Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster View Post
    Any idea why we did not exploit this section earlier on, no finger pointing intended, but surely the legal boffins in our community should have jumped onto this?
    Now that is the really interesting part.

    I suspect the answer lies somewhere between (1) ignorance of the law on the one end and the type of legal practice on the other hand that would not want to look for (2) lasting solutions on the other end, with (3) a lack of a really factually good case (the statute requires "exceptional circumstances" for this subsection to kick in) and (4) perhaps a lack of technical ability to put together such a case by the lawyers somewhere in the middle.

    The relevant provision has very rarely been used and in one of the very few reported cases on the subject the specific case was not adequately presented to court. The application of this provision applies to all applications for judicial review though, it is not limited to the realm of firearms law. So it is still a really interesting phenomenon that it has not been applied far more frequently on demand by all the other civil rights organisations in the probably thousands of judicial review applications that had to be instituted to keep the state and its officials in line with the law over the past 18 or so years since the introduction of PAJA. It would be interesting to know whether they have in fact overlooked it (don't think they will easily admit to this) or to hear their views on the matter.

    As to the third speculated reason above, i.e. the lack of a case that is good enough, well, the question is now what will be deemed to be "exceptional", especially when total chaos and destruction have become the new norm. In the past 18 years "Civil Rights SA Inc.", with more than 40 (last time I counted and that was three years ago, could be much more) organisations were fighting the government tirelessly in this time by way of review applications. Actually I think all the cases that one can think about were addressing really bad government conduct.

    In the realm of "firearms rights", I think that there were in the past examples of cases that stood out even more (between the more than 100 high court cases that "Firearms Rights Inc." had to bring against the SAPS - which by the way the SAPS confessed before parliament that they had no defence on the matter or no proper reason for having opposed those court cases in the first place) from just the general run of the mill review case. One thinks back to the case where the security industry had to take the SAPS to court just before the Soccer World Cup tournament for example. Be that as it may, the day was saved when the court intervened and I think damages were mitigated or even avoided totally there as a result of the urgent interdict.

    Coming back to the specific case that Clark Attorneys have now instituted, this case is even more "exceptional" because of the specific facts in this case. We are dealing with almost a dozen members of the national teams that were refused licenses or applications for temporary authorisations. It severely impacted their performance and the performance of our national team as such on the world rankings. The refusals also deprived many other young and upcoming sport shooters from progressing to that level in the first place. All these facts have been collated and placed before the court in this application. I think they will be able to convince the court of an unmistakable agenda of conduct that falls outside the law by the CFR. There is specific data that has been collected over the past three and a half years relating to refusals and the reasons for this that has now been placed before court in a single applications with specific references.

    So, in short, it took a bit of time for this specific team to put together a really good and an "exceptional / exceptional case" before court but it is there now.

    Recently we also received proof of events such as the (1) illegal changing of the SAPS IT system to not allow late renewal applications and (2) to prevent the submission of applications to the DFO's where the SAPS's own database is corrupted and (3) the leaked draft Bill (and the Minister's subsequent confession) also helps this case to become exceptional as there is now clear proof of an ulterior motive.

    But all being said, I am still curious as to why "Civil Rights SA Inc." has not made use of this provision for the payment of compensation far more often in the past.

  2. #22
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    JHB
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,616

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Thanks MTSS for clearing that up, lets see how the case draws out.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster View Post
    Thanks MTSS for clearing that up, lets see how the case draws out.
    And draws out it does.

    SAPS entered a notice of intention to oppose, and have filed the record (something they need to do in review applications). They have not yet filed the answering affidavits.

    Be that as it may, by them filing a notice of intention to oppose, they have brought themselves maybe another 12 months - it takes an inordinate time to get a date on the opposed roll.

    The other thing is this, since this review application was launched, we have heard of at least two other Team SA shooters who have been refused licenses for semi auto shotguns. Please note, these are guys that actually go and shoot overseas for SA as they have done for literally decades. So much for the "I am more dedicated than you discussion".

    The point is that SAPS and also the Appeals Board seemingly do not see the bringing of review applications as a deterrent any longer, as they did for the past three and a half years. Given the costs of this and our society's diminished capacity to bring these applications as a result of a relatively recent disturbance in the force, I don't think we will see many of them in the future. Very few realises what goes into these review applications from a costs, faith, time and energy perspective.

