Steed v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY,LORD WOOLF M.R.,LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD,LORD MILLETT |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] UKHL J0518-4 |
| Date | 18 May 2000 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[2000] UKHL J0518-4
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Woolf M.R.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Clyde
Lord Millett
HOUSE OF LORDS
My Lords,
The prohibition on the possession, manufacture and sale of weapons contained in section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 was extended by section 1 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to large calibre hand guns as described in section 1(2) of the Act of 1997. The prohibition on possessing or selling ammunition contained in section 5(1)(A) of the Act of 1968 was also extended to cover expanding ammunition by section 9 of the Act of 1997.
Section 15 of the Act of 1997 empowered the Secretary of State to make arrangements to secure the orderly surrender of such firearms and ammunition prohibited by sections 1 and 9 and section 16 required the Secretary of State to make payments in respect of firearms surrendered "in accordance with a scheme made by him." The right to payment arose only in respect of (a) firearms which persons had or were entitled to have in their possession by virtue of firearms certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearm dealers on or before 16 October 1996, and (b) firearms which a person had contracted to acquire before that date and which he was entitled to have in his possession after that date by virtue of the matters aforesaid.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 Compensation Scheme came into force on the same day as section 1 of the Act of 1997 came into force. Firearms had to be surrendered by 30 September 1997 and claims for compensation made to the police for transmission to the Firearm Compensation Section of the Home Office for them to check. The scheme gave three options:- First "A", a flat rate payment to be "paid automatically at the level of £150 per large-calibre hand gun" secondly, "B" claims to be paid automatically at the values listed in the Annex to the Scheme; and thirdly, "C" claims for guns which are not listed or a listed gun which has been adapted or customised in such a way as to significantly increase its value.
The Scheme provided:
"Any claim under Option C must be supported by valid documentary evidence of the full market value … as at or immediately before 16 October 1996."
For individuals this was to be evidence of the retail price shown e.g. in a receipt or dealer's valuation or the published price. The Scheme continued:
"26…. If the documentary evidence gives a satisfactory indication of the value of the item, the claim will be met on the basis of the formula used to calculate the Option B value lists (i.e. value less 25%) or, in the case of dealers, on the basis of cost price plus 25%.
27. Where the documentary evidence submitted in support of an Option C claim is unsatisfactory (e.g. it does not fully support the amount claimed, appears to be of doubtful provenance or, in the case of a listed gun, does not appear to justify a significant departure from the listed value), the F.C.S. will request further evidence from the claimant. If the additional documentary evidence is satisfactory, the claim will be met. Where no such additional evidence is submitted, or the additional evidence remains unsatisfactory, the claim will be paid at the listed value or, if the claim does not relate to a listed gun, type of expanding ammunition or item of equipment, the originating police force will be asked to seek a valuation from an independent source (e.g. a dealer, a specialist auctioneer or a valuer) selected at the discretion of the chief officer. The cost of obtaining such a valuation will be borne by the F.C.S. Where an independent valuation is obtained this will normally be used to calculate the payment to the claimant."
If the Option C claim is approved the claimant is given notice that a payment of a given amount will be made to him. The claimant is asked to declare that he agrees with the amount to be paid. The Scheme continued:
"30…. The payment instruction will be issued as soon as the completed declaration is returned to the FCS. No such declaration will be required in relation to Option A or B claims as the claim form will make clear that, in seeking compensation under these options, the claimant is agreeing in advance to receive the specified flat rate or listed value in settlement of the claim, or those elements of the claim, as the case may be."
Mr. Steed surrendered firearms and ammunition to the police on 29 July 1997 together with a claim form covering all three options. On 27 October 1997 he issued a County Court summons claiming £3,298. The particulars of his claim were that "in view of the inordinate delay in settling the claim under the terms of the F.C.S. the plaintiff claims immediate payment of the sum of £3,298, being the value of the surrendered items together with interest at the statutory rate from 30 days after the date of such surrender together with costs."
His claims under Option A and B were paid on 26 November 1997 and on 27 November 1997 the Home Office applied to strike out the summons as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. District Judge Madge dismissed the application on 22 January 1998 and on 17 February 1998 His Honour Judge Cowell dismissed the Home Office's appeal. Meanwhile, on 9 February 1998 the claimant issued an amended statement of claim alleging that it was an implied term of the Scheme that applications would be dealt with within a reasonable time of receipt of the application being in respect of items A and B 30 days. The payment on 26 November 1997 for items under Option A and B was not made within a reasonable time. The failure to determine entitlement or to pay for items under Option C was not made within a reasonable time, namely 60 days. Since the plaintiff had parted with his property and had not been paid in a reasonable time he had suffered loss being (1) interest on £1,489 in respect of Options A and B from 28 August 1997 to 26 November 1998 being £23.06 and (2) the sum of £1824.85 for the Option C items plus interest from 27 September 1997 to 9 February 1997 and continuing, the interest at the date of the amended statement of claim being £43.08.
The Option C claim was paid on 25 September 1998. The outstanding claim in respect of all items is thus only for interest.
From 10 February 1998 the Home Office entered a defence denying that there was any obligation to process claims within a reasonable time, and further denying that there was a statutory duty to pay the sum. It was contended that any complaint was solely justiciable in judicial review proceedings. The Home Office appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal on 1 May 1998. Despite the small sum involved these proceedings are said by the Home Office to be important because of the large number of other claims which had been made for compensation under the Scheme. Thus at the end of 1998 there were some 11,000 still outstanding. The Home Office contends that if claimants are entitled to go by summons they will be able to jump the queue and have their claims processed before others who are prepared to wait without beginning legal proceedings.
The first question raised on this appeal is thus whether a person who has handed in his guns has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia and Another
- YAB Dato' Dr Zambry Abd Kadir v Yb Sivakumar Varatharaju Naidu; Attorney-General Malaysia
-
Appeal From Glasgow Sheriff Court Stuart Docherty+paul Logan+james Philbin V. The Scottish Ministers
...The exclusivity rule was subject to exceptions, the overriding principle being to prevent the abuse of process (Steed v Home Secretary [2000] 1 WLR 1169, per Lord Slynn of Hadley at pages 1173-1175; Supperstone, Goudie and Walker: Judicial Review (4th ed.) at paragraphs 5.11.1 - 5.11.5; De ......
-
Fortisbank Sa and Trenwick International Ltd and Others
... ... either themselves or through their servants or agents state that any reliance was to be made on clause 13(b) of the ... ...
-
Procedure and Remedies in Judicial Review: A Malaysian Perspective
...of standing to apply for judicial review. The question arises:Who is an adversely affected person? The answer, I would venture, is a36[2000] 3 All ER 226.37[1980] 1 MLJ 198.38[1995] 1 MLJ 292.364 COMPARING ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH© Juta and Company (Pty) person whose l......