Justice Mackenzie held a one hour hearing in the High Court this afternoon.
The crown acknowledged there was a serious question of law to be answered. They argued that my only standing was that I owned one of the firearms impacted by the decision. Their argument was that they had given an assurance that they would not prosecute me pending the disposition of the review and accordingly that the reasonable necessity for interim relief was not proved.
I argued that my standing was (1) being a licence holder (2) that I owned one of the firearms impacted (3) I was a member of the public. I then argued that I was unable to exercise the normal rights given by my licence as the police had reclassified many of the firearms I was entitled to prior to the reclassification in accordance with previously issued police approvals. I argued that in terms of my own rifle I was unable to exercise normal rights; for example lending it to another "a-cat" licence holder. I then argued that as a member of the public I was entitled to relief from a police policy decision which would repeat the 1992 fiasco and put 10,000 odd more MSSAs into the hands of criminals and psychopaths. I pointed to the $60,000 dollars in advertising at the tax-payers expense that the police were proposing. I said that the current 'policy' had run for 16 years and the purpose of the 1992 amendments was to prevent any further 'Aramoanas' and that it had. I submitted that there was no disadvantage to the police or general public in stopping the policy and that there was significant consequence for other public and commercial interests if it were to go ahead. I presented a police photo of the weapons from the Napier siege to Justice Mackenzie and told the judge that what the crown was asking, on behalf of the commissioner was for him to be instrumental in potentially arming the criminal underbelly with yet another 10,000 MSSA's similar to what happened in 1992. I told him that this matter begs for interim orders.
Justice Mackenzie said that in his view the Police reinterpretation of the Arms Act is irrelevant and meaningless, that the Police had no statutory power to make a binding interpretation and that any such interpretation was inconsequential.
Justice Mackenzie reserved his decision on interim orders. I did my best …. Keep you posted when I get the decision
Have a look in "The Truth" newspaper out today!