[2006]JRC178
royal court
(Samedi Division)
4th December 2006
Before : |
Sir Phillip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats de Veulle, and Morgan. |
Between |
Robert John David Milner |
Appellant |
|
|
|
And |
Connétable of St Helier |
Respondent |
The Appellant appeared on his own behalf.
The Connétable of St Helier appeared on his own behalf.
judgment
the bailiff:
1. This is an appeal by Robert John David Milner ("the Appellant") against the revocation of his firearms certificate by the Connétable of St Helier. The Appellant was the holder of a certificate authorising him to possess five firearms including a .22 semi-automatic rifle. No copy of the certificate was placed before us and we are not clear what, if any, conditions were attached. The certificates were revoked by the Connétable by letter dated 23rd June 2006. The Connétable relied upon Article 3(5)(b) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 ("the Law") which is in the following terms:
"(5) A firearm certificate may be revoked by the Connétable on any of the following grounds -
...(b) that the Connétable has reason to believe that the holder can no longer be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his or her possession without danger to the public or to the peace."
2. On 14th July, 2006, a notice of appeal in proper form was served upon the Connétable pursuant to Article 55 of the Law. The Appellant's notice contended that (a) he no longer had the firearms in his possession and the Connétable could not therefore continue to have the belief that the Appellant constituted a danger to the public or to the peace, and (b) he had not been charged or convicted of any offence.
3. At the time of the hearing it was not disputed that the Appellant had in fact been charged and convicted, after a guilty plea, of offences against the Law, namely of possession of a firearm otherwise than in accordance with his certificate, we are not clear in what respect the firearm was not held in accordance with the certificate, but nothing turns on that in this appeal. The Magistrate fined the Appellant a total of £150.
4. The facts leading up to the Connétable's decision to revoke the certificate are these. On the afternoon of Monday 1st May, 2006, the Connétable of Grouville and Centenier Godel went to the premises known as "Happy Hens", Rue de la Sente Mailllard in Grouville following a complaint from a neighbour that bullets had ricocheted off his property. On their arrival the Connétable of Grouville and Centenier Godel had seen two Polish men in a field. Centenier Godel asked if they were in possession of firearms or had been using weapons, and received negative replies. Centenier Godel walked over to a vehicle parked nearby and saw two firearms on open view on the back seat. The Centenier was an experienced user of firearms and recognised the weapons as being a .22 Marlin semi-automatic rifle and an air rifle. He opened the door of the vehicle and picked up the .22 Marlin rifle to ascertain if it was loaded or had recently been fired. Upon working the action a live round popped out and fell to the ground. The air rifle was unloaded and broken open.
5. The Polish men were questioned again. One of them was an employee of the Appellant, but the other was not. They admitted that they had been using the weapons. Centenier Godel then telephoned the Appellant and learned that he had given permission to his foreman to use the weapons for pest control, but that the foreman was out of the island. The Appellant had been drinking and was unable to drive to the farm. The Centenier learned from the Polish man that they had access to a gun cabinet on the farm. He and the Connétable of Grouville inspected the cabinet which was unlocked and contained three further weapons, namely shotguns.
6. The Centenier telephoned the States of Jersey Police and officers came to the farm and took possession of all the firearms. These facts were reported to the Connétable of St Helier by letter of 16th June, 2006, from Chief Inspector Minty. That letter informed the Connétable that the Appellant had been warned in relation to an incident on 28th July 2004 when an employee had been shooting seagulls and discharged shotgun pellets had landed on the complainants. The letter also informed the Connétable that the Appellant's application form for a firearm certificate had declared that the weapons would be stored at his home address in St Helier.
7. The Appellant's written grounds of appeal were, as we have stated above, first, that at the time when the Connétable revoked the certificate the Appellant was not in possession of any firearms and could not therefore have constituted a danger to the public or to the peace. We have no hesitation in rejecting that ground of appeal. In determining whether or not the Appellant's possession of firearms constituted such a danger, the Connétable was perfectly entitled to have regard to the circumstances leading up to the seizure of the firearms. The second ground of appeal was that the Appellant had not been convicted of any offence, and that now clearly falls away.
8. The most potent argument advanced by the Appellant in oral submissions was however quite different. He operates a chicken farm which inevitably attracts rodents and other vermin. Firearms were needed, he submitted, not only to deal with rats but also crows, magpies and seagulls which attacked the eggs. The Appellant contended that he would use the firearm himself, but would also authorise his staff to do so. He had been given to understand that such authority could be given if he was personally present when his employees were engaging in pest control.
9. Both the Appellant and the Connétable represented themselves and the Court has had, therefore, no assistance as to the applicable law. The following comments represent the Court's best efforts to ascertain the law from its own researches, but clearly must be to the extent that submissions from Counsel in any later case show them to be wrong. We express the hope that in future public authorities might reflect upon their duty to assist the Court by employing legal counsel. We do not intend any criticism of the Connétable in this case whose submissions were clear and as helpful as they could be. Inevitably, however, they could not deal with any point of law upon which the Court would have wished to receive assistance.
