Civil rights dispute ends in costly legal bill

| 04/04/2012

404304_10150462172732967_542307966_8730559_270248897_n.jpg(CNS): A local man who believed his civil rights had been trampled on by the police has lost his legal case in the local courts and is now facing a bill of tens of thousands of dollars. Dennie Warren Jr has been in dispute with the police commissioner for some time as he believed that the the police did not have the lawful right to go into Warren’s home at will because he held a firearms licence and that the commissioner was overstepping the boundaries of his office. After a legal wrangle in which Warren represented himself through Cayman's Grand Court and the Court of Appeal, he is now facing a massive billof over CI$29,000.

As a licenced firearms holder who disputed what rights the police had to enter his home, Warren said that the case was not about money or even about owning firearms, but it was a civil rights test that questioned how much leeway the police have to make regulations and policy themselves that stretch the parameters of existing legislation.

Warren said he could not afford a lawyer to test this issue so he had brought the legal case himself in an effort to protect what he believed were his rights to privacy. He believed that the inspection the police wanted to make of his home was unlawful as such a regulation could only be made by the Governor in Cabinet, but the commissioner of police had made it a requirement as a matter of policy. By doing so, he had acted outside the scope of his authority, Warren had argued in court.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the police commissioner does have absolute discretion whether or not to grant licences and so had the right to make an inspection a condition. The high court said that the commissioner had to be satisfied that the circumstances for a licence to be granted were met in the public interest.

Having failed to convince the appeals court of his position, Warren has now been presented with a bill which, he said, could deter other people from pursuing their civil rights in the courts in future. Regardless of the details of this case, he said, the outcome could have a negative impact on people who believe their rights and civil liberties have been breached.

He said others may now be fearful of bringing cases against the authorities when they genuinely believe a wrong has been committed against them because of the potential risk of such a heavy financial penalty for trying.

Believing he had a right to test the police commissioner's interpretation of the law, especially on such a delicate issue of owning licenced firearms, Warren, a former sports shooter, pointed to the increased pressure on licenced firearms owners from the police and efforts to remove guns from personal possession as a knee jerk response to rising crime.

The commissioner has made no secret that he believes that the fewer guns there are in Cayman the better, regardless of the weapons being in the possession of law abiding licence holders. In the past he has pointed to the theft and loss of weapons owned by licence holders that have found their way into the hands of criminals.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

About the Author ()

Comments (90)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NG says:

    The right to bear arms should be a human right for every person on the planet, because every person on the planet deserves the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, exploit them, rape them, or kill them.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The commissioner has made no secret that he believes that the fewer guns there are in Cayman the better, regardless of the weapons being in the possession of law abiding licence holders. In the past he has pointed to the theft and loss of weapons owned by licence holders that have found their way into the hands of criminals.


  3. Loopy Lou says:

    A man with himself as his lawyer has a fool for counsel.

  4. John Evans says:

    As a former member ofthe firearms trade in the UK and a long-time shooter I would like to add my thoughts to this.

    The police in the UK have never had a blanket legal right to conduct random, unannounced visits to premises on which firearms are stored. Although they always pretended this was the case and turned up at any time between 5am in the morning and midnight to conduct so-called inspections it was well established that, unless there were specific grounds to believe that the law was being broken, visits had to be arranged (and the emphasis was on arranged) at times convenient to the certificate holder. After a number of court cases many police forces accepted this but some (notably the larger city forces like the Met and GMP) still choose to ignore it.

    We also have to remember that one of the major motivating factors in the passing of the 1997 handgun ban in the UK was that this kind of intimidation of law-abiding shooters would have shortly become subject to the constraints of the Human Rights Act, particularly Article 8 under which the police would have had to justify every 'out of hours' visit and any other unlawful interference in the normal life of a certificate holder. Despite all the 'public safety' propaganda the bottom line is that the police in the UK, along with the Home Office, were not willing to accept this situation and were prepared to destroy a legitimate sporting activity in order to duck their responsibilities. Prior to 1997 there was never was, nor has there ever been, any evidence that legally held firearms in the UK made any significant contribution to gun crime. In fact since all the publicity and the ban the illegal use of firearms in the UK has rocketed.

    The Dunblane incident, which could have been avoided if one police Inspector had applied the firearms laws of the day and accepted a solid recommendation by one of his officers that Hamilton's weapons be seized, was the ideal excuse for killing two birds with the proverbial one stone. Handguns were banned and the police were able to duck most of the future complications that the Human Rights Act would have introduced to the unlawful interpretation of their rights under the firearms laws.

    A lot of the abuse of police power at the time is well documented but, as an example, where I lived all premises where handguns were stored would be subject to a crime prevention visit by an officer who then demanded that expensive security measures were installed by a specific company – that security company was run by retired police officers. It  happened when the premises I ran my firearms dealership from were inspected in 1981 but when I checked with my insurers they said none of the precautions made any sense so you can pretty much figure out what was going on. In my case it was resolved by simply threatening a formal complaint against the Crime Prevention Officer but many shooters got royally screwed by this guy and his friends.   

    I am not aware of the exact grounds under which Dennie pursued this action but it seems a very strange, and rather dangerous, ruling under which the human rights of a certain section of society are suspended just because of their chosen sporting activity.

