records a declaration, not an order granting permission to import the rifle.