Antonios v Commissioner of Police

Case [2021] NSWCATAD 20


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Antonios v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 20
Hearing dates: 6 November 2020
Date of orders: 2 February 2021
Decision date: 02 February 2021
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW –firearms licensing -- public interest

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:

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

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

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

Keegan Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145

Lee v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 144

Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276

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

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Tony Antonios (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Yazbeck Law (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/00220172
Publication restriction: None

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. This is an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police (“the Commissioner”) to revoke the category ABH firearms licence held by Tony Antonios (“the Applicant”) under the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”). That decision was affirmed on internal review.

Background

  1. The Applicant was issued a Category AB firearms licence in September 2015 and a Category H firearms licence in October 2016. The Category AB firearms licence was issued for the genuine reasons of Sport/Target Shooting and Recreational Hunting/Vermin Control. The Category H firearms licence was issued for the genuine reasons of genuine reason of Sport/Target Shooting. The Applicant's licence was due to expire on 22 October 2020.

  2. The licence was suspended in May 2019 as a result of an assault charge and related Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”).

  3. The Applicant defended the charge and the AVO successfully and both were dismissed.

  4. In July 2020 the Commissioner’s delegate decided to revoke the Applicant's licence. The Applicant sought an internal review which was unsuccessful.

  5. The reasons provided in relation to the internal review decision identified a number of issues as relevant to the decision. Those included the allegation that the Applicant is not a NSW Resident; the Applicant’s history of contraventions of legislation; and the public interest. The internal reviewer outlined a long history of incidents which had been brought to the attention of the police and also noted:

That in the last five years you have been issued with 22 Traffic Infringement Notices (TIN) for various traffic related offences. In the last 10 years you have been issued with a total of 32 TIN, six of which were for exceeding the speed limit in…

Continue reading Antonios v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Antonios v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 20
Case
[2021] NSWCATAD 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Antonios v Commissioner of Police, the plaintiff, Antonios, sought review of a decision by the Commissioner of Police to revoke his firearms licence. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Antonios argued that the revocation of his licence was unjust and that the Commissioner had not properly considered the relevant public interest factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner had acted lawfully and rationally in revoking Antonios' firearms licence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Commissioner had appropriately exercised his discretion under the Firearms Act 1996 (Cth) and whether the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The court also had to consider whether the decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

The court found that the Commissioner had exercised his discretion lawfully and rationally. The decision to revoke Antonios' firearms licence was supported by substantial evidence, including Antonios' criminal history and conduct. The court held that the Commissioner had appropriately considered the relevant public interest factors, including the need to protect public safety and prevent unlawful use of firearms. The court further found that the decision was not unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, as it was within the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker faced with the same evidence.

The decision under review is affirmed. Antonios' application for review is dismissed.

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.