    What next? Is every potentially lethal item going to be subject to random scrutiny? A baseball bat or machete is just as lethal as a 9mm pistol and an heck of a lot easier to use.

    Dennie, with due respect, you should have bought this action under ECHR and made RCIPS prove that their random visits were compatible with the requirements of Article 8 (2). That would have forced them to reveal the vetting protocols currently being applied under the discretionary powers the CoP apparently has in this area and I bet they wouldn't have pursued it.

    • Lib says:

      Two heads are better than one. Dennie should have sought a variety of legal opinion before venturing the courts alone. Oh well… I hope he has learnt from this loss and move on. Most definitely, we have learnt something from this case that is very disturbing.

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        I learned a few things yes, but “move on”?  Absolutely not!  Our right to privacy, etc.… are under active attack by those who should be respecting those rights.  Including the Governor Mr. Duncan Taylor, Commissioner of Police Mr David Baines, the Premier Mr. McKeeva Bush…, the AG…

  5. Anonymous says:

    I have a lot of time for Dennie and the principles he stands for but in this case, he fought his battle on the wrong battleground….and has lost heavily.

    I totally agree with him that his case might now deter others from challenging the system when they think their rights have been denied….but…

    This is entirely his fault, not Baines or anyone else.

    There is absolutely NO RIGHT to ownfirearms in the British legal system…it is a PRIVILEGE granted under certain conditions.

    As far as I am concerned Dennie Warren Jr has been most irresponsible in handling this privilege…and others will suffer the consequences, as well as him.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Do not worry about having to pay the bill Dennie – the incompetence of your government and its administration is so overwhelming that by the time they discover that you have not paid the bill, East End will be named after you.

  7. Anonymous says:

    This is not a matter of the right to own a firearm, it is about an individual not wanting the police to inspect where he was keeping his firearm.  He accepted the conditions to get the licence, but then didn't want to abide by them and XXXX felt so strongly that he would waste the court's time as well.  XXXX  When you insist on wasting the court's time, you aught to have to pay for it.  My mom always told me, "Abide by the rules and you will be a whole lot better off than if you don't." Respect the laws and the rules that govern civilisation and we'll all be better off.

  8. A bane of corruption says:

    Since we the public are paying this enormous police bill for this foreign police service and they keep demanding more and more money from an idiotic government who keep complying to protect themselves from investigations or prosecution. We the public would like to have some oversight and accountability as to where and how many weapons and ammunition they have in there safe or armoury or i guess like our political elite and government officials on this island they are above the law and how dare we ask?Too many instances of ineptitude and incompetence can not now simply be explained away any longer, a serious change in management is obviously needed and the intelligently aggressive now need to be put to pasture,before the lack of confidence and authority to police the people of these islands totally evapourates. Mr Warren is clearly within his rights to question their authority as a citizen who has to foot the bills for this same very police service who's current and past actions and investigations with regard to the mishandling and lost of the public's property and equipment ie police firearms and ammunition is very suspect.  

  9. Anonymous says:

    This guy went to court looking for justice. All he found was legality. How naive.


    Justice is free. Legality costs you an arm and a leg.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Warren, don't pay one RED CENT!!!!

    • The Truth Speaks says:

      15:20  Please it is best not to fan this fire between Denny and the Commissioner, because the whole forrest may get burnt down.  Let thoughts, and peace prevail. and space for forgiveness on both sides.  We have to live here. Please

  11. Words by a renown Environmentalist says:

    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed –but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government — and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

    — Edward Paul Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

  12. Anonymous says:

    I have a question, perhaps I just am not aware if it has been answered before.  

    1. Dennie, were you aware that you might be responsible for the costs?  


    2.  Have you been provided a detailed bill?

    3.  Is there a law around the "losing" party paying all costs or does the other party have to request/sue for it?

    • Anonymous says:

      Costs are requested as a part of a judgement Order. Costs must be broken down in a way required by Law and may be "taxed", i.e. audited, by a taxing officer at the Courts Office.  

      • Betcha says:

        Betcha that case would normally cost CI$ 290.00 but because of long winded statements got racked up to CI$29,000.00  : )

  13. Soapbox Sally says:

    Whether it is legal or not, quite honestly I would rather that the premises of gun license holders are regularly checked to ensure tha they are keeping them responsibly and securely. The are too many cases in the states where kids (and I mean little ones) are finding them, thinking they are toys and shooting each other. They need to be kept securely in a lock box so that burglars and children do not ge their hands on them…..having that monitored would make me feel more secure.

    • r u for real? says:

      you cannot be for real! whether it is legal or not! it is easy to communicate this when you are on the other side of the fence. I wonder what you will say when you are adversely affected by such illegal behavior of the Police who knock your door down because they "suspect and or was informed" that you have a firearm in your premises (not just inside your dwelling but any where about your property).

      Not to mention alter another Regulation that could negatively affect you without due process. Our legal system is created on stare decisis and you should be concerned this type of act does not occur in other government bodies.

      It is not like the CoP was without means to request an amendment to the Law! 

  14. Anonymous says:

    This may sound like a simple explanation to the issue but it’s probably why Dennie lost his argument. The renewal form he signed clearly says;

     “I understand that the RCIPS reserves the right to inspect my safe, firearm and ammunitions at any time after the grant of the license if my license is approved.”

