Alkini v Commissioner of Police

Case [2022] NSWCATAD 299

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Alkini v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 299
Hearing dates: 24 August 2022
Date of orders: 7 September 2022
Decision date: 07 September 2022
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

Administrative Law – refusal of licence application – failure to meet firearms licence conditions – whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence - whether it is contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence.

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Ors (1995) 131 ALR 657

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police v Mercer [2005] NSWADTAP 55

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16.

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; (1991) 1 VR 63

Director-General, Transport New South Wales v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65

Elrich v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 78

Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127

Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31

Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117.

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] 297 ALR 225

Nepotu v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 101

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28

Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184

Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70

Todorovski v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWCATAD 192

Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ahmad Alkini (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Michael Bowe (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00129333
Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. This is an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police ("the Respondent" or "the Commissioner") under the Firearms Act 1996 ("the Act"). The Applicant, Mr Ahmad Alkini, held a Category AB firearms licence for about ten years from June 2010 for the genuine reasons of recreational hunting/vermin control. The licence was suspended in July 2020, and it expired in August 2020 while it was suspended.

  2. The Applicant lodged a new application for a Category AB firearms licence in April 2021. A delegate of the Commissioner determined to refuse that licence application. The decision…

Continue reading Alkini v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Alkini v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 299
Case
[2022] NSWCATAD 299
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alkini v Commissioner of Police involved a challenge to the decision of the Commissioner of Police to refuse the application for a firearms licence by the Applicant, Mr Alkini. The dispute centred around the Commissioner's determination that Mr Alkini did not meet the criteria of being a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, and that it would be contrary to the public interest for him to hold such a licence. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issues that the AAT had to address were whether the Commissioner's decision was lawful and whether it was supported by relevant and sufficient evidence. The AAT had to consider whether the Commissioner correctly identified that Mr Alkini did not meet the criteria of being a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and whether it was contrary to the public interest for him to hold such a licence. The AAT also had to consider whether the Commissioner's decision was based on irrelevant or improper considerations.

The AAT found that the Commissioner's decision was lawful and supported by relevant and sufficient evidence. The AAT found that the Commissioner correctly identified that Mr Alkini did not meet the criteria of being a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence due to his criminal history and mental health issues. The AAT also found that it was contrary to the public interest for Mr Alkini to hold a firearms licence given his history of violence and potential risk to the community. The AAT found that the Commissioner's decision was not based on irrelevant or improper considerations.

The AAT affirmed the decision under review, which was the refusal of the application for a firearms licence by Mr Alkini. The AAT found that the Commissioner's decision was lawful and supported by relevant and sufficient evidence, and that it was not contrary to the public interest for Mr Alkini to be refused a firearms licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.