10. The Law is a comprehensive statute which enacted new provisions for controlling, inter alia, the possession of firearms. It brought shotguns within the process of certification for the first time. It was enacted against a background of public concern about proliferation of firearms in private hands, and the consequential risks posed to public safety.
11. Article 3(5) of the Law empowers the Connétable to revoke firearm certificates if he is satisfied:
"...that the holder no longer has a good reason for having in [his] possession ...the firearm or ammunition which he or she is authorised by the certificate to have in his or her possession."
The appellant conceded that there was no practical justification for his possession of the .22 Marlin semi-automatic rifle which has a range of over a mile and is quite unsuitable for pest control. For our part we can see no reasonable necessity for the possession of three shotguns. We express the hope that licensing authorities will pay greater regard to this statutory provision and exercise a more robust attitude in determining "good reason" to possess a firearm.
12. The appellant told us that he had been advised that it was permissible for his employees to use his firearms for the purpose of pest control provided that he was present at the time. We think that this advice is potentially misleading. It is true that Article 2 of the Law prohibits the possession and not the use of a firearm without a certificate. Much depend upon how the word 'possession.' Is construed. The practicalities of pest control seem to us however to make it unlikely that the appellant will want to supervise an employee while the firearm is used for that purpose. The sensible alternative is to encourage any responsible employee who might use a firearm for pest control to obtain a certificate for that firearm. The Connétable could then satisfy himself that that employee was fit to be entrusted with a firearm.
13. Article 55 of the Law provides for appeals against, inter alia, the revocation of a firearms certificate by any aggrieved person. Article 55(3)(b) provides that, on the hearing of any appeal under this article, the Court may:
"(b) either dismiss the appeal or give the Connétable or the Minister such directions as it thinks fit as respect the certificate or register which is the subject of the appeal."
14. We have no hesitation in concluding that the Connétable's decision to revoke the Appellant's firearms certificate was a reasonable and proportionate reaction to the circumstances brought to his attention. Those circumstances included the fact that the Appellant's firearms had been used irresponsibly by an employee and some other unknown person. The firearms had been left in an unlocked vehicle, and one of them was loaded. The secure cabinet belonging to the Appellant had been left unlocked. The Appellant claimed that the key to the cabinet had been left in a secure place, but that did not evidently prevent his employee from finding it and using the firearms. Ammunition had been left in an unlocked drawer. The Appellant's response to these matters was that it was not his fault and that his employee had acted in an unauthorised and irresponsible way.
15. In our judgment this is a wholly inadequate and unacceptable stance to adopt. The possession of a firearm is a privilege not a right. This is not a community where the bearing of firearms is some traditional right. A firearm is a dangerous weapon and the legislature has recently indicated, through the enactment of the Law, that the possession and handling of firearms are to be strictly controlled. If the privilege granted to the holder of a firearms certificate is abused, it should be withdrawn. The Connétable was entirely correct to take a very serious view of the careless way in which the Appellant approached his duties under the Law. A key to a secure cabinet containing firearms should not be left in some accessible place in the vicinity of the cabinet. Too many tragedies have occurred by reason of unauthorised persons, including children, gaining access to firearms which were not secured. A statutory condition of the holding of a firearm certificate is that the firearm should at all times be stored in a secure manner. The Appellant failed lamentably in that regard.
16. Only one matter has given us cause for concern. It appears that the Appellant was not interviewed by the States of Jersey Police nor given any opportunity by the Connétable to give his side of the story before the firearms certificate was revoked. There may be exceptional circumstances in which the situation demands an immediate revocation of a firearms certificate. In general, however, fairness requires that the holder of a certificate should be given the opportunity to show cause why the certificate should not be revoked. We considered whether we should quash the revocation and send the matter back for reconsideration by the Connétable in the light of all matters raised during the hearing of this appeal. The Connétable did however reassure us that it was open to the Appellant to make a fresh application and that he would approach such an application with an open mind. In order to avoid any possible prejudice to the Appellant, we have decided to approach the matter de novo. The Appellant has now had the opportunity to advance all the arguments which he was not able to advance before the Connétable. Taking all those matters into account we would have reached exactly the same decision as the Connétable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
17. Article 9(1) of the Law provides that it is a statutory condition of a firearms certificate that the holder should inform the Connétable who issued the certificate and the States of Jersey Police of any change in the holder's place of residence. The purpose of this provision is presumably to ensure that the authorities know where the firearms are stored. What happened in this case was that the firearms were stored in a shed far away from the Appellant's residence without any notification having been given either to the States of Jersey Police or to the Connétable of St Helier. We do not know, because we have not seen the certificate in question, whether the keeping of firearms elsewhere than at the Appellant's place of residence amounted to a breach of a condition. We doubt however that it amounted to a breach of Article 9, and we express the hope that consideration might be given by the Minister of Home Affairs to the adequacy of the existing statutory provision.
Authorities
Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000.