Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15
Results 141 to 149 of 149
  1. #141
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Edenvale
    Age
    48
    Posts
    746

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul View Post
    Thank you for that GK21.

    I have always understood prima facie (Prinsloo J found that our evidence showed a prima facie case that late renewals on good cause shown were intentionally part of the Act) to mean that 'it is obvious'... In other words, it stands until the opposite is proven.

    Remember I'm just a lay person. Not a legal beagle.
    Actually, prima facie means “at first glance” and in court the onus for an interim order is easier to discharge than in the main case. So basically all Judge Prinsloo found is that there is an arguable case in the main application, which was sufficient to grant an interim interdict.

    Still.... GOSA did well to get the interim order....but there is a lot more work necessary to get the final order in the main application, namely the declaration by the court that the Registrar of Firearms has the power to condone late renewals on good cause shown.

  2. #142
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Edenvale
    Age
    48
    Posts
    746

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    Quote Originally Posted by curious george View Post
    Someone way more clever than me suggested that the naysayers should go re-read p19 - 21.
    I have read pages 19-21. I also read the entire judgment. Pages 19-21 and particularly the following extract prove my point as set out in my above post:


    “In my view, given the existence of form SAPS 518 (a) and the previous practice, which was generally applied, and arguments surrounding issues such as the existence or lack thereof of a legitimate expectation on the part of the firearm owner and licence holder; I am of the view that in the spirit of the requirements for interim relief there is at least a prima facie arguable case for the granting of a declaratory order such as the one I attempted to illustrate.”

    In other words Judge Prinsloo did not make a definitive finding that expired licences can be renewed, but merely that there is a prima facie (at first glance) ARGUABLE case that this is so. The next court will make the final determination.

    Which is why I said the sequencing of the GOSA press release insofar as it suggested the judgment held that expired licences can be renewed, was misleading.

    Sure, those who drafted it may have meant that in GOSAS’ opinion expired licences can be renewed (which I agree and which I advised in my opinion) but then the second paragraph should have been more clear for thus of us who did not have the inside track of what GOSA actually meant. The simple addition of the words “In GOSAS’ opinion etc....” would not have led to all this unpleasantness.


  3. #143
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Edenvale
    Age
    48
    Posts
    746

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    ....after all we criticize the media for often misreporting and misleading the public about vatious things (for example when the media reports that guns cause violence) and we all agree that is irresonsible reporting.

    Surely we should not be guilty of the same.

  4. #144
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    13,643

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    My final (promise) words on this...

    So, this was a press release, not a legal opinion. The purpose of a press release is to raise awareness and grab attention. The finer points of the law were never at issue and had no place in our press release. Our press release was exactly and precisely accurate in every respect... as a press release! It was not and never attempted to be a legal opinion... although it was vetted by our legal team for accuracy.

    Moving on:

    We have now been properly served with the State's application for leave to appeal. It looks as if the application will be heard at the end of this month or the beginning of next.

    Hold thumbs, please.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  5. #145
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Age
    51
    Posts
    5,600

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    Quote Originally Posted by curious george View Post
    Someone way more clever than me suggested that the naysayers should go re-read p19 - 21.
    This was the opinion offered:


    Quoting from the judgment, (page 19 – 21 and further if you include the judgment on the points in limine):

    “I have considered these submissions as well as those offered by Mr. Van Rhyn for the applicant on the question of the amendment. Mr. Van Rhyn submits that the amendment, by and large, amounts to a renumbering of the prayers contained in the existing notice of motion barring the introduction of new prayers aimed at facilitating the application for a renewal., both where the application for renewal was lodged inside the 90-day period envisaged in Section 24(1) or secondly, outside the statutory period all together.



    Yet he aims to facilitate this process if the court in the main application were to consider granting the relief, for example to restore the previously existing information technology system making the central firearms registry capable of also receiving and accepting applications for renewals of licenses.



    In my debate with counsel for the applicant and proposing the cosmetic changes to what I will now regard as the first prayer of the main relief to be sought if the interim relief is granted, I also expressed reservations about some of the prayers, notably a prayer that the court in the main proceedings will extend the term of the license to the lifetime of the owner as was the position under the previous Act. In my view it is not permissible without parliamentary intervention.



    The amendment as I am now considering it, which as I have said, and subject to the remarks I made is more or less in line with the existing application, will be spelt out in the event of me granting an order…
    Mr. Budlender, as I indicated, said he would in any event oppose the amendment despite the cosmetic changes which I suggested and will be implementing in the order.

    Against this background … I am not persuaded that the Notice of Amendment, which as I said is very closely related to the existing notice of motion, barring some cosmetic changes is excipiable in the spirit pronounced by the learned author Harms…
    Counsel for the respondents already received the amendment now before me on Monday this week, today being Friday…”

    *I have edited/paraphrased some of the following text so can't claim to be the author.

