Mickey Honeyghan v Firearm Licensing Authority

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Judge: Brooks P
• Judgment Date: 24 February 2023
• Neutral Citation: JM 2023 CA 17
• Year: 2023
• Docket Number: APPLICATION NO COA 2022APP00071

Between

Mickey Honeyghan

Applicant

and

Firearm Licensing Authority

1 ^st Respondent

and

The Review Board

2 ^nd Respondent

[2023] JMCA App 4

Before:

THE HON Mr Justice Brooks P

THE HON Mrs Justice V Harris JA

THE HON Mrs Justice Dunbar-Green JA

APPLICATION NO COA 2022APP00071

MOTION NO COA2022MT00013

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Hugh Wildman instructed by Hugh Wildman & Co for the applicant

Miss Courtney Foster instructed by Courtney N Foster & Assoc for the 1 ^st respondent

Miss Lisa Whyte instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the 2 ^nd respondent

ORAL JUDGMENT

Brooks P

1 This is a motion by Mr Mickey Honeyghan for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council (‘the Privy Council’ or ‘the Board’) from a costs order that this court made on 4 July 2022 against him, in favour of the 1 ^st respondent, the Firearm Licensing Authority (‘the FLA’). The order of this court did not affect the 2 ^nd respondent, the Review Board. Mr Honeyghan argues that he should be granted leave to appeal because the genesis of the litigation is an application for judicial review, and the general rule is that costs should not be awarded against an applicant for an administrative order. He contends that it is of great general or public interest that the issue should be decided by the Privy Council.

2 Mr Honeyghan had applied to the Supreme Court for judicial review of the FLA's revocation of his firearm licence. Carr J, on 25 March 2021, refused Mr Honeyghan's application. Her reason was that he had not exhausted the alternative remedy afforded to him by the Firearms Act (as it then was). At that time, his appeal to the relevant Minister of Government, seeking to overturn the FLA's decision, was still pending. Mr Honeyghan applied to this court for leave to appeal Carr J's decision. He maintained the application despite the decisions from this court that coincided with Carr J's decision (see Robert Ivey v Firearm Licensing Authority [2021] JMCA App 26).

3 When the application for leave to appeal came on before this court, it was revealed that the relevant Minister had ruled in Mr Honeyghan's favour, thus rendering further litigation otiose. Mr Honeyghan, at that time, wisely withdrew his application. It is in that context that this court made the costs order against him.

4 Mr Honeyghan has no right to appeal to the Privy Council by way of section 110(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica. He needs to have leave to appeal pursuant to section 110(2) of the Constitution.

5 It is plain that the order for costs made by this court in this matter has no great general or public importance, as section 110(2) requires. The matter is restricted to Mr Honeyghan and the circumstances of this case.

6 Reference may be made to Hon Gordon Stewart OJ v Senator Noel Sloley SR and others [2013] JMCA App 4 in which this court analysed the requirements of section 110(2) of the Constitution as it relates to satisfying the section 110(2) requirement of great general or public importance. In that case, after assessing the various authorities, the court found that a reference to the Privy Council is not for determining whether this court got it wrong, nor necessarily that it was a serious matter of law, but it must be a question that not only affects the rights of the particular applicants. It must be a decision which would guide and bind others in their commercial and domestic relations.

7 This court and the other authorities from other jurisdictions have made the issue of awarding costs very plain. There is nothing new arising from this case to be determined in respect of costs.

8 Counsel for Mr Honeyghan cited the cases of Société des Chasseurs de L'Ile Maurice and others v The State of Mauritius and another [2016] UKPC 13 and Aston Reddie v The Firearm Licensing Authority (unreported), Supreme Court, Jamaica, Claim No HCV 1681 of 2010, judgment delivered 24 November 2011, but neither assists him on the issue of whether the order for costs is a matter of great general or public importance. They deal with the issue of the revocation of firearm licences.

9 There is another basis for saying that the matter is not of great general or public importance and should not be referred to the Privy Council.

10 The general rule is that the Privy Council will not hear an appeal that is filed solely on the issue of costs. In Credit Foncier of Mauritius Limited...