    Once you sign that it gives the Police consent to search your home. It does not need to be written in law, if the police rock up to your yard and say "CAN WE SEARCH YOUR HOME WITH YOUR CONSENT" and you say "YES" then they can lawfully search your home. That’s why it’s called consent.

    If you don’t sign the form then the commissioner who has the overall say on who can and cannot have a license as stated in law is likely to say. “(A) This person appears to be of intemperate habits, liable to fits of uncontrolled temper, notoriously careless or of unsound mind or (B) is not fit to be entrusted with a firearm”

    It clearly states it in the firearms law section 21. (2) A & b.

    If you won’t let a police officer in your home then most people would argue that you fit into category B as you must have something to hide and would be deemed suspicious.

    If you want to own a car you have to let the license dept. inspect it, if you build a house you have to let the planning dept. inspect it, if you export a dog you have to let a vet inspect it.

    That’s the way of the world; if you want the gun then it needs to be inspected.


    • r u for real? says:

      Psst. psst. hey you, yeah you, all of those inspections you took time to communicate in your second to last paragraph are in Law! Save for the Firearms Licence application in question, which is not the one in enshrined in law, however it was unilaterally and incorrectly amended by the Chief of Police thus breaching the law himself when he required all applicants be they renewals (like Mr. Warren) or new to fill it out! There is no section in any law that gives the CoP such authority and or right to amend law. If I am incorrect please lead me along with the many other concerned residents to said sections of law.

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      No, I didn’t sign the version of the form posted on the RCIPS website which contains “I understand that the RCIPS reserves the right to inspect my safe, firearm and ammunitions at any time after the grant of the license if my license is approved,” for the very reason you quoted (it’s consent), and because that form is not prescribed in accordance with the law.  XXXXX


      If is not possible for Section 21. (2)(a) and (b) of the Firearms Law to apply, because I instead used the required form, as is provided in S. 20, and which reads: “Applications for licences and permits 20. Every application for any licence or permit shall- (a). be addressed to the appropriate authority [CoP for GCM and DC on Brac & LC]; (b). be in the PRESCRIBED form [as required by S.43 and Regulation 4]”


      The UK Police officers who look down on me as IF they are superior are the one who are “unfit,” they give the many good andhard working officers in the RCIPS a bad name.  However, the “Application to RENEW a Firearm License FORM F” that I actually used, is the form which was lawfully prescribed in the First Schdule of the Firearm Regulations (in accordance with S.43 of the Law).  So your position is that since I used the FORM F which the Firearms Law and Regulations require me to use, then the Commissioner of Police can declare me “unfit”???  What a silly argument!

      Regarding: “If you won’t let a police officer in your home then most people would argue that you fit into category B as you must have something to hide and would be deemed suspicious.”

      Firsly, what most people think does not repeal the law, except in revolutions.  Good governance is not a synonym for mob rule, and yes the Cayman Islands are moving rapidly towards mob rule, but I want no part of mob rule!

      Secondly, I have nothing to hide and whenever the Police can justify to the proper person that they need a warrant, I will politely open the door and welcome them in.  But if anyone believes for one second that they will bully me into becoming so afraid that I will simply surrender my rights to privacy…, whatever you’re smoking must be illegal.  It is never going to happen!

      Finally, there is a related point I’d like to make here regarding the version of the FORM F which is published on the RCIPS website. The RCIPS changed the wording of one question on the FORM F from “Description of firearms for which the LICENSE is required." to "Description of firearms for which PERMIT is required"

      Since none of the “Permits” prescribed in S.19 of the Firearms Law are renewable, why would the RCIPS change the wording from “licence” to “permit”?  XXXX

  15. Anonymous says:

    This is foolishness. Dennie wanted to exercise his right to bear arms. He also wanted to exercise his right to free speech. Now is time to exercise your right to pay your bill. Going into this he knew it was going to cost hence representing himself, now don’t act surprised that the bill has come. Pay the bill and keep rolling.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is not the U.S. Dennie does not have a right to bear arms.   

  16. The lone haranguer rides again! says:

    The only people who should have guns on this island should be the police . Safer than having a bunch of hot head quacks running around in they paranoid delusions that someone is out to get them.

    Rather police will track down and jail any criminal who have guns, time longer than twine, and the crooks will be less likely to use there guns on private citizens if they are sure no private people are armed.

    Let the police do there jobs we do not need the guns loving crazies out there blazing away at shadows.

  17. Master of the Rolls Lord Justice Farquat says:

    I submit that unfortunately many of these posting are based on ignorant conjecture especially those questioning the legitimacy of this case affecting one’s Human Rights.


    Considering that our legal system is based on English Common Law, I request of these “legal scholars” that have posted on this Article to identify case law that demonstrates that Civil Servants can unilaterally supersede an Act of Parliament by changing statutes and or Regulations at their sole discretion.


    It is base knowledge that the only European Community Law is the only law that can set aside an Act of United Kingdom Parliament as they have effectively relinquished Parliamentary Sovereignty when they voluntarily signed on to the European Economic Community Treaty (“EEC”) in 1972 becoming effect the 1 January 1973.


