Beck v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire

An appeal to the Crown Court under Firearms Act 1968, section 44, concerns the substantive grant or refusal of a certificate. It does not determine whether an application was made to the correct police authority based on residence. Residence is a preliminary jurisdictional matter suitable for judicial review. Rented accommodation connected with employment can constitute residence. An applicant is entitled to a substantive decision by the duly authorised chief officer or agent, even where an adverse decision appears likely. The application must therefore be determined according to law before any statutory appeal arises.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Hertfordshire police response to his fresh application for a shotgun certificate. The police treated his family home in Dumfries and Galloway, and his use of rented accommodation in Hertfordshire, as grounds for requiring him to apply elsewhere. They contended that the claimant’s remedy was an appeal to the Crown Court under section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968.

A previous application had resulted in earlier judicial review proceedings, dismissed on 25 May 2006, but the present application had not received a substantive determination. The central issue was whether the correspondence amounted to a decision appealable to the Crown Court or an unlawful refusal to determine the application.

1. The application for judicial review was allowed. The 2006 application remained undetermined and had to be determined properly by the Chief Constable or a duly authorised agent.
2. Section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968 provides an appeal to the Crown Court against decisions to grant or refuse certificates on the substantive statutory criteria. It does not provide an appeal against a preliminary decision as to whether the applicant resides in the relevant police area under section 26B.
3. A residence question is ordinarily suitable for judicial review if the police unlawfully refuse to determine the application. The police had made no substantive decision, and the firearms manager had no authority to make one.
4. The police had also proceeded on an erroneous legal basis. Rented accommodation connected with employment can constitute residence for firearms purposes. A person need not sever connections with other parts of the country, or own the relevant property, to be ordinarily resident in an area.
5. On the material before the court, there was no evidential basis for concluding that the claimant could not be resident in Hertfordshire. Fresh evidence could justify a different residence decision, but the application had to be considered lawfully on its merits first. If the eventual substantive decision were adverse, the statutory appeal to the Crown Court would then be available.
6. Costs were awarded to the claimant.

The judgment records that earlier judicial review proceedings concerning a previous application were dismissed on 25 May 2006. An appeal to St Albans Crown Court was withdrawn. Those proceedings were distinct from the fresh application considered in this judgment.