Michael Dowling
Chairman
Council of Licenced Firearms Owners
We got so close, and got the High Court to recognise, for the first time, that the historic common law human right for compensation when a Government takes property, is legally equivalent to the ‘modern’ human rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Where we lost the case was on the question of whether Parliament intended to extinguish that right when it came to the first round of firearms law changes last year.
You’ll remember that COLFO took the case against the Minister of Police over an Arms Order which banned several classes of ammunition. Unlike other firearms confiscation and compensation, affected individuals received no financial reimbursement. In announcing the appeal, I told media:
“The High Court found the Minister of Police was given incorrect advice that deprived thousands of New Zealanders of their lawfully purchased property without compensation. “The judgment was very clear that when Parliament decides to deprive New Zealanders of specific rights to property, they need to consider how they will compensate them. “The Judge thought there were signs that Parliament intended not to compensate, but we think their intention is far from obvious.”
Remember, the High Court found that the Government’s decision to ban certain types of ammunition was not based on the mosque attacks or community safety. The Minister of Police has been given tremendous executive power to ban firearms and ammunition as he sees fit, and without the usual oversight of Parliament that the New Zealand public expect. It has got to change.
I also told media that Police Minister’s unilateral banning of the ammunition should be fought as a matter of principle.
“This case has quickly become about more than upholding the rights of licenced firearm owners. It raises a question for all New Zealanders: can the government ban or confiscate your property at will, without providing any compensation?”
You can read/download our notice of appeal here. But we still need your help to ensure we can put the best foot forward. Our legal experts tell us that this case has already given Kiwis their most clear court statement of the fundamental right to compensation for the expropriation of property. But the judge believed he was bound to accept that Parliament meant to over-ride that.
We want the Court of Appeal to apply a further principle that makes human rights practical – when it is possible to interpret ambiguity or uncertainty in a way that upholds those rights, then that is what a court should do. If we can get such a ruling we will have restated and strengthened for all New Zealanders, an important protection against political abuses of power. But we’re relying on your financial support.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with a friend.