    Only National Justices can adjudicate in the Public Interest, the Chief of Police (“CoP”) a mere Civil Servant is by no means a Justice of the Court. His role is to make recommendations to Parliament such as amending the Fire Arms Law and its Regulations to reflect his desire to search at any time a licence holder’s premises to confirm prudent storage of said firearm.


    I submit by reading this Article and Mr. Warren’s response below to ‘Anonymous on Wed, 04/04/2012 – 09:10’ that his case was built on the aforementioned ground. To reiterate, by all accounts Mr. Warren contends that the CoP over stepped his authority by unilaterally and incorrectly altering a Statue (in this case the Licence Application) to suit his benefit or agenda albeit purported as being done in Public Interest.


    This is a serious and dangerous precedent this Judge has created within the Cayman Islands, now it is fair game to have Heads of Government Departments altering Statutory Documents at their sole discretion because they have unilaterally deemed such amendment to be in the Public Interest.      


    I submit to Mr. Warren’s consideration to have this matter heard before the Court of Appeal requesting them to submit it to the ECJ for an Interpretation as your Human Rights have been violated and the National Courts are contravening in your full rights conferred to you as a citizen of a Member State. Less we forget in 1989 Factortame litigation established that Joe Public can be granted interim relief against the Act of Parliament because their rights pursuant to Community Law was breach by a Member State. They also were awarded compensation for loss as well.


    In closing, to all those who believe that this is not a Human Rights violation is in need of a serious reality check, especially a precedent has now been set allowing Civil Servants to amend Statutes of Parliament at any time and for whatever reason they conjure up. Good luck Cayman in maintaining your Financial Services portfolio henceforth. As one poster communicated this is a far reaching and an involved matter.

  18. Peanuts says:

    The choice between a SUBJECT and a CITIZEN is yours to make.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Dennie, I wish I could talk to you off air about this.  However, if you are familiar with a case several years ago where the wording in the law did not specify a particular piece or brand for breathalyser and persons due in court were able to have their cases dismissed?   In other words, the law stated something to the effect that a person could be breathalysed and it specified the equipment.  Then the police change the equipment and the wording in the law did not change to include that new type of equipment and it was challenged by a lawyer in court and he won.  THey could not prosecute the person although he was over the limit simply because the equipment was not named in the law.   Long winded I know but I want to make this point clear. 

    The police therefore, cannot come into your home if you are in compliance with the written law, unless they suspect a crime and even then they need a warrant so unless we are going to be turned into a state that is run under Martial Law where the police has all rights to do with us as they please, the appellate court was wrong and did not follow precedent.


    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:


    • Anonymous says:

      "The police therefore, cannot come into your home if you are in compliance with the written law, unless they suspect a crime and even then they need a warrant so unless we are going to be turned into a state that is run under Martial Law where the police has all rights to do with us as they please, the appellate court was wrong and did not follow precedent."

      That is my understanding of civilized societies.  Did the Commish even give a reason for entering?  

  20. Anonymous says:

    Dennie, thank you for standing up and speaking out. We need many like you.

  21. Bodden says:

    Dennie is a man with iron balls. The rest of the gun owners who criticize Dennie are wimps, hiding in their homes with license firearms. Those owners are so wimpish that they would allow family owners and thugs to use their firearms to commit crime. I know for sure seeing Dennie's bold stand, he is bold enough to allow no one to do such a thing. Invading his housewas just an act of attempting to INTIMIDATE Dennie, because Dennie does not put up with bull.  If I see something wrong with the system, I am going to address it too. I am not going to rock in my hammock and say all is well with me. I am not going to do that. We need more Caymanians like Dennie Warren who will take a stand. And yes to the commenter who is purporting that owning a weapon for self-defense is not a right, I have this to say, try calling 911 or relying on the commissioner when your home is being invaded by criminals, and tell your spouse and kids that it is not your right to defend the family before police arrive  to the scene late. Relying on the police and government for your self-defense is brainwashing and outright lies. You must rely on nobody else but yourself, and Dennie is one Caymanian that see through this "colonial propaganda" … excuse the term, but that is exactly what it is… it has nothing to do with fighting crime and corruption like they say. BUT IT HAS ALL TO DO WITH CONTROL AND MANIPULATION!  Why do you think theyare bugging phones and installing cctv camaras all over the f.cking place. Wake-up Cayman. 

  22. Anonymous says:

    I don't mean to ask a silly question but what is it that cost CI$29,000? Court costs?

  23. Anonymous says:


    Cayman Islands Firearms Law 2008 Revised:  

    "I understand that any firearms license issued to me must be renewed according to provisions of the Firearms Law.
    I understand that the RCIPS reserves the right to inspect my safe, firearm and ammunitions at anytime after the grant of the licence if my licence is approved.

    I agree to comply with the laws and regulations of the 2008 Firearms Law and Firearms Regulations 1999 revision and any subsequent laws and regulations."

