Beach v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

[2000] NSWADT 54

CITATION:	Beach -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 54
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Michael John Beach RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	003035
HEARING DATES:	26/04./00
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/26/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	05/09/2000
BEFORE:	Wilson K - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Firearms Act 1996
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT J Tunks, solicitor
ORDERS:	The decision to revoke a firearms licence is set aside.

1 On 4 September 1999 the licence of the Applicant, Mr Michael John Beach, which had been issued under the Firearms Act 1996 was revoked. The licence was a Category AB licence and had been granted to the Applicant on 29 April 1999.

2 The revocation arose out of an incident in which the Applicant was convicted of an offence of remaining on prescribed premises without lawful excuse under the Inclosed Land Protection Act 1901. He had been charged with maliciously destroying property in the same incident but these charges were dismissed.

3 The basis on which the licence was revoked was that Mr Beach was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence and could not be trusted to have possession of firearms without being a danger to the public or peace.

4 He subsequently applied for internal review of this decision and on 22 November 1999, the original decision was affirmed.

Evidence

5 Prior to the decision taken on 22 November 1999, the Applicant had asked the review officer to provide him with reasons so that he could address these. This was not done. The Statement of Reasons for the permit refusal relied entirely on the matters dealt with in the Gilgandra Local Court which were mentioned earlier. There is no broader consideration of the matter.

6 In the hearing in this matter both parties accepted that the evidence was the matters which were contained in the documentation filed on 18 February 2000 which contained all of the relevant correspondence and the previous decisions. That pile of documents also included a letter sent by the Applicant to the Firearms Registry, undated.

7 In that letter the Applicant indicates that he is a farmer and that he has just purchased 1,800 acres of land near Eumungeri which he took control of in December 1999. He indicates that in terms of taking care of this property he is required to kill a number of animals and he does so in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

8 He also says that in relation to the matter in court, there were some background issues relating to the previous relationship between the parties.

9 In terms of the view expressed by the local police that they had some concerns about him retaining his firearms licence, he states that he had never been in trouble with the police before and that he did not wish to get into trouble again.

10 He states that he is involved in his community, being a member of the local bushfire brigade and the community support systems and involves himself in fundraising for the community. He has held a firearms licence since he was 18 years of age and he is, at the time of writing the letter, 38. He states that he had always had his firearms registered and that he is a registered member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and is also a registered security guard.

11 In essence his letter makes the point that this incident, which did not involve the use of a firearm in any way, was not such that the police should form the view that he was not fit and proper against the background of his other involvement in the community and his general good character.

12 At the hearing there was no contest about his good character and the fact that he has not been brought to the notice of the police before.

Determination

13 The Tribunal considers that the decision to revoke the Applicant’s firearm licence was not reasonable. The Applicant clearly is a man of good character and has a long history of community involvement. The incident which gave rise to this action related to a dispute between several parties in which there was no violence or serious damage. The Applicant now has good relations with all of the people involved and, more importantly, has a number of issues relating to his character which should have been given further consideration by the primary and secondary decision-makers. The Tribunal believes that the consideration of these matters was cursory, or not at all existent in this process of decision-making.

14 On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant has not lost his status as a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence of the type sought. The Tribunal determines that the decision by the Commissioner of Police to revoke the firearms licence of the Applicant is set aside.