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
-
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
-
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.
-
The licence was suspended in May 2019 as a result of an assault charge and related Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”).
-
The Applicant defended the charge and the AVO successfully and both were dismissed.
-
In July 2020 the Commissioner’s delegate decided to revoke the Applicant's licence. The Applicant sought an internal review which was unsuccessful.
-
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
- AGLC
- Antonios v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 20
- Case
- [2021] NSWCATAD 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.