  4. #24
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTTSS View Post
    And draws out it does.

    SAPS entered a notice of intention to oppose, and have filed the record (something they need to do in review applications). They have not yet filed the answering affidavits.

    Be that as it may, by them filing a notice of intention to oppose, they have brought themselves maybe another 12 months - it takes an inordinate time to get a date on the opposed roll.

    The other thing is this, since this review application was launched, we have heard of at least two other Team SA shooters who have been refused licenses for semi auto shotguns. Please note, these are guys that actually go and shoot overseas for SA as they have done for literally decades. So much for the "I am more dedicated than you discussion".

    The point is that SAPS and also the Appeals Board seemingly do not see the bringing of review applications as a deterrent any longer, as they did for the past three and a half years. Given the costs of this and our society's diminished capacity to bring these applications as a result of a relatively recent disturbance in the force, I don't think we will see many of them in the future. Very few realises what goes into these review applications from a costs, faith, time and energy perspective.
    What is this recent disturbance you speak of sir? What have I missed?

  5. #25
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,358

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Quote Originally Posted by MTTSS View Post
    And draws out it does.

    SAPS entered a notice of intention to oppose, and have filed the record (something they need to do in review applications). They have not yet filed the answering affidavits.

    Be that as it may, by them filing a notice of intention to oppose, they have brought themselves maybe another 12 months - it takes an inordinate time to get a date on the opposed roll.

    The other thing is this, since this review application was launched, we have heard of at least two other Team SA shooters who have been refused licenses for semi auto shotguns. Please note, these are guys that actually go and shoot overseas for SA as they have done for literally decades. So much for the "I am more dedicated than you discussion".

    The point is that SAPS and also the Appeals Board seemingly do not see the bringing of review applications as a deterrent any longer, as they did for the past three and a half years. Given the costs of this and our society's diminished capacity to bring these applications as a result of a relatively recent disturbance in the force, I don't think we will see many of them in the future. Very few realises what goes into these review applications from a costs, faith, time and energy perspective.
    I've said it before, if we do not turn the tide at the election we have a big problem - litigation cannot win this war.

    Given the magnitude of refusals I'm thinking that SAPS do not even need an amendment to the FCA as their current process is doing a good job of systematically reducing licenses.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueBloodedHoodlum View Post
    What is this recent disturbance you speak of sir? What have I missed?
    Well, from about the middle of 2015 to about the end of last year there was an intense effort by some lawyers o.b.o. the community to first of all get the Appeals Board to start working in the first place. (At that point in time very few people did appeals and it was common knowledge - and also confirmed before the PPCOP that the average waiting time for appeals were about two years back then).

    The effect of this is that this project, combined with specific litigation, at that point in time put an end to the mass refusals of 2015. The turnaround time on appeals were also with very few exceptions kept within the prescribed time limits from there on.

    When this project started in 2015, the aforesaid lawyers initially did the work (assistance with and submission of appeals) on a pro bono basis for literally hundreds of applicants (the first batch was about 500). Later on, a small fee was charged, that did basically not even cover the disbursements. This was increased at some stage, the lawyers still not breaking even on the project. This was at a time when the going rate for an appeal through lawyers were reportedly somewhere between R15k to R25k. As a result of this project, the going rate came down significantly :).

    Be that as it may, from that point onwards very few appeals were refused and the entire community reaped the benefit. The appeals that were refused, were promptly taken on review, by the aforesaid lawyers. All the review applications were settled in favour of the applicants and the overall impression was that both the Appeals Board and the CFR was generally relatively reluctant to refuse applications and appeals, since they knew that they would be taken on review without hesitation.

    The whole point of driving refused license applications through the appeals process is to have been in a position to keep the sword of judicial review over the heads of the Appeals Board and the SAPS.

    The review application that is mentioned in this thread will however be the last review application that the specific attorney and specific counsel will handle on a contingency basis, meaning that they carry the costs and keep the fees over until the matter is one day finalised and the fees (or the morsels thereof that a taxing master allows) are one day (sometimes two years after the case) collected from the Respondents.

