Judgment of High Court on interim orders

Today a fax has arrived from the High Court with Justice Mackenzie's decision on interim orders. The print quality is poor so I will post the full version when I get a hardcopy in the mail.

There are 8 pages which go into some detail of the discussion but the most relevant in my view is this:

"Ultimately the question whether the previous interpretation, or the new interpretation, is to be preferred will be matter for the Court. Neither the previous interpretation nor the new interpretation has any particular legal status. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Court to make an interim order which would have the effect of preferring, on an interim basis and without hearing full argument, the previous interpretation over the new interpretation."

Other relevant snippets of interest:

"In considering what is necessary to preserve the position of the applicant, it is important to note that Police do not have, under the Act, the ability to make a binding classification of the weapons in question"

"That question must be determined, where necessary, by any Court which is determining some relevant issue. The Court will not be bound by the Police interpretation, but must itself apply the relevant definition to the firearm in question."

Justice Mackenzie has essentially found that because the Police "new interpretation" is merely an opinion of Police it is in effect inconsequential. He alluded to this point again in his discussion concerning the Courts ability to make any decision at all given that the Police could not exercise a statutory power to classify firearms. He said (there are some limited) "circumstances in which the Court may correct errors of law in non-binding advice from a public authority". Justice Mackenzie declined to make interim orders.

As I'm flat out with this Court stuff, I invite everyone to write to the Commissioner of Police and ask this:

1. Is the commissioner willing to extend to you, the immunity from prosecution that has been extended to me... until the High Court has dealt with this judicial review?
   
2. How are Police going to reimburse the public if they spend $60,000 on advertising an opinion which is ultimately found wanting?
   
3. What contingency plan have Police developed to ensure:
   
   1. that there is a better uptake on registrations than the less than 50% achieved in 1992,
      
   2. that any remaining unregistered 'new' MSSAs do not end up in the hands of criminals, social misfits and psychopaths.
      

… We didn't get an interim order but look on the bright side… if the Police start advertising this 'opinion' nationally their only going to be irritating more and more shooters which will ultimately be good for our cause. And we have a statement in no uncertain terms that Police have no authority to reclassify firearms J

And to the lovely Erin who commented on my profile photo…. "I'm flattered; but no thanks."

Cheers

R