    • Sniff Sniff says:

      So, based on what the statute says if the RCIPS can inspect the firearm etc, ipso facto, if the firearm is in your home RCIPS can inspect it.  What was Dennie's defense?  If he is disputing solely that RCIPS should not have entered his home to inspect his firearm(s) then sorry but the law is clear.  If he was disputing any other issues, I couldnt opine. In any event Dennie, a law student or an articled clerk could have advised you on this point.  The first thing you learn in law school is "he who asserts must prove".  If you assert the RCIPS did something illegal you need to prove it and in the face of the legislation I'm not sure how you could have proven your case.  If you did take legal advice your attorney took advantage, if you didnt you cannot now blame anyone or put it down to "they" who have a conspiracy against you.  You often visit this site and its clear you are savvy and knowledgeable so I just don't understand how you thought you would win.  The legal costs are not receoverable (at least not 100% recoverable) and what you endured is what many attorneys warn their clients about – the uncertainty of litigation.  Now we all have a right to pursue any claim we want but sound legal advice would have probably saved you from this outcome.  Our community is too small, you must know some legally trained colleague who could have assisted you even if he/she didnt represent you.  Anyways, what is done is done (unless you appeal!).  Honestly, I hate guns and I never agreed with your advocacy of them even thought I have been in sutuations where I have needed to defend myself, I still don't want guns anywhere near me nor would I permit one in my home.  To each his own, I wonder if now your public advocacy of firearms will come qualified with a caveat – owning a firearm may cost you $29k!!

      • Jim says:

        Sniff, Sniff, please see the above comment. Dennie Warren just proves what he says, and it makes sense to me.

        • Duh! says:

          But not to the Court of Appeal, who may be a little better placed to decide what the law is than you or I. 

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      1. Re: "I understand that any firearms license issued to me must be renewed according to provisions of the Firearms Law.” and “I agree to comply with the laws and regulations of the 2008 Firearms Law and Firearms Regulations 1999 revision and any subsequent laws and regulations."


      My reply: I agree. 

      2. Re: “I understand that the RCIPS reserves the right to inspect my safe, firearm and ammunitions at anytime after the grant of the licence if my licence is approved.”

      My reply: This is one of the parts which I believe is unlawful for the followings reasons:

      This phrase does not appear anywhere in the Firearms Law (2008 Revision), nor does it appear anywhere on any of the firearm application forms which are prescribed in the Firearms Regulations (1999 Revision), that is why the RCIPS cannot supply a Section or Regulation reference number for it.

      The RCIPS do not have rights, they have powers which are granted by the Legislature, and the powers they do have are not provided to deign people of their rights.  For example, the right to private life.  The firearm form referenced in your post is not a acturate representation of the form which is prescribed in the Firearms Regulations.

      3. Why does the firearm form on the RCIPS website differ from the one prescribed in the Firearms Regulations?

      My answer in part is (long story)-
      a. Section 20(b) of the Firearms Law reads: “Every application for any licence or permit shall be in the prescribed form”

      b. Section 3, paragraph 37 of the Interpretation Law, reads: “prescribed” means prescribed by the Law in which the word occurs or by any regulations made thereunder, and, in relation to any regulations, where no other authority is empowered in that behalf in the Law, prescribed by the Governor in Council.”

      c. Section 1, paragraph 45 of the Interpretation Law reads: “Regulations” include rules, bye-laws, proclamations, orders, schemes, notifications, directions, notices and forms.”

      d. Regulation 4(a) of the Firearm Regulations reads: “Applications for licences or permits to which these regulations apply as well as licences and permits granted shall be in the form specified in the First Schedule”

      e. Section 29(1) of the Interpretation Law reads: “All regulations made under any Law or other lawful authority and having legislative effect shall be published in the Gazette and unless it be otherwise provided shall take effect and come into operation as law on the date of such publication.”

      f. Section 43 of the Firearms Law reads “The Governor may make regulations for the better carrying out of this Law and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, for prescribing anything required or permitted by this Law TO BE PRESCRIBED.”

      g. Section 2, paragraph 12 of the Firearms Law reads: “Governor” means the Governor in Cabinet.

      h. Section 3, paragraph 22 of the Interpretation Law, reads: “Governor in Cabinet” means the Governor acting in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council of the Islands.”

      i. Section 27(a) of the Interpretations Law reads: “Where a Law confers power on any authority to make or issue REGULATIONS, the following provisions shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have effect with reference to the making, issue and operation of such regulations.  A regulation may, at any time, be amended, varied, suspended, rescinded or revoked by the SAME AUTHORITY and in the same manner by and in which it was made”

      j. Clearly the Commissioner is not the “authority” who made the Firearm Regulations.

      k. Section 58 of the Interpretation Law reads: “Whenever forms are prescribed in any Law, slight deviations therefrom, NOT AFFECTING the substance or calculated to mislead, shall not invalidate them.”

      l. The material changes in the ultra vires forms published by the Commissioner of Police are unlawful, because they do affect the substance of the forms and they also mislead the public.

      m. On page 2 of a decision of the Complaints Commissioner (C0910-12099), dated March 9, 2010, Ms. Williams described the material changes to the firearm Form A, Form B and Form F, prescribed in the First Schedule of the Firearm Regulations.  According to her, one of the material changes is this same phrase “I understand that the RCIPS reserves the right to inspect my safe, firearm and ammunitions at anytime after the grant of the licence if my licence is approved.”

