Tracey v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the Applicant for leave to seek certiorari to quash the decision of a Chief Superintendent dated 28 January 2022, which refused the Applicant's application for licences for two restricted firearms. The Applicant's application for leave was made approximately seven weeks out of time, with the Applicant citing difficulties related to a diagnosed disability (dyslexia) as justification for an extension of time. The Respondent initially objected to the late application but withdrew the objection subject to verification of the Applicant's diagnosis.

The Applicant is a litigant in person, safety officer of a gun club, and qualified supplier of wild game. He had previously held a firearms licence prior to difficulties beginning in 2017. The background includes an incident in 2016 involving the shooting of the Applicant's two dogs following a neighbourly dispute, which led to the seizure of the Applicant's firearms and refusal of licence applications in 2019 and subsequently in 2022. The refusal decisions were based on concerns for public safety, particularly due to the Applicant's failure to provide contact details for the persons to whom he allegedly gave the dogs.

The Applicant appealed the 2019 refusal to the District Court under the statutory appeal procedure but was unsuccessful and withdrew a further intended appeal to the Circuit Court. The Applicant did not exhaust the statutory appeal remedy available under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended, before seeking judicial review. The Court notes the statutory appeal provides a broad and specialist remedy including powers to direct reconsideration of the decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an extension of time to apply for leave to seek judicial review given his claimed disability and the circumstances of the delay.
2. Whether the Chief Superintendent acted in excess of jurisdiction or failed to provide adequate and lawful reasons for refusing the firearms licence applications.
3. Whether the Applicant was required to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under section 15A of the Firearms Act before seeking judicial review.
4. Whether the statutory appeal process is an effective and more appropriate remedy compared to judicial review in this context.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Chief Superintendent acted outside his jurisdiction and failed to provide adequate reasons for refusal.
• The information requested by the Chief Superintendent (contact details of persons allegedly given the dogs) does not relate to public safety.
• The Applicant no longer has the information sought and asserts that not remembering details several years later is not a matter of public safety.
• The Applicant claims he was not afforded a fair hearing before the District Court during his appeal of the 2019 decision and thus did not pursue the statutory appeal remedy for the 2022 decision.
• The Applicant contends that only this Court can provide a fair process, justifying bypassing the statutory appeal.
• The Applicant requested reasonable accommodation for his disability in filing late papers.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence of a dyslexia diagnosis to justify extension of time on grounds of disability.
• The statutory appeal remedy under section 15A is an effective and more appropriate remedy than judicial review and should have been exhausted.
• The Applicant's failure to pursue the statutory appeal remedy is a significant procedural deficiency.
• The Applicant's allegations of unfairness in the District Court appeal are unsupported by evidence and were not put on affidavit, denying the Respondent opportunity to respond.
• The concerns about public safety are legitimate and based on the Applicant's inconsistent accounts and failure to provide verifiable details about the dogs' disposition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first considered the Applicant's request for an extension of time on grounds of disability. It found the Applicant's affidavit and GP report insufficiently evidencing a formal diagnosis of dyslexia, and that the Applicant had ample time to produce adequate evidence. Nonetheless, due to the relatively short delay and credible difficulties presented, the Court proceeded to consider the underlying merits of the judicial review application.

The Court examined the nature of the firearms as restricted and accepted the Applicant's concession on this point. It reviewed the statutory framework under the Firearms Act 1925, as amended, including the conditions for granting a firearm certificate and the statutory appeal process under section 15A.

In assessing the Applicant's challenge, the Court noted the Applicant's inconsistent and incomplete accounts concerning the fate of his dogs, which formed the basis for public safety concerns justifying refusal of the licence. The Chief Superintendent's concerns were deemed reasonable given the failure to provide verifiable contact details for the purported new owners of the dogs.

The Court emphasized the availability and appropriateness of the statutory appeal remedy under section 15A, which offers a broad and specialist review including the possibility of reconsideration by the issuing authority. It found the Applicant's decision not to pursue this remedy unjustified, particularly as allegations of unfairness in the prior District Court appeal were unsupported by affidavit evidence.

Relying on established case law, the Court held that judicial review is generally inappropriate where an effective alternative remedy exists, unless there is a fundamental breach of fair procedures or lack of jurisdiction. The Applicant failed to demonstrate such exceptional circumstances.

Consequently, the Court found the Applicant's judicial review challenge neither strong nor compelling, and declined to exercise discretion to extend time or grant leave to seek judicial review.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Applicant leave to seek judicial review of the Chief Superintendent's decision dated 28 January 2022 refusing firearms licences.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant's challenge to the refusal remains unsuccessful and the statutory appeal remedy under section 15A of the Firearms Act remains the appropriate avenue for such disputes. No new precedent was established by this ruling. The Court also indicated that the Respondent is entitled to costs, with a further hearing scheduled to determine final orders on costs.