    So, in other words, the application was abundantly successful in preventing hundreds of thousands of firearms to be taken in for destruction and for preventing large scale societal upheaval. If GOSA had not persisted with the application ,this would have been the biggest single instance of disarmament on our watch.

    As to the one prayer for the extending of the licenses by the court to the lifetime of the owner – “you cannot get it if you did not ask.” So, “kudos” to GOSA for not giving up before the fight has even started and for not shooting themselves in the foot by not asking.

    Unfortunately the judge was of the opinion that this is a matter for the legislature. On that point, can it be stated and / or implied that the specific judge was somewhat biased towards the applicant’s cause?

    Does that not touch on contempt of court? Is there ANY indication in the judgment or elsewhere that the judge was biased and that he did not apply the law correctly?

    If there was any such an indication, surely the state would have requested his recusal?This has not happened to date. On the contrary, counsel for the state indicated that they do not have any objection to the specific judge hearing the case, in the light of the fact that the judge has in the past heard similar cases relating to the FCA where he found against the state.

    That is clear testimony to the caliber of lawyer South Africans have in this specific judge and the implication that GOSA “got lucky” is simply not accurate and at the least very unfair to the judge?

    As to the issue of whether the application was urgent or not, this also appears to be a simple test, as the judge remarks: “It was submitted, correctly in my view, that this is a matter of national security

    As to the semantics around “can” or “may” renew…

    Surely one “can”, but you “may” not currently, because the SAPS would not allow you to do so, despite the clear provisions of the law, inclusive of the Act, Regulations and the forms promulgated in terms thereof.

    Again, in the words of the learned judge: … “which on the face of it and on the reading, in my view, by the average reader, suggests that there is still provision for the renewal of a license already expired”.


    *
    Me CG again, lets see what saps legal bring to the party with this appeal and why the delay?

  6. #146
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Edenvale
    Age
    48
    Posts
    746

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    All of the quoted portion refers to the judge debating whether there is an arguable case in round 2 (i.e. the main application). He has to do that in order to determine whether to give an interdict pending the main application. Obviously if he doesn’t think there is an arguable case for round 2, there is no point granting an interim interdict in round 1.

    Nothing in the judgment in round 1 concerning what the judge thinks about the merits of round 2 is binding on the judge in round 2.

    As I’ve said before GOSA did really well to get an interim order once they changed the relief they would seek in round 2 because the original relief was not competent.

    I never said the judge was biased. I said he was sympathetic to the plight of 400 000 people with expired licences and therefore GOSA were lucky to draw him and not an unsympathetic judge. Another judge may not have been as sympathetic. This is a far cry from bias and contempt of court.

    As for the leave to appeal, I do not believe SAPS will succeed and I wish GOSA a good result.

    As for the delay, has anyone considered that maybe SAPS were also waiting for the written judgment?

  7. #147
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    13,643

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    Quote Originally Posted by GK21 View Post
    ... GOSA were lucky to draw him and not an unsympathetic judge. Another judge may not have been as sympathetic. This is a far cry from bias and contempt of court.

    As for the leave to appeal, I do not believe SAPS will succeed and I wish GOSA a good result.

    As for the delay, has anyone considered that maybe SAPS were also waiting for the written judgment?
    GK21. Thank you for your debate on this matter. It helps me as a lay person to better understand the convoluted machinations of the legal process. You will recall that when we consulted with you (which consultation you graciously granted us at no cost to us at all!) I specified that I was seeking a critical analysis of our position and not a partisan view. I am at all times intensely aware of the dangers of being beguiled by the echo chamber.

    You have put everything (better phrased) exactly as I have clumsily attempted to articulate it.

    With the possible exception of the 'luck' of the draw with the judge. We believe (with some substantiation) that the North Gauteng bench made the draw... with a view to putting this matter solidly to bed... as Prinsloo J emphatically did. We believe that the divisional JP is determined to not have contradictory judgements emerging on this matter from his division.

    We also believe that since Prinsloo J is due to retire soon, that this factor might also be playing into the State's reluctance to argue this application for leave to appeal as soon as possible. We are speculating that the State is waiting for Prinsloo J to leave the building before 'trying it on'.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  8. #148
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    13,643

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    By the way... we have been delving into the background of several of the players in the ongoing firearms legal issue.

    It is amazing to realise how closely connected some senior counsel are to some judges (of the ConCourt) and some applicants and amicii in recent cases. It, frankly, reeks of impropriety!

    All shall be revealed in due course.

    Counsel for the State has expressed the wish to ride this all the way into the ConCourt. We relish the day!
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  9. #149

    Default Re: GOSA Interdict??

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul View Post

    Hold thumbs, please.
    Also known as "Prepare & Pray, and strengthen the War Chest".

    GOSA will have some more of my money shortly.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •