Jonathan Rees QC of Apex Chambers leading Richard Cole of Civitas Chambers have costs success in rare application on behalf of Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police where the firearms appeal was abandoned shortly before a five day hearing. Jonathan and Richard were instructed by Ryan Ho of the Force Legal Department and Helen Rees, Head of the Force’s Firearms and Explosives Licensing Department.
On 5th October 2017, the Respondent received an application from the Appellant for authority to purchase a 10 mm self-loading pistol. The reason given was 'Humane dispatch (inc. deer and boar)'. The firearm that the Appellant sought permission to possess and use was a particularly dangerous one - a prohibited, unrestricted and self-loading 10mm handgun - and it was essential that the greatest care was exercised in the consideration of his application and thereafter appeal.
On 7th January 2019, the Appellant gave notice of his intention to appeal the decision of the Respondent to refuse his application to vary his Firearms Certificate in accordance with section 44 and Schedule 5, paragraph 1 of the Firearms Act 1968.
On 24th September 2019, the Appellant gave notice in writing of the abandonment of his appeal in accordance with Schedule 5, paragraph 4.
In the interim, the Appellant sought directions from the court allowing him to rely upon expert evidence from three experts, as well as indicating that he had instructed Queen’s Counsel, leading to the court setting a generous timetable providing for a 5 day contested hearing, with experts on each side to take place in early October 2019. In short, the Appellant through his solicitors failed to comply with court directions and orders and had to seek extensions to the original timetable. Those extended directions were not complied with. The Respondent complied with each and every direction of the court and was constantly enquiring the Appellant as to his stance.
The Respondent, upon being informed of the Appellant’s abandonment of his appeal sought an order that the Appellant meet the Respondent's costs of the appeal in the sum of £52,472.65 (inclusive of VAT). This included the Force’s Legal Services costs, the costs of both junior and leading counsel, and the experts that had been instructed.
The costs matter came before His Honour Judge Keith Thomas on 8 November 2019. The judge considered that the costs incurred were both reasonable and proportionate and that the Appellant could not point to any reason why they should not be awarded. Indeed, the learned judge found that:
“I am entirely satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to assume that the representations that were made at the first hearing of this matter in April, inter alia, that the Appellant would be represented by leading counsel and proposed to call 3 expert witnesses, were never rescinded or resiled from until the appeal was abandoned on 24 September 2019 and that the Respondent was entitled to and probably under a duty to, given his position under the Firearms Act, prepare the case on the basis that it was a full blown contest with experts and leading counsel. I have heard no representations that the actual costs incurred were excessive. The Appellant’s case, at its highest appears to be that the Respondent should have interpreted the communications from the Appellant as indicating a cooling on his part for a contest and not prepared quite so vigorously. This would be a dangerous tactic for any Respondent in an appeal and, in the case of a Chief Constable with onerous duties imposed by the Firearms Act, I would regard such a stance as irresponsible. I have no doubt that the costs claimed are reasonable and proportionate”.
Richard Cole has been instructed by Chief Constables in Firearms licensing appeals for many years. Jonathan Rees QC has a detailed and thorough knowledge of the Firearms Act and the case law in this area of the law.