      n. However, before the Firearms Regulations can be amended, a Cabinet paper would have to first be considered by the Ministers of Cabinet, during a meeting of Cabinet and then the Governor in Cabinet would have to take the advice of the Minister to make amendments to the Firearms Regulations, or H.E. would have to act contrary to the advice of Minister, but in any event, a record of such an act must exist in the Cabinet Office, and be published in the Gazette, as required in Section 29(1) of the Interpretation Law.

      o. No such record exists to show:
      i. that the Governor, pursuant to Section 43 of the Firearms Law made any amendment to the Firearms Regulations since August 2, 1999, and specifically no amendment which caused any firearm application form that was prescribed and published in the First Schedule of the Firearms Regulations on August 2, 1999 to be amended, or Gazetted at any time after August 2, 1999.

      ii. that the Governor acted contrary to the advice of the Ministers of Cabinet in relation to paragraph clause 4(o)(i) above.

      In short, the firearm forms you see published on the RCIPS website have not been authorized by the Governor in Cabinet (meaning Cabinet Ministers), and in my view are illegal.

      ps. Check the laws for yourself, I'm not asking to take my word for it.

      • Just Sayin' says:

        Dude, you lost. Face up to it.

        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

          Classic strategy, when one has nothing intelligent to say, issue personal attacks.  An intelligent response would be to explain why you feel that view is wrong by providing facts.

          • Legal Seagull says:

            It was not a personal attack.  It was a statement of fact.  You lost.  I tend to think a decision of the Court of Appeal is fact enough.    Call me a traditionalist. 

            • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

              Are you referring to the CICA battle or the civil rights war?  This is not the end!  The UK anti private firearm would like that, but that will never happen.

      • Anonymous says:

        You forgot to add that you are in a third world country.

        I will spell it out for you.  Third world laws and rules only apply to certain persons at certain times and you are not the premeir.

      • Anonymous says:

        You've quoted an awful lot of sections, but in my view you have steered clear of the sections which clearly give ther Commissioner authority to impose restrictions:

        1) section 19 (e) of the firearms law 2008 makes it clear that the appropriate authority for granting a Firearm User's ( Restricted ) licence may issue suchlicence  " … subject to … such restrictions as the appropriate authority may impose…."

        2) the meaning of the term "appropriate authority" in relation to the grant of a licence is given in the definition section of the law as being defined in section 30 of the law;

        3) section 30 of the law states that:

        'The appropriate authority for the grant of any… Firearm User's ( Restricted ) Licence shall be the Commissioner…."


        Given the above, it should be clear to any objective individual that the Commissioner can impose restrictions within the existing framework of the law without the law having to be amended or such restrictions having to be referred to a higher authority. It is within his authority to state such restrictions however he sees fit and he does so on application forms for prospective licencees to read, understand and accept. 


        It seems clear to me that you have chosen to ignore the authority vested in the Commissioner because it does not suit you to acknowledge it. This is an act of wilfull ignorance and it is appropriate that you should pay the costs associated with the waste of court time.

        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

          I didn’t steer clear of anything.  Above I was dealing with who is empowered by Law to make Firearm Regulations.  S.43 of the Law makes it clear that it is not the CoP, but is instead for the Elected Ministers of Cabinet.

          S.30(3) of the Firearms Law reads: “The appropriate authority in Grand Cayman for the grant, amendment or revocation of any Firearm Import Permit, Firearm Export Permit, Firearm Disposal Permit, Firearm User’s (Restricted) Licence orFirearm User’s (Special) Permit shall be the Commissioner and the appropriate authority in Cayman Brac and Little Cayman shall be the District Commissioner.”

          So it’s clear that the “appropriate authority” for a Firearms User’s (Restricted) License on Grand Cayman ONLY is the CoP, and for Cayman Brac and Little Cayman it is the District Commissioner on CB.

            S.19(e) reads: “Subject to section 17 and this Part, the appropriate authority may grant the following licences or permits a Firearm User’s (Restricted) Licence authorising the holder thereof, subject to the provisions of section 17 and of such RESTRICTIONS as the appropriate authority may impose, to be in possession of the firearm specified in such licence”

          He can say that a firearm cannot be in a public place at certain times of the day, but that section does not give the CoP any power to enter my home at anytime he feels like it to inspect my safe, or add to the application requirements which are PRESCRIBED in S.20 of the Law and the Regulations.  I just wish that I had the money to continue the challenge.

          Only UK anti-private firearm civil servants are objective right?

  24. Anonymous says:


    You should at least have got some preliminary legal advice. I know that you want to be but you are not a lawyer.


    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      I did, but unlike some people I don't have a bag of tricks.

      • Anonymous says:

        Are you saying that you consulted a lawyer versed in these matter who advised you that you had a good case? I am not sure what you mean by "bag of tricks". Either the CoP has absolute discretion to enter your home at will to inspect or he doesn't. It seems that it was a condition of you getting the gun licence you agree that he had that right.    

    • Anonymous says:

      OK guys,

      Set up a fund for Denny our very own at a bank. Lawyers you make a lot of money,

      be the first to lead the way in helping our son of the soil pay this off.

      Its time to help our own.

      Set up a fund and start donating.




    • Santa Claws says:

      …and what makes you so sure he didn't?

