Firearms (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201-

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 3 June 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2013-0030
Decision Summary Title :	Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Decision Summary:	18 April 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title :	Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201-		Date of Written Report:	18 April 2013
Written Report Author:	Executive Officer Home Affairs		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201-
Decision(s): The Minister approved the Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201-and the accompanying report, and requested that arrangements be made for it to be lodged ‘au Greffe’ for consideration by the States in due course.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201- amends Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000, which is entitled ‘Prohibition on the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse’ by adding the words ‘or by some other person’. This means that a person who is carrying an offensive weapon i.e. a knife, with the intention that his friend would use it, rather than himself, would be committing an offence under the Law.
Resource Implications: None.
Action required: The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to arrange for the draft Law to be lodged ‘au Greffe’ for consideration by the States in due course.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Home Affairs
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Firearms (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201-

Report

Draft Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201-

Article 43 of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (‘the Law’) is entitled ‘Prohibition on the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse’ and reads as follows:

(1) Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which shall lie on the person) has with him or her in any public place any offensive weapon, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of 4 years and to a fine.

(2) Where any person is convicted of an offence under paragraph (1) the court may make an order for the forfeiture or disposal of any weapon in respect of which the offence was committed.

(3) In this Article “offensive weapon” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him or her for such use by him or her

In a recent court case, a defendant was sentenced for two offences, one of which was having an offensive weapon (a knife) in a public place, contrary to Article 43(1) of the Law. As part of the reasoned judgment in relation to the sentencing, the Inferior Number of the Royal Court expressed the view that the wording of Article 43 of the Law was not dissimilar from Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. Therefore, it was felt by the Court that it was legitimate for them to have regard to decisions of the English courts on that statutory provision.

In considering the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Court noted that Section 1(4) of the Act reads as follows:

In this section “public place” includes any highway, or in Scotland any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984] and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise; and “offensive weapon” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person.

Mindful that the Law does not currently contain the highlighted words, the Inferior Number of the Royal Court opined that there should be an amendment to the Law to bring the Law on an equal footing with the wording of the 1953 Act and said, “There is no obvious reason why a person should be in theory able to escape liability under Article 43 of the 2000 Law by establishing that he was carrying the offensive weapon with the intention that his friend would use it rather than that he himself would do so.”

The draft Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201- addresses this issue and inserts the words ‘or by some other person’ into Article 43(3) after the words ‘for such use by him or her’, thereby rendering it a criminal act for a person to carry an offensive weapon for use by another person.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional manpower or financial implications associated with this draft Law.

Appendix

Human Rights Notes on the draft Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201-

These Notes have been prepared in respect of the draft Firearms (Amendment No.3) (Jersey) Law 201- (the “draft Law”) by the Law Officers’ Department. They summarise the principal human rights issues arising from the contents of the draft Law and explain why, in the Law Officers’ opinion, the draft Law is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

These notes are included for the information of States Members. They are not, and should not be taken as, legal advice.

Article 43(3) of the Firearms (Jersey) Law 2000 (the “Principal Law”), as amended by the draft Law, engages Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR (“A1P1”) which guarantees the right to property.

A1P1 provides –

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A firearm is a ‘possession’ for the purposes of A1P1 and Article 43(3), by restricting where and for what purposes that possession may be carried, provides for the control of use of such a possession. This is an interference with property which, in order to be permissible must (i) serve a legitimate objective in the public or general interest (ii) be proportionate to realising that objective and (iii) comply with the principle of legal certainty.

The objective behind the measure can be identified as maintaining public safety, which has been held to be a legitimate objective within the scope of A1P1. Given the importance of this objective the interference with the A1P1 right can be regarded as proportionate to meeting that legitimate objective. Finally, the scope of the interference provided for in Article 43, as amended by the draft Law, constitutes a clear and precise legislative statement, with no obvious room for ambiguity. Accordingly, the interference instigated by Article 43 to which the draft Law contributes is ‘in accordance with the law’. Therefore Article 43(3), as amended by the draft Law, (i) serves a legitimate objective in the public or general interest, (ii) is proportionate, and (iii) complies with the principle of legal certainty.