The
first appellant is facing two separate counts under the Firearms Act [Chapter
10:09] involving failure to renew his firearm licence and to secure the
firearm. These offences were discovered during a search at his premises in
connection with the first count.
In
the first case, this is all what the presiding magistrate had to say ...
The
first appellant is facing two separate counts under the Firearms Act [Chapter
10:09] involving failure to renew his firearm licence and to secure the
firearm. These offences were discovered during a search at his premises in
connection with the first count.
In
the first case, this is all what the presiding magistrate had to say in denying
the accused bail -
“Court
rules that accused has the propensity to commit similar offence since he's once
convicted of the offence. A firearm is a danger to public safety and State
security and can't be traced if not renewed or can be abused by other people
with criminal intent. That the gun was taken by police doesn't stop accused if
released on bail to further secure another gun and commit similar offences.
Accordingly
accused is not a good candidate of bail and bail application is dismissed.”
With
respect, the magistrate's line of reasoning appears rather illogical and
inconsistent with common sense and reality. It seems to me strange logic to
suggest that a firearm cannot be traced simply because the licence has not been
renewed. It also makes strange reasoning to say that the appellant has a
propensity of not renewing his firearm licence to the extent that even if he
has been dispossessed of the firearm if released on bail he will acquire
another one for the sole purpose of not renewing the licence. If that line of
reasoning is pursued to its logical conclusion, then, the appellant will never
be released from prison. In saying so, the magistrate was totally oblivious to
the fact that the State is in total control of the issuance of firearm
licences. The State could easily deny him a licence or the court could bar him
from acquiring a firearm licence for a specified period.
It is therefore self-evident that in denying the
appellant bail the presiding magistrate misdirected herself in some material
respect.
