The High Court has quashed a District Court decision refusing firearms certificates to a long-standing target shooter and remitted his appeal for reconsideration. It made no decision on whether the certificates should ultimately be granted.
In a judgment delivered on 9 July 2010, President of the High Court Kearns found that District Judge David Riordan had effectively applied restrictions on new firearms applications to Patrick Herlihy, who had held certificates for the firearms before 19 November 2008. The judgment said an exception preserved his eligibility to apply, so his application had to be assessed under the statutory test in section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended.
Herlihy had applied in August 2009 to renew certificates for two 9mm Sig Sauer pistols and four .357 Smith and Wesson revolvers. After Chief Superintendent Michael A. Finn refused the applications, Herlihy appealed to Cork District Court. The appeal was heard on 16 November and resumed on 30 November after written submissions.
Evidence included Herlihy’s account that he needed the firearms for specified WA 1500 target-shooting competitions. Garda Detective Inspector Kevin Brooks agreed the selected firearms were the most suited to those competitions, but considered the events to be “dynamic shooting” and argued that lower-calibre Olympic-style pistols were suitable for target shooting. Herlihy and a supporting witness disputed that characterisation.
The High Court said the District Judge had treated himself as having an unfettered discretion and relied on the firearms’ calibre and lethality, as well as the fact that such firearms were barred for new applicants. Kearns accepted that lethality could be a relevant consideration, citing a Supreme Court ruling, but found that the District Judge had given it and the later legislation such weight that he had not properly considered the merits of Herlihy’s individual application.
The judgment said there was no indication that the District Court had weighed whether Herlihy had a good and sufficient reason for the firearms or whether they were the only type appropriate for his stated purpose. It described the refusal as effectively an “a priori refusal”.
The High Court granted the relief sought and sent the appeal back to the District Court for further consideration. Kearns stressed that the ruling did not determine the merits: whether to grant the certificates remains for the District Court judge hearing the appeal.