    The aforementioned lawyers have also exited from the GOSA panel of lawyers at the end of October 2018 (this has elsewhere been referred to as the "disturbance in the force" :) ). There are more than one reason for this, that will not be discussed here, but ultimately the lawyers also provided far more than their fair share of a contribution of pro bono work to the community.

    At the end of last year there was a sharp increase in refused appeals. We have heard of yet another TEAM SA member who was refused this morning for the shotgun that he needs to compete internationally with. So this brings it to 3 (TEAM SA members) in the past week alone.

    I sincerely hope that GOSA's current lawyers will have the capacity to promptly take these refusals of appeals on review.

  7. #27
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTTSS View Post
    Well, from about the middle of 2015 to about the end of last year there was an intense effort by some lawyers o.b.o. the community to first of all get the Appeals Board to start working in the first place. (At that point in time very few people did appeals and it was common knowledge - and also confirmed before the PPCOP that the average waiting time for appeals were about two years back then).

    The effect of this is that this project, combined with specific litigation, at that point in time put an end to the mass refusals of 2015. The turnaround time on appeals were also with very few exceptions kept within the prescribed time limits from there on.

    When this project started in 2015, the aforesaid lawyers initially did the work (assistance with and submission of appeals) on a pro bono basis for literally hundreds of applicants (the first batch was about 500). Later on, a small fee was charged, that did basically not even cover the disbursements. This was increased at some stage, the lawyers still not breaking even on the project. This was at a time when the going rate for an appeal through lawyers were reportedly somewhere between R15k to R25k. As a result of this project, the going rate came down significantly :).

    Be that as it may, from that point onwards very few appeals were refused and the entire community reaped the benefit. The appeals that were refused, were promptly taken on review, by the aforesaid lawyers. All the review applications were settled in favour of the applicants and the overall impression was that both the Appeals Board and the CFR was generally relatively reluctant to refuse applications and appeals, since they knew that they would be taken on review without hesitation.

    The whole point of driving refused license applications through the appeals process is to have been in a position to keep the sword of judicial review over the heads of the Appeals Board and the SAPS.

    The review application that is mentioned in this thread will however be the last review application that the specific attorney and specific counsel will handle on a contingency basis, meaning that they carry the costs and keep the fees over until the matter is one day finalised and the fees (or the morsels thereof that a taxing master allows) are one day (sometimes two years after the case) collected from the Respondents.

    The aforementioned lawyers have also exited from the GOSA panel of lawyers at the end of October 2018 (this has elsewhere been referred to as the "disturbance in the force" :) ). There are more than one reason for this, that will not be discussed here, but ultimately the lawyers also provided far more than their fair share of a contribution of pro bono work to the community.

    At the end of last year there was a sharp increase in refused appeals. We have heard of yet another TEAM SA member who was refused this morning for the shotgun that he needs to compete internationally with. So this brings it to 3 (TEAM SA members) in the past week alone.

    I sincerely hope that GOSA's current lawyers will have the capacity to promptly take these refusals of appeals on review.
    Oh fark

    Thanks for the clarity sir

  8. #28
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    BRACKENFELL, CAPE TOWN
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,034

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    If I may ask, on what ground are they refusing these sport shooters? If the pro guys can't get licenses approved, what hope is there for the rest of us?

    Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

  9. #29

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Quote Originally Posted by MANNY82 View Post
    If I may ask, on what ground are they refusing these sport shooters? If the pro guys can't get licenses approved, what hope is there for the rest of us?

    Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk
    Here's the interesting thing. We are seeing a significant percentage of license applications and appeals being decided against the top shooters that compete internationally. This also include handguns. Also a significant percentage of licenses for semi auto shotguns being refused. And a significant number of SAIGA 340 and Benelli shotguns being refused.

    Don't know what to make of it yet. One can only speculate.

    Edit: Unconvincing "reasons". "Failed to convince the Registrar" etc. Which falls short of the standards as set out in PAJA - it boils down to no reasoning at all. (Another example of CFR being in non-compliance with legislation).

  10. #30
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Age
    75
    Posts
    1,483

    Default Re: Clark Attorneys’ court case against SAPS

    Well, the minister did say he would make SA gun free. And it is also ANC policy. Referring to legal private ownership of course.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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