Firearm holders warned not to jump gun with challenges

The Court of Appeal has urged firearm holders not to ignore the statutory remedies available to them in the event of disagreements with the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) over the revocation of user licences.

The available remedies are first to appeal to the Review Board and the minister of national security. If dissatisfaction persists, the matter can be taken to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal made the call last Friday when it dismissed an appeal brought by electrician Steadman Broderick against the FLA and ordered him to pay the legal costs of the licensing body.

Broderick’s application for renewal of his firearm’s licence was denied by the FLA in August 2019 on the basis that he had failed to establish the need to continue being armed.

The FLA stated that Broderick’s licence expired in April 2018, and he applied for renewal in October that year. The FLA said that findings of its investigation into whether Broderick’s licence should be renewed showed that he resided, and worked, in Canada.

A request for an explanation for the six-month application delay was not forthcoming. As a result, the FLA revoked the licence.

The claimant filed an application in January 2020 in the Supreme Court seeking leave to go to the Judicial Review Court to have the order quashed. The application was refused in October that year, with Justice Natalie Hart-Hines ruling that Broderick had not pursued the statutory remedies before coming to court.

The judge awarded costs to the FLA on the basis that Broderick acted unreasonably in making the application when an alternative remedy was available to him. He contended that the FLA did not have the authority under the act to revoke the licence for the reason it did.

Broderick stated in court documents that he had contracts to carry out work for entities, including the Jamaica Public Service Company. Those contractual obligations, said Broderick, required him to work in violence-plagued communities throughout Jamaica that necessitated a firearm licence.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who represented Broderick, argued that the Supreme Court judge was wrong to have formed the view that his client had an alternative remedy available to him.

Attorney-at-law Courtney Foster, who represented the FLA, implored the court to uphold the Supreme Court ruling that there was an alternative remedy available to Broderick.

The appeal court noted that Broderick was aware that the Review Board was available to him for a re-evaluation of the decision of the FLA, but he elected not to pursue it.

The court also found that he did not have an exceptional reason for not approaching the Review Board. The court indicated that parties who find themselves in circumstances simliar to Broderick’s should not disregard statutory mechanisms.

Broderick had complained that the reason for not going to the Review Board was because it was continuously breaching the act by failing to review matters within 90 days.

In dismissing the appeal, the court ruled that Broderick failed to show that the judge had exercised her discretion on an erroneous premise when she refused the application. The judge had also given directions for Broderick to pursue the remedy, the court said.

The court pointed out that the Review Board can now grant Broderick an extension for his appeal to be heard.