Naraynsingh v Commissioner of Police
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKPC 20 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 42 of 2003 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 20 April 2004 |
[2004] UKPC 20
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
[Delivered by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]
The appellant is a man of good character now aged 85, the manager of two petrol filling stations in Trinidad, each with an annual turnover of over $7 million. From 1961, until its revocation in 1998, he was the holder of a firearm user's licence under which he was authorised to keep, carry and use for personal protection, initially a shotgun and later, following a variation of the licence at his own request in 1991, a Taurus .38 revolver and ammunition.
The licence was revoked on 28 December 1998 by the respondent Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) pursuant to section 21 of the (Trinidad and Tobago) Firearms Act 1970 as amended. That is the decision impugned in these proceedings. It is convenient at once to set out section 21 in full whilst noting that the Commissioner was in fact acting here under para.(d):
"21. The Commissioner of Police may revoke any licence, certificate or permit –
(a) if, in the case of the holder of a Firearm Dealer's Licence or a Gunsmith's Licence, he is convicted of an offence against this Act or of an offence against the Customs Ordinance;
(b) if he is satisfied that the holder thereof is of intemperate habits or of unsound mind, or is otherwise unfit to be entrusted with such a firearm or ammunition as may be mentioned in the licence, certificate or permit;
(c) for non-payment of fees;
(d) in any other case, if he thinks fit."
The essential basis of the Commissioner's decision was that during the execution of a civil debt at the appellant's home on 7 March 1996 a second firearm (this one unlicensed) was allegedly found on the premises.
By judicial review proceedings commenced on 17 March 1999 the appellant challenged the Commissioner's decision on various grounds including in particular that it was reached unfairly and without any sufficient investigation having been made into the circumstances of the alleged finding of the second firearm, an allegation strenuously denied by the appellant from the outset.
The challenge failed before Tam J on 27 March 2000 and again on appeal before the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Nelson, Lucky and Kangaloo JJA) on 14 November 2002. The appellant's further appeal to the Board is brought by leave of the Court of Appeal.
The appellant's arguments before the Board focused almost entirely upon the fairness and adequacy of the process by which the impugned decision was arrived at. It will therefore be unnecessary for their Lordships to address a number of other issues which had been raised before the Court of Appeal.
With this brief introduction it now becomes necessary to set out the relevant facts so far as these are known to the Board. As stated, the second firearm was allegedly found on the appellant's premises on 7 March 1996. Whilst he and his wife were at home that day no fewer than 17 people arrived to execute process in respect of an order of the Petty Civil Court - to enforce, that is, a relatively modest civil debt. Included within the party, none of whom were known to the appellant or his wife, were a police officer, PC Legendre, and a Marshall. During the course of the levy, whilst the appellant was outside his house with PC Legendre, a member of the party approached them and produced a .22 revolver and ammunition (46 live rounds and one spent round), alleging that he had found these in the house. The appellant immediately denied that the firearm or ammunition were his or that they could have been found on his premises. His denial notwithstanding, the appellant and his wife were both charged with being in possession of an unlicensed firearm and a quantity of ammunition. In addition, ten days later, on 17 March 1996, the police required the appellant to hand over his licensed firearm, the .38 Taurus revolver, together with 17 rounds of ammunition, for "safekeeping" by them.
Nineteen months then passed until 14 October 1997 when the charges against the appellant and his wife, due for hearing that day at the Magistrates Court, were dismissed by the magistrate because no one appeared to prosecute them. Neither the complainant, PC Legendre, who had retired from the police force on 28 December 1996, nor any witness, had attended court.
Following the dismissal of the charges against him, the appellant wrote to the Commissioner on 1 November 1997 seeking the return of his licensed firearm and ammunition. There being no reply, he repeated his request on 19 January 1998. Six months later the Commissioner responded by letter dated 21 July 1998:
"It has been drawn to my attention that during the execution of a levy from the Petty Civil Court at your home on March 7 1996, a .22 revolver and a quantity of ammunition were found, which resulted in charges of possession of firearm and ammunition being preferred against you.
Notwithstanding that the matters were dismissed by the court due to the non-appearance of the complainant, the fact remains that the firearm and ammunition were found in your possession.
In view of the above, I am extending an opportunity to you to address me in writing within 14 days of receipt of this letter on matters raised above."
As will shortly appear, the Commissioner had by then obtained a report into the matter from a senior superintendent.
The appellant's solicitor responded by letter dated 25 August 1998 in the following terms:
"The incident referred to … arose on the occasion of a levy at my client's residence by reason whereof there were numerous persons in and upon the premises who were unknown to my client. It was during the levy, whilst my client was outside the residence in the presence of a police officer, that a man, whom my client assumed was part of the party executing the levy, approached my client and the said officer and presented a firearm which he alleged that he had found on the premises.
My client maintains that said firearm does not belong to him, nor was he aware that such a firearm was on his premises. It was my client's hope he would have the opportunity in the Magistrates Court to determine from the said man by means of cross-examination the exact circumstances of the alleged discovery as he is convinced that same was not discovered on his premises. Regrettably this opportunity never arose as the matter was dismissed by the learned magistrate for reasons attributable to the prosecution."
Four months later, by letter dated 28 December 1998, the Commissioner acknowledged the solicitor's letter but revoked the appellant's licence, stating that:
"[It] is cancelled for the reason outlined in my letter to you dated July 21, 1998."
The appellant's affidavit in support of his judicial review challenge described the circumstances in which the unlicensed second firearm had been produced consistently with the account earlier given in his solicitor's letter of 25 August 1998.
The Commissioner's affidavit in response dated 13 July 1999 stated that he understood the appellant to be saying that the second firearm "was not discovered on his premises (and probably was brought into his premises by a member of the levy party who wanted to frame him)" and continued:
"I found no suggestion of a reason why a member of the levy party, unfamiliar to the applicant, would 'plant' a firearm on his premises. I chose to adopt the opinion of Constable Legendre who, on 7th March, 1996 had decided on the basis of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago v Dr. Keith Rowley the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
...enable him properly to exercise it ( R (Venables) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1998] AC 407 at 466G).” 267 In Naraynsingh v Commissioner of Police [2004] UKPC 20 the Court of Appeal was critical of the Commissioner of Police in failing to conduct his own inquiries and inve......
-
Symbiote Investments Ltd v Minister of Science and Technology
...also be gleaned from another decision of the Privy Council, namely, Narayansingh (Barl) v The Commissioner of Police [2004] 64 WIR 392; [2004] UKPC 20. Their Lordships, in stressing the requirement for fairness in the procedure adopted by the tribunal that is tasked with an administrative......
-
Robert Ivey v Firearm Licensing Authority
...All ER 302, South Bucks District Council and another v Porter [2004] UKHL 33 Naraynsingh v Commissioner of Police (Trinidad and Tobago) [2004] UKPC 20 and Burroughs and Another v Rampargat Katwaroo (1985) 40 WIR 15 Learned counsel also pointed to Mr Ivey's unchallenged evidence as to his......
-
Oral Clarke v The Firearm Licensing Authority
...has been denied procedural fairness. Counsel relied on dicta in the case of Naraysingh v Commissioner of Police (Trinidad and Tobago) 2004 UKPC 20. The applicant further relied on the case of Fenton Denny v Firearm Licensing Authority [2020] JMSC 97 and Mauritius of Societe des Chasseurs d......