Balodis v Registrar of Firearms

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Permission to Appeal in Private)
BALODIS v REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
[2018] SASC 190
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Bampton
14 December 2018
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS - FIREARMS - LICENCES AND RELATED MATTERS - LICENCES - ISSUE OF AND GENERALLY
Application for permission to appeal against a decision of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where Master refused permission to appeal – where application renewed to a Judge, but out of time – whether permission to appeal should be granted.
Held: application dismissed.
South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) s 71(2); Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 292(5), referred to.

BALODIS v REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
[2018] SASC 190
Civil: Application for permission to appeal in private

BAMPTON J: Mr Balodis made application to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“SACAT”) for review of the Registrar of Firearms’ (“the Registrar”) refusal to grant him a firearms licence. A delegate of the Registrar had determined on 18 January 2018 that Mr Balodis was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Having reviewed the matter, an Executive Senior Member of SACAT determined on 16 April 2018 that Mr Balodis was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and that the Registrar was correct to refuse the grant of the licence (“the SACAT decision”).
Mr Balodis made application to a Master of the Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal the SACAT decision pursuant to s 71(2) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA).
On 5 September 2018, a Master of the Supreme Court delivered reasons for refusing Mr Balodis permission to appeal.[1] The Master determined that Mr Balodis advanced no reasonable arguable basis on which the Court could find that the Executive Senior Member of SACAT had erred in his review of the Registrar’s refusal to grant Mr Balodis a firearms licence.
[1] Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SASC 126.
Rule 292(5) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) provides that Mr Balodis may renew his application for permission to appeal to a single Judge of the Supreme Court by commencing an appeal within five days after the refusal by the Master and including in the notice of appeal a request for the necessary permission. Mr Balodis filed a document (FDN 5) on 23 October 2018 attaching his original notice of appeal seeking permission to appeal to the Full Court. This renewed application for permission was filed out of time. Mr Balodis said in support of an extension of time:
As I live in the country, I only come into the city once a fortnight (approx) and as I am prehistoric, I can only deliver paperwork on that day. Please understand my reason (old fashioned).
I have considered this matter in Chambers having regard to the documents filed by Mr Balodis, the SACAT decision and the Master’s decision. Mr Balodis has not identified any reasonable grounds of appeal warranting permission to appeal. In other words, Mr Balodis has not identified any arguable error by the Executive Senior Member of SACAT in his review of the Registrar’s decision. As such, I decline to extend the time within which to apply for permission to appeal to the Full Court.
I dismiss the application.

In this matter, the applicant, Balodis, sought permission to appeal against a decision made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), which had refused to grant a firearms licence to the applicant. The application for permission to appeal was initially dismissed by a Master of the Federal Circuit Court, and subsequently renewed before a Judge, but was found to be out of time. The central issue before the court was whether the Judge should grant permission for the appeal to proceed despite the untimeliness of the application. The applicant argued that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time and permission to appeal, while the Registrar of Firearms contended that the strict adherence to the rules of court was necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The court considered the principles governing the grant of permission to appeal in administrative law matters, including the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules and the limited circumstances under which an extension of time might be granted. The Judge emphasised the importance of the rules of court in ensuring timely and efficient administration of justice. The court also examined the nature of the applicant’s arguments, which primarily related to the merits of the original decision by SACAT, rather than procedural errors that might justify an extension of time. The Judge concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time for the appeal application, and thus, permission to appeal was not granted.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the established jurisprudence concerning the grant of permission to appeal in administrative law cases. The applicant's arguments, which were largely focused on the merits of the original decision, did not provide a sufficient basis for extending the time limit for the appeal application. The court held that the principles of procedural fairness and the rule of law necessitated strict compliance with the rules of court, and the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an exception to this rule.

No appeal was permitted to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established