Businessman loses appeal over firearm revocation

The Court of Appeal yesterday threw out an appeal brought by businessman and bailiff Robert Ivey over the revocation of his firearm licences by the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA). 

Ivey was ordered to pay legal costs to the FLA.

In dismissing the appeal, the court told Ivey that his plight, in obtaining permission to appeal against the decision of Supreme Court Judge Audrey Lindo, was unsuccessful. 

Ivey was first issued with a firearm user's licence by the FLA in 2012.

He was thereafter issued other firearm licences.

Subsequent to the issuance of those licences, an investigation was launched by the FLA in relation to allegations against Ivey.

After the investigation was concluded, the FLA revoked Ivey's licences and ruled that he was no longer considered a fit and proper person to retain a firearm licence.

Ivey took the issue to the Supreme Court in June challenging the decision of the FLA.

Lindo refused to grant him permission to apply for judicial review against the FLA's decision.

Legal arguments

Attorney-at-Law, Hugh Wildman, who represented  Ivey, argued in the Court of Appeal that Lindo had erred in law when she considered that an alternative remedy in the Review Board was available to Ivey at the time when the FLA made its decision and that he should have pursued that avenue.

Wildman submitted that there was no alternative remedy as there was no gazetted Review Board in place. 

Wildman also argued that the learned judge had failed to appreciate that Ivey was denied a fair hearing when the FLA made its decision. 

He also submitted that the decision of the FLA was irrational and there was the need for natural justice to be observed.

He said leave should have been granted in the circumstances.

Attorney-at-Law, Courtney Foster, who represented the FLA, argued that permission to appeal will only be given in circumstances where there is a real chance of success. 

Foster submitted that Lindo did not make an error of law or a misinterpretation of the facts when she refused to grant Ivey leave to apply for judicial review.

It was also argued by Foster that the Review Board was an alternative remedy available to Ivey at the time that the FLA made its decision but he had elected not to utilise that avenue and such action on his part was quite properly considered by Lindo.  

Foster said that the appointment of the Review Board was in conformity with the law.

She argued that where the Review Board is unreasonably delayed in hearing an application for review, an aggrieved party can approach the Minister of National Security, therefore, leave to apply for judicial review against the FLA's decision was properly denied by Lindo.

Privy Council 

Wildman told The Gleaner that Ivey plans to take the matter to the United Kingdom-based Privy Council because there are fundamental points of law to be determined. 

He said the privy council will have to determine whether a gazette dated June 16, 2020, appointing members of the Review Board can be made retroactive to cover a period from May 2019 when there was no gazetted board. 

It was stated in the gazette that the appointment of the board was to take effect from May 2019 to June 2022.

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on Twitter and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.