  25. A. Pastafarian says:

    "The high court said that the commissioner had to be satisfied that the circumstances for a licence to be granted were met in the public interest."

    The commissioner should have been satisfied BEFORE he issued the licence!  If a person passes all the requirements and conditions, proving he is qualified and responsible, he should be given a licence.  He should not subjected to harassment or home invasion without cause.  What was the reason for the home invasion?  Or was there a reason?


    • Boston says:

      There was no home invasion. The commissioner wrote a very polite letter asking for an appointment to go and inspect and Mr Warren refused

  26. Anonymous says:

    So, if I understand well, to be able to come up for your rights, you will have to have a lot of money ?


    • Anonymous says:

      Denny, I sympathize with you. But remember you are no attorney. This is a very high profile case, how in the world can you not afford to pay an attorney, but you now must afford to pay $29,000 in court costs?

      The truth is that you really could not afford "Not to hire an attorney." I'm sure an attorney would have worked with you and your budget. There's also legal aid that you should have qualified for. This case is very serious, how could you even conceive that you would be able to handle this yourself. XXXXX

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        I wanted a lawyer, but didn’t have enough money.  I believe, some of the lawyers I contacted wanted to avoid taking on the state.  In fact, without a lawyer, I didn’t receive a fair hearing, because I was unequal before the court.  Not that equality matters much to the state.  However, I would rather try than do nothing. I’m told legal aid is for criminal matters.

        • anonymously says:

          That is why MONEY talks, bullsh..t walks!  The system is rigged and only supports those who makes the big bucks!

        • Boston says:

          I doubt very much you were not given a fair hearing. This court of appeal has a world renowned human rights expert on it, and two very experienced judges who will also have had human rights training. I have watched it in action dealing very fairly and courteously with less well educated and privileged litigants than you and been impressed by their patience and care. Plus it is the duty of an advocate facing a litigant in person to be scrupulous to assist the court to make sure that the relevant material is before the court. I think you should post a copy of the reasons for judgment on CNS so that everyone can see whether you were dealt with fairly. Your argument has all the hallmarks of technical sophistry exercised by those with bad cases but conveniently ignores the operative section of the law giving the Commissioner “absolute discretion”.

          • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

            "absolute discretion" is what dictators like Hitler had, all power to do as he desired.

            • Boston says:

              I’ve read the judgment now. I think CNS should post it because most of this debate would be seen to be completely misguided

              The court found that the commissioner had exercised his discretion lawfully and reasonably and that the contrary was unarguable.

              • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

                I don’t agree with the CICA, but to say that the CoP does has “absolute discretion,” what possible wrong could a CoP do in these matters, and how meaningful would the applicant’s right to appeal administrative decisions be?

        • Legal Seagull says:

          Doubt you would have found any credible lawyer that would have thought you had a serious case.  Had your case raised genuine and meritorious civil liberties issues then a lawyer would have taken it on for you.

    • Stiff-Necked Fool says:

      "I fought the law and the law won" – Bobby Fuller.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Reality check.  This XXXX by Dennie was due to the fact they wouldn't give him ANOTHER license – he had more than one and then they changed the rules and the forms – it became more difficult and allowed the police access to check the appropriate security was in place for storage of the weapons.  Why do you need guns in Cayman anyway?  This has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights which deal with IMPORTANT issues such as right to life, right not to be tortured, right to fair trial, right not to be detained without judicial intervention. 

    Be honest and stop dressing up the right to bear arms as a civil right.  Its not. If you don't like it go an live in the USA where gun related deaths are significantly higher by proportion of population than in countries which adopt policies such as the one in Cayman.



    • Bling man says:

      How you know all this?

    • New England says:

      Not too smart. So someone sticks a gun in front your face and you're telling me that that has nothing to do with infringing your RIGHT TO LIFE????!!!!  Self-defense goes back to the days before B.C. It is more than a RIGHT!  It is a human natural response that ought to always be and never prohibited.

    • Cat says:

      Please be reminded that the reason he possessed guns and his licenses were for the purpose of game shooting as he is a member of the Cayman shooting Association. This association represents Cayman at shooting tournaments Internationally , once there is a an event. This is the reason. Just like there are Associations locally and internationally for archery (bow & arrow), darts, etc along with shooting associations. Of course these guns could be used as self-defense if the need arose, and he has the right to.

      Part of the reason he has also come up against such opposition by the RCIPS, is because he is also a vocal activists who is not afraid to voice his beliefs and challenge the laws and its enforcers if need be and if he feels that his or anyone else's liberty was jeopardized.

      Sometimes you win and sometimes you don't, but at least there is someone who is willing to try despite the odds against them.

    • Anonymous says:

      You are an absolute idiot! I need not write no more

    • Anonymous says:

      The right I think he was challenging was his right to privacy which is in the new bill of rights. 

      I don't like guns and I feel having one in my home makes it more likely for me to get shot with it by the intruder rather than me shooting them. 

      Think Dennie is just the type of guy who likes the challenge. Why was it so important to pursue this case? Why didn't he just let it go from the first time the Court said he had lost, why take it to the Court of Appeal? 

      I assume the $29,000 is the state's legal bills that he has to pay for making them spend money frivilously to defend themselves against him and now that he lost more than likely they are going to ask for him to pay the court costs. 

