Court: Top cop must decide on 17 FUL applications by July

POLICE Commissioner Erla Harewood-Christopher has been ordered to decide on 17 FUL applications (firearm user’s licences) by 4 pm on July 22.

Justice Nadia Kangaloo made the order on March 21. Before the judge was a complaint by 17 applicants of unreasonable delay by the commissioner in deciding on their FUL applications.

They sought a series of declarations that Harewood-Christopher breached her statutory duty and her failure to decide on their applications was unreasonable, unlawful and illegal.

They also sought an order directing her to decide by July 22, which the judge granted.

In their application, the 17 – among them business owners, a pilot, a real estate developer, an engineer, and a pharmacist – said they have been waiting between 23 and 28 months for the commissioner to decide on their applications.

They all received provisional FULs after they applied and underwent the required training, receiving certificates of competence, which they submitted to the firearms section of the police service.

Their claim said they expected the commissioner to comply with the licensing regime policy and the law, but she “omitted, failed, neglected, and refused” to do her statutory duty.

While acknowledging there was no right for anyone to possess a firearm or ammunition unless licensed, their application said the need for FULs ensured only private citizens who meet the qualifying requirements could obtain a licence.

However, the claim said the commissioner’s discretion to grant a FUL after the two-phase qualifying process must be lawfully exercised. It also said the commissioner was not allowed to delay the decision.

“The arrangements of the sections and the procedural mechanism of the licensing provisions of the Firearms Act is such that the claimants having been qualified for the Provisional FUL means that the defendant was of the opinion that the claimants were not of intemperate habits or unsound mind or for some reason unfit to be entrusted with such a firearm or ammunition and/or has no good reason to hold firearm or ammunition and/or will cause harm or danger to the public...

“After the claimants having been trained and having been certified fit to hold a firearm and ammunition, there is really no good reason why the defendant can deny the claimants their FUL.”

The claim also said the 17 were concerned for their safety and that of their families and businesses because of the crime rate and increase in home invasions.

“Some of the claimants are past victims of crime and today they are unable to obtain a firearm for their safety and security.”

It also set out details of the visits by the police that are part of the qualifying process and said they were not given a reason or told of any additional investigation required to get their FULs.

The group is represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Karina Singh, Vashisht Seepersad and Leon Kalicharan.