CITATION: Bottomley v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 211 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Andrew Lindsay Bottomley
RESPONDENT
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales PoliceFILE NUMBER: 043407 HEARING DATES: 13 May 2005 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/13/2005 DATE OF DECISION:
09/15/2005BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Firearms Act 1996 CASES CITED: REPRESENTATION: R Nicol, barrister
P McLaughlin, solicitorORDERS: The decision under review is affirmed.
1 Mr Bottomley held a Category ABGH Firearms licence and a permit to collect Ammunition under the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”). He has held licences since 1975. Mr Bottomley's licence was suspended on 25 October 2002 as a result of the police applying for an Interim Apprehended Violence Order on behalf of his then partner. The Interim Apprehended Violence Order was ultimately revoked on 7 February 2003.
2 The licence and permit were revoked in August 2004 because the Commissioner was of the view that it "would not be in the public interest for Mr Bottomley to continue to hold a firearms licence and have access to firearms. It is alleged that Mr Bottomley failed to comply with the safe storage requirements of the Act and that a firearm in Mr Bottomley’s possession was altered to convert it into a prohibited firearm for which he intended to gain financially by deceit.
3 A general firearms amnesty applied from 1 October 2003 until 31 March 2004. It is not in dispute that Mr Bottomley took a number of pistols to the Gosford Showground mobile buyback site on 21 December 2003. He surrendered some of those pistols, which were prohibited pistols under the amended legislation and was compensated. He also took with him a Baikal Margolin semi automatic pistol that he did not surrender. On 31 March 2004 Mr Bottomley then attended the buyback site situated at Parramatta with a number of pistols and a barrel, one of those pistols was the Baikal Margolin semi- automatic pistol that had been shortened. Mr Bottomley stated that Hans Heim, a gunsmith, who traded under the name HHH Gunsmith at Hornsby had shortened the pistol. Mr Heim denied having done so.
4 Mr Bottomley was arrested and charged in relation to the alleged shortening of the firearm. Police executed a search warrant on his mother's premises and seized his licensed firearms and pistols. While conducting the search police located a 50-calibre bullet and three 45-calibre bullets and a barrel of a rifle. The barrel was found on the floor of Mr Bottomley's bedroom. These items were not secured in a locked security cabinet.
5 Mr Bottomley was not charged with respect to the allegation that he attempted to obtain money by deception or with any offences in respect of the barrel and ammunition found in his bedroom. Mr Bottomley attended the Chatswood Police Station shortly after the items were seized and provided explanations to the police.…
Continue reading Bottomley v Commissioner of Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bottomley v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 211
- Case
- [2005] NSWADT 211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decision to dismiss the appellant was lawful, whether the process followed in reaching the decision was procedurally fair, and whether the decision was reasonable in all the circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Commissioner had correctly applied the relevant policies and procedures, and whether the decision was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.
The court held that the decision to dismiss the appellant was lawful and procedurally fair. The Commissioner had correctly applied the relevant policies and procedures in reaching the decision. The court found that the evidence supported the findings of misconduct and that the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate. The court also determined that the process followed was fair, with the appellant having an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. The court concluded that the decision was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.
The decision under review is affirmed. The appellant's application for judicial 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.