      After all that, was it worth it Dennie? You didn't have the money to pay for a lawyer to defend your rights but you still now have to fork over money to pay their legal costs! Isn't life a b*tch! 

  28. Anonymous says:


    Fight for your right Dennie Warren. If there is a charity or support to donate to your cause I will be happy to help, with the very little I have.

    Privacy, civil and human rights is something that Cayman is lacking. The Police force down here aren't competent enough, yet still have the right to search homes and private places without a warrant.

    We as people have absolutely NO power as police can practically do ANYthing they want as long as they are "suspicious". Suspicious meaning lazy and not efficient/professional enough to finding out facts to take out a warrant.

    If only they could take steps to tackling things the correct and civil way…. But then again, we do have some damn stupid criminal offenders, Take fingerprints, DNA and start a database, so if you do find catch someone, you can trace him back to other potential crimes that may have been unsolved and identifying and prosecuting people wouldn't be so hard would it?


    … Where is the balance? This is island is WAY to small for garbage like this.

    • Anonymous says:

      Read   report  again  !  The man was a license gun holder  why would  the RCIPS need a warrant to search  his  house ?


  29. WREX says:


    I guess he forgot to point out the theft and loss of weapons owned by the police "force".  Should we not allow the police to have firearms then?  Of course they (some) should be armed and trained, how else would they be able to confront these criminals?

    The point is, that criminals will not refrain themselves from carrying guns, as a matter of fact it has become very common among them to carry a gun even if it is just to show off.

    I do not have a gun but neither am I opposed of someone legally acquiring a firearm, whatever the reason may be.  In most cases these are law abiding citizens otherwise they would avoid the headache and just buy one.

    We cannot forget how easy it is to purchase a firearm in Cayman…

    • Anonymous says:

      It is not easy to "purchase a firearm in Cayman". However, it is not difficult to obtain one.

      • Bling man says:

        Pickey, picky, picky,,,,,,  I guess he shoulda put "legally" in  there.

    • Anonymous says:

      A poor set to protect us when they are leaving ammo at the practice sight.

  30. Dipstick says:

    We had firearms in our residence in central London in the uk. They were licensed and we knew that the police could come to our house any time and require access and they did. Not a problem. It was one of the requirements of the licence. Don’t see what the problem is unless there was something to hide. Weapons are dangerous. Rips needs to know where they are supposed to be at all times

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      This is not London, we have a separate legal system and therefore a different Firearms law from the one enacted in the UK.  

      Regarding rights, people like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Cameron might agree with you, but I do not.  I have nothing to hide, and absolutely reject any claim by anyone who believe they can enter my home “at anytime” without a warrant in these matters.  That kind of thinking is why UK citizens have been and continue to lose their rights…  


      • Anonymous says:

        Yet UK Citizens probably have more rights than most other nations in the world.

        Sorry but the law states that they can entre your home at anytime to inspect how you keep your firearms. 

        In the UK I was very friendly with the local firearms inspectors.  The only reason they check up is to make sure your doing your part to look after a firearm.  If you cannot be trusted to store it correctly you cannot be trusted to use it correctly.  Having spent many hours on the ranges it shocks me as to who is allowed a firearm in other parts of the world.  Personnally I believe not only should people be vetted, home inspected but also checked to make sure they can handle their firearm in a proficient manner.  If not then the licence should be revoked & firearm removed.

      • Anonymous says:

        You're seriously lumping Cameron in with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot? Is it any surprise then that whilst representing your own case you lost the original case as well as appeal?

        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

          Backlash grows over GCHQ 'snooping'
          Press Association, Sunday April 1 2012

          Under legislation expected in next month's Queen's Speech, internet companies will be instructed to install hardware enabling GCHQ – the Government's electronic "listening" agency – to examine "on demand" any phone call made, text message and email sent, and website accessed, in "real time" without a warrant…


          • Accountant says:

            That's very distrubing!  I saw them talking about it on BBC news, and I am suspecting that experimentation had to be taken placed before drafting this legislation. They have probably experimented on Turks and Caicos Islanders, tap phones and listened in on conversations. Probably on us too before they've made the announcement. Typical colonial heads, I say!

          • Anonymous says:

            Dennie You are losing the plot man, we live in a quandary state, a realm within a realm, one being just as insane as the next. Until we have true independence, we will always blame our overseas masters for all the injustices meeted out against the common citizen rather than learning by our own mistakes. I absolutely applaud you for your intelligent and principled stance on this issue but I believe we need to rebuild our ideas about what we want as a society and what we are prepared to accept from our politicians. Cayman will fail, possibly because of the chain of events you have put in place, possibly because of the total disrespect of the local laws by both the Government and it's citizens, but either way it makes no difference whose law you respect if you tolerate corruption, which is a way of life here. I am sad to say that all your efforts will have been to no avail, this "paradise" has been bent and tortured by corruption and self interest, which is a strange thing to happen to such a diverse Christian society. Your best hope is to enter politics and change the laws by example, XXXX

          • Anonymous says:

            And that relates to heads of state who committed atrocities against their own people (and others), how?

  31. Thin Lizzy says:

    God save the Queen!