Akash Sama­roo

The work of the Cab­i­net-ap­point­ed Firearms’ Users Li­cens­es Com­mit­tee (FUL Com­mit­tee) can now pro­ceed, af­ter the in­junc­tion which pro­hibits the Prime Min­is­ter from pub­lish­ing any part of the Firearm User’s Li­cense (FUL) au­dit re­port was mod­i­fied.

While the in­junc­tion, which pro­hibits the Prime Min­is­ter from bring­ing the now con­tro­ver­sial re­port to the Par­lia­ment was up­held yes­ter­day by the Court of Ap­peal, it al­so found that the in­junc­tion grant­ed by High Court Judge Jus­tice Devin­dra Ram­per­sad on De­cem­ber 13, 2022, was “un­nec­es­sar­i­ly wide” while not be­ing “plain­ly wrong.”

The rul­ing was made by Jus­tices of Ap­peal Nolan Bereaux, Pe­ter Ra­jku­mar and Maria Wil­son and is be­ing hailed by for­mer po­lice com­mis­sion­er Gary Grif­fith’s le­gal team as a vic­to­ry.

The Prime Min­is­ter will now have to pay 75 per cent of Gif­fith’s le­gal costs, as it was he who ap­plied for the in­junc­tion to be struck down.

It was found that the in­junc­tion had not on­ly sup­pressed the Prime Min­is­ter from shar­ing any part of the re­port but al­so pre­vent­ed per­sons from be­ing heard by the FUL Com­mit­tee.

On Au­gust 29, at­tor­ney Lar­ry Lal­la, who rep­re­sents Grif­fith, wrote to the Prime Min­is­ter sig­nalling le­gal ac­tion to quash the FUL Au­dit Re­port, since Grif­fith did not get an op­por­tu­ni­ty to re­spond.

At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Regi­nal Ar­mour sub­se­quent­ly said that con­sid­er­a­tion will be giv­en to whether there are peo­ple ad­verse­ly af­fect­ed by the re­port’s find­ings who haven’t had the op­por­tu­ni­ty to com­ment and make rep­re­sen­ta­tion on the mat­ters giv­ing rise to find­ings, and if there are such peo­ple, what steps ought to be tak­en in re­la­tion to them, the re­port and its sum­ma­ry.

Yes­ter­day, Jus­tice Ram­per­sad’s ini­tial in­junc­tion was deemed as over­ly broad and served to block this process, as even Grif­fith him­self was blocked from rep­re­sent­ing his own in­ter­est in the mat­ter. Nor could the re­port be men­tioned at Cab­i­net lev­el.

There­fore, the Ap­peal Court ruled that while the in­junc­tion will stay in place, the FUL Com­mit­tee will now be able to use the re­port to give those who claimed they were ad­verse­ly af­fect­ed by the re­port an op­por­tu­ni­ty to de­fend them­selves. The Prime Min­is­ter can al­so share the re­port in Cab­i­net.

Re­spond­ing fol­low­ing the judge­ment yes­ter­day, Ar­mour said al­low­ing this process to take place was al­ways the Prime Min­is­ter’s po­si­tion and yes­ter­day’s de­ci­sion clears the way for this to hap­pen.

“The Court of Ap­peal’s de­ci­sion al­so clears the way for the Au­dit Com­mit­tee to con­tin­ue its work and de­lib­er­a­tions and it will do so,” Ar­mour added via me­dia re­lease.

Mean­while, Lal­la said they were pleased with the out­come.

“I think it’s a very fair rul­ing by the Court of Ap­peal, and I think the rul­ing augers well for jus­tice in this coun­try,” Lal­la said.

How­ev­er, he told Guardian Me­dia that this does not mean Grif­fith will make him­self read­i­ly avail­able for the au­dit com­mit­tee, as they still be­lieve it is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

“If they ap­proach Mr Grif­fith for any com­ment, he will have to take le­gal ad­vice on what steps he should take.”

Lal­la said they view the com­mit­tee as un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, as they do not be­lieve that Cab­i­net has the pow­er to launch an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to the Po­lice Ser­vice.

In 2021, Na­tion­al Se­cu­ri­ty Min­is­ter Fitzger­ald Hinds said a com­pre­hen­sive au­dit in­to the op­er­a­tions of the FUL unit would be un­der­tak­en, fol­low­ing an in­ter­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion by re­tired Jus­tice Stan­ley John.

John de­scribed the is­suance of firearms li­cens­es as “a thriv­ing, well-oiled, white-col­lar crim­i­nal en­ter­prise” in his find­ings.

In May 2022, two po­lice of­fi­cers were charged with mis­be­hav­iour in pub­lic of­fice for of­fences linked to cor­rup­tion in pro­cess­ing FUL ap­pli­ca­tions.