APPLICANT S Mainstone, Solicitor RESPONDENT W Pisani, Agent
ORDERS:
The decision under review is affirmed
1 Mr Aubrey held a Category AB firearms licence that was revoked on 12 December 2004. The determination to revoke the licence was affirmed on an internal review.
Applicable legislation
2 Mr Aubrey’s licence was issued under the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”) which sets up a scheme to license people to possess and use firearms. The principles and objects are set out in section 3 of the Act. They are to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.
3 Section 24 of the Act makes provision for the revocation of a licence. For example, section 24(2)(b) of the Act provides that a licence may be revoked if the licensee contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations, whether or not the licensee has been convicted of an offence for the contravention, or contravenes any condition of the licence, or if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or for any other reason prescribed by the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 (“the Regulations”). Clause 17 of the Regulations provides that a licence may be revoked if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for the person to whom it is issued to continue to hold it.
Background
4 Mr Aubrey is 26 years of age and has held a firearms licence since June 2003. Since that time he has come to the attention of Police on several occasions that Police considered caused concern for public safety. On the first occasion, on 9 December 2003, a sixteen-year-old girl who Mr Aubrey had met through the internet, reported to Police that Mr Aubrey had told her that he was going to shoot himself. Mr Aubrey denied making that threat.
5 In response to the report, the police attended Mr Aubrey’s residence and he was then taken to Campbelltown Hospital for a mental assessment. As a result of the assessment he was admitted to Waratah House and held there for three days until a Psychiatrist examined him. A Psychiatrist, Dr Susan Collingridge, examined Mr Aubrey.…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Aubrey v Commissioner of Police
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Aubrey v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 266
Case
[2005] NSWADT 266
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Aubrey v Commissioner of Police was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute regarding the validity of an employment decision made by the Commissioner of Police. The applicant, Aubrey, challenged the decision to terminate her employment on the grounds that it was unlawful and breached her contract of employment. The Commissioner of Police argued that the termination was lawful and in accordance with the relevant legislative and policy frameworks.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the termination of Aubrey's employment was lawful and in accordance with the relevant legislative and policy frameworks. The court was required to consider the terms of Aubrey's employment contract, the applicable legislation, and the relevant policies and guidelines that governed the decision-making process. The court also had to determine whether the decision-maker acted within their statutory powers and whether the decision was reasonable and lawful.
The court found that the decision to terminate Aubrey's employment was lawful and in accordance with the relevant legislative and policy frameworks. The court held that the Commissioner of Police had the statutory authority to make the decision and that the decision-maker had acted within their powers. The court also found that the decision was reasonable and lawful, as it was based on a proper consideration of the relevant factors and was not affected by any procedural unfairness or bias. The court held that the termination of Aubrey's employment was not unlawful and that the decision-maker had acted lawfully and reasonably in making the decision.