Kaye v Hunter
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 18. |
| Date | 23 January 1958 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
1ST DIVISION.
ProcessAppealCompetencyRefusal of application for firearm certificateStatutory right of appeal to SheriffFinality of Sheriff's judgmentAdministrative or judicial functionWhether appeal to Court of Session competentFirearms Act, 1937 (1 Edw. VIII and 1 Geo. VI, cap. 12), sec. 2 (8) (b).
The Firearms Act, 1937, sec. 2, enacts by subsec. (1) that an application for a firearm certificate shall be made to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides; by subsec. (2) that, subject to a proviso, a certificate shall be granted by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied on certain matters; and by subsec. (8) (b) that any person aggrieved by a refusal to grant a certificate may appeal, in Scotland, in accordance with Act of Sederunt, to the Sheriff within whose jurisdiction he resides. The Act of Sederunt of 11th June 1937 enacts that such appeals shall be by initial writ under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Acts, 1907 and 1913, and that the proceedings thereon shall be as laid down therein.
An applicant for a firearm certificate brought an action in the Sheriff Court wherein he appealed against the refusal of the Chief Constable of the area in which he resided to grant a certificate in respect of a small bore rifle. The action having been dismissed, the pursuer appealed to the Court of Session.
Held that in an appeal under the Firearms Act the Sheriff was acting in an administrative and not in a judicial capacity, and accordingly that an appeal from his decision to the Court of Session was incompetent.
Peter Mackenzie Kaye brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Aberdeen against William Hunter, Chief Constable, Scottish North Eastern Counties Constabulary, in which he craved the Court to ordain the defender to grant him a certificate under the Firearms Act, 1937, in respect of a 22 rifle and ammunition. The action was brought in accordance with the procedure provided by the Firearms Act, 1937, and the Act of Sederunt of 11th June 1937, enacted to regulate appeals to the Sheriff under that Act.1
The defender pleaded, inter alia:"(2) The pursuer's averments being irrelevant et separatim being lacking in specification, the appeal should be dismissed with expenses. (3) The pursuer heaving failed to show that he has a good reason for possessing a certificate, the appeal should be dismissed with expenses."
On 21st November 1957 the Sheriff-substitute (Aikman Smith), having heard parties' procurators in debate, sustained the defender's second and third pleas in law and dismissed the action.2
The pursuer appealed to the Court of Session, and the case was heard before the First Division on 22nd and 23rd January 1958, when the defender contended that the appeal was incompetent.
LORD PRESIDENT (Clyde).In this case the pursuer has applied to the Chief Constable of Banff for a firearm certificate under the Firearms Act, 1937.13 On the Chief Constable's refusal to grant such a certificate, the pursuer exercised his right under the Act to appeal "to the Sheriff within whose jurisdiction he resides."14 "Sheriff" in this connexion admittedly includes Sheriff-substitute. The Sheriff-substitute, who heard the case, dismissed the action on the ground that the Chief Constable was not shown to have acted unreasonably in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodenhurst v Chief Constable of Grampian Police
...to the sheriff principal. The sheriff principal refused the appeal, holding it to be incompetent on the authority of Kaye v. HunterSC1958 S.C. 208. The chief constable then appealed to the Court of Held (1) that although the 1968 Act stated that appeal was to the sheriff, it was apparent fr......
-
Professor The Much Honoured Stephen Pendaries Kerr Of Ardgowan, Baron Of Ardgowan For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Lord Lyon King Of Arms
...acting in his administrative or ministerial capacity in the present case there was no right of appeal to the Inner House (Kaye v Hunter 1958 SC 208) and the petition for judicial review which had been brought was competent. The function of Lyon in the present case was to marry up the link b......
-
McGOFF v WOOD
...was to prevent an arbitrary exercise of the registration officer's discretion in the matter. Reference was made to Kaye v. HunterSC 1958 S.C. 208 in which it was held that in an appeal under the Firearms Act 1937 the sheriff was acting in an administrative and not in a judicial capacity and......
-
Scott Craig Walker+stephen Nicoll+brian Wright V. Secretary Of State For Transport
...or arbitrary decision. The underlying reasoning in all those cases appears to flow from the Opinion of the Inner House in Kaye v Hunter 1958 SC 208. In Kaye the Court held that an appeal to the Sheriff under the Firearms Act 1937 was administrative and not judicial. The point at issue for t......