Fri | Dec 1, 2023

MoBay businessman drops court case after Security Minister reinstates gun permit

Published:Tuesday | July 5, 2022 | 3:34 PM
The businessman's firearm licence was revoked by the Firearms Licensing Authority in March 2020. He subsequently filed an appeal.

A Montego businessman yesterday discontinued his application for permission to appeal before the Court of Appeal shortly after he received a letter informing him that the Minister of National Security had reinstated his firearm licence.

The applicant's firearm licence was revoked by the Firearms Licensing Authority in March 2020. 

He appealed immediately to the Review Board. 

He then filed an application in October 2021 for leave to go to the Judicial Review Court. 

He claimed that he was waiting in excess of the 90-day period that the statute said the Review Board should consider his appeal.

The matter came for hearing in the Supreme Court but the application was refused by Justice Tara Carr.

The applicant then applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the refusal of his application on the grounds that his right under the statute had been breached because he was given no reason why the licence was revoked. 

He also appealed against the delay in getting a response from the Review Board.

After the application was discontinued, attorney-at-law Courtney Foster who represented the FLA applied for legal costs on the basis that the applicant had acted unreasonably in bringing the matter to court.

She said the applicant was aware that before the judge in the Supreme Court had rendered her decision, the FLA had filed an affidavit that indicated that the Review Board had completed its duty in relation to the application for review by the applicant and that the security minister had given instructions to the FLA which the agency was dealing with in short order.

She submitted that the applicant had failed to complete the process of the alternative remedy available to him.

The court awarded costs to the FLA and ordered that costs should be agreed or taxed.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who represented the businessman, had opposed the application for costs on the basis that it was the respondents who forced the businessman to come to court, therefore there should be no order as to costs.

Wildman said the businessman was going to challenge the order for costs in the Constitutional Court because it was his right that was breached.

Respondents were the Firearms Licensing Authority and the Review Board.

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on Twitter and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at or