Lawyer asks CoP to suspend new firearm licence directives

POLICE Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher has been asked to suspend her directives to holders of firearm licences seeking to renew their permits.

These include the payment of $500 to renew the licence, a certificate of competence issued by a registered firearm instructor, a medical certificate and submission of a renewal application for a firearm licence before April 1.

The request was made by attorney Nyree Alfonso who has taken issue with two notices issued by the commissioner on the renewal process for firearm users licences (FUL).

On January 4, Alfonso and a legal officer of the police service exchanged correspondence in relation to the attorney’s complaint a day earlier.

Legal officer Anya Ramute-Mohan responded to Alfonso’s letter asking for 28 days to get instructions from the commissioner and the relevant departments of the police service.

She said a response “should be forthcoming on or before February 1.”

However, Alfonso, in her reply, said if the commissioner’s legal advisers needed 28 days to respond to her concerns, then it would “only be just and equitable” to suspend the notices on FUL renewals.

“With respect, if the Commissioner of Police is unable to respond substantively to the matters and issues raised in my correspondence, then I must insist on receiving a substantive response within seven days of the date hereof.

“Lastly, it would be surprising, to say the least, to suggest as the text of your letter of today’s date does, that the Commissioner of Police did not seek the advice of officers attached to the legal unit prior to issuing notices to the public which would affect the rights of thousands of FUL holders.”

On January 3, Alfonso wrote to the commissioner in her capacity as the holder of a firearm user’s licence (FUL) asking for an amendment to two recently issued notices on the renewal of gun permits.

Alfonso called on the commissioner’s office to amend the notices “forthwith” to clarify that the renewal process recited in the notices only applied to holders of FULs obtained after May 28, 2004.

She said in her letter, “This request should be treated with the urgency that it deserves as I will expect that thousands of FUL holders will be moving to comply with the procedures identified in the said notices which are patently flawed and have no basis in law.”

Alfonso gave the commissioner until January 5, to amend the notices, failing which, she said, she and other FUL holders will consider taking legal action.

The notices advised of an amendment to the Finance Act to increase FUL renewal fees to $500 effective April 1. The second notice, a reminder, also advised of the $500 fee and said it was separate from the annual renewal fee of $300 for each weapon. The notices warned of the risk of sanction, or revocation, of FULs if the requirements were not met by holders.

In 2022, Finance Minister Colm Imbert doubled the fee for firearm users saying that it had not been changed in 30 years.

Alfonso said section 3 of the Finance Act No 21 of 2022, as quoted in one of the notices, represented the “first imposition of a renewal fee” so it would “therefore not be correct to describe the fee as amended or increased.”

She said from a cursory review of the history of the Firearms Act, it would be “wholly wrong and or illegal or ultra vires” the power of the officeholder of the post of Commissioner of Police to call upon holders of FULs which were issued prior to the year 2004 to renew their licences in keeping with provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 2004, proclaimed on May 28, 2004.

Alfonso said the 2004 amendment provided that a FUL held by someone before the act came into operation shall continue to be valid after the proclamation of the amended law unless the licence was revoked or terminated.

She said the legislature did not provide for a retroactive process.

“There is a specific provision which deals with existing FUL holders, that is, those who were issued their licences prior to the proclamation of the 2004 amending act and those who obtained their FULs after the said date…”

Last month, another FUL holder also threatened legal action against the commissioner on the same notices of renewal.