User:Els2020/sandbox

McCarron v Superintendent Peadar Kearney & Others [2010] IESC 28; [2010] 3 IR 302, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which three applicants had sought judicial review of the decisions of Garda Superintendents in their refusal in the granting of firearms certificates. It was held by Fennelly J, with Macken, O' Donnell J.J concurring, that a superintendent, under section 2(2) of the Firearms Act of 1925 (as amended by the Firearms Act of 1964 ). The appeal of the first and second applicant was dismissed and the order of the High Court was affirmed. However, it was in the third applicant's circumstances that the Minister had no function in regards to formulating policy that was found to be inflexible. Following this, a declaration was granted that the Minister had made an unlawful decision as per such inflexible policy.

Background
The first applicant; Mr. McCarron, was refused a firearms certificate on the basis that a Garda Superintendent did not believe that the weapon being licensed was suitable for target practice. The second applicant; Mr. Magee was issued a firearms certificate by a Garda Superintendent that was subject to conditions of use to which he disputed. The third applicant; Mr McVeigh, a registered firearms dealer had applied for an occasional licence for the importation of Westley Richards double barrel .470 rifle. The minister had rejected the application due to policy that allowed the certifying of restricted firearms below .22 inches. All applicants sought judicial review of the decisions made by both Garda superintendents and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Opinion of the Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.

Infobox, located at the right of the article in its own box (this is 'sub-heading 1')
Every Irish Supreme Court case should use the infobox court case template. This can be the last part to add to your article. When you are in edit mode you can click on the infobox and select edit or you can use "edit source" to add information. If you have any trouble with the infobox post a message on the Moodle discussion forum asking for help.

What belongs here:
This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Opinion of the Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.