High Court Justice Cooke also made some further criticisms in his decision. He goes on to say, at paragraph 125, "It is certainly true that there is no such obligation in the sense that Parliament can always legislate inconsistently with the right to receive compensation for a deprivation of property. But on its face the Minister's view goes further, and suggests that because the measures involved prohibiting possession of the property no such right to compensation arose." At paragraph 126 he goes on to say, "For the reasons already addressed at some length, that view is not correct. Moreover, had this been a view formed in relation to a statutory power of decision, there would have been an expectation that the decision-maker would have addressed the common law right more directly. For this reason [he saw] some merit in the applicant's criticism. It also gains force given that prohibited ammunition has been treated differently from prohibited firearms without apparent justification. The Minister's statement that there is no legal obligation to compensate for prohibiting possession of the property does not provide a justification."