Davos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 7
Hearing dates:
15,16 May 2012; 17 July 2012
Decision date:
11 January 2013
Jurisdiction:
General Division
Before:
S Montgomery, Judicial Member
Decision:
1. In matter No. 113050 the decision under review is affirmed
2. In matter No. 113259 the decision under review is affirmed
Catchwords:
Security Industry Act - Security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence - Firearms Act - Firearms licence - revocation or suspension of licence
Anastasios Davos (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel J Sheller (Applicant) I Bourke (Respondent) Law Corporation Pty Ltd (Applicant) Crown Solicitors Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):
113050; 113259
Publication restriction:
[not for publication]. Those paragraphs are not to be released to