Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 31/Jan 03:58

Reforming firearm licensing amid crime crisis

RICHARD JAGGASAR THE government’s declaration of a state of emergency is an implicit admission that crime is spiralling out of control. The staggering murder toll of 625 last year is a grim testament to this crisis. Offences involving firearms, including robberies, home invasions, and murders, are on the rise. Despite this reality, the Commissioner of Police (CoP) continues to delay and deny the granting of firearm user’s licences (FULs), in almost all circumstances; a stance that is both untenable and unreasonable. The cases of Shiva Boodram v the Commissioner of Police, decided in July 2023, and Pheon Solomon v the Commissioner of Police, decided in March 2024, underscore the potent issue of unreasonable delays in processing FUL applications. Following these two decisions there has been a plethora of similar cases, all applications for judicial review of the unjustifiable, untenable and unreasonable delay of the decision-making process of the CoP for FULs. Based on newspaper reports, three times in the last two weeks the CoP has been found to have breached her statutory duty by unreasonably delaying decisions for FUL applications. Orders for decisions have been made by Justices Rahim, Ramcharan, Quinlan-Williams and Rampersad. In each case the CoP’s stance is usually the same: the CoP says the delays are not unreasonable and the delay is due to the backlog of 25,000 applications. In each case legal cost is awarded in favour of the applicants, which means money from the public purse is spent as a result of the CoP’s failure to act. Addressing the given "excuse for delay," Justice Seepersad stated in the case of Pheon Solomon, “It is simply outrageous that a sitting commissioner would elect to adopt a ‘Well I have plenty work to do’ stance in defence of the delay which has transpired in this case.” He added, “To suggest that one core function is more important than another is a classic cop-out stance which does not instil any confidence as to the office-holder’s capacity or capability to discharge the required statutory obligations.” He also stated, “Although one of the largest allocations of the national budget is given to national security, there are evident and unacceptable shortcomings within the police service and its modus operandi warrants critical and urgent review.” It is in this backdrop that I would like to recommend a potential resolution of the matter. It is clear from the trend of judicial commentary in each case that there is a serious need for active decision-making by the CoP. The Firearms Act already provides a clear framework for obtaining a FUL, with built-in safeguards that allow the CoP to revoke a licence if necessary. Under these conditions I cannot see why in exceptional circumstances there continues to be unjustifiable denials of FULs. It is in these circumstances that I think it is imperative to review the current process and accept that there is a need to commence granting some of the more serious FUL applications. Applicants currently being denied have already satisfied all the usual criteria under the act, such as psychological evaluation, permission from spouse, no history of any criminal activity and other medical tests. If this is not enough, perhaps attention should be given to circumstances where the applicant has recently been affected by crime, and there is strong evidence that the offenders will strike again. For example, businesses that are targeted by extortionists, recent victims of home invasions, and families that have been threatened would all satisfy this new criterion. In those instances, I think more effort should be made to grant those applications, at least on a temporary basis. While I recommend that these applications, due to their seriousness and urgency, ought to be granted, I accept that there is a need to balance public safety against individual safety. I therefore also suggest these serious and urgent applicants should be granted for short periods of time and actively monitored. When crime rates decline, renewal criteria can be adjusted accordingly to maintain public safety. Additionally, after granting these FULs we should also implement a more stringent renewal system with regular spot checks to ensure proper weapon handling and avoid abuse of the authority. These serious and urgent applications should not join the queue of over 25,000 pending applications. There should be a fast-track system for high-risk applicants to ensure these applications are prioritised and processed within a shorter timeframe to provide timely protection. New applications should have an online tracking element where applicants can track the status of their FUL applications in real time. This system should provide updates and estimated timelines for each stage of the process, increasing transparency and reducing uncertainty for applicants. The government and the police must adopt a practical and balanced approach to firearm licensing that prioritises public safety while ensuring law-abiding citizens have the means to protect themselves. The police must recognise that responsible firearm ownership can be a deterrent to crime when regulated effectively. By implementing a pragmatic and robust licensing system, the authorities can strike the right balance between ensuring public safety and empowering citizens to defend themselves in this unprecedented crime wave. The call for fair and efficient firearm licensing is a sensible approach and reasonable crime-fighting technique. The current stance of the CoP in delaying and denying FULs without reasonable grounds serves neither justice nor public security. It is time for action.   Richard Jaggasar is an attorney The post Reforming firearm licensing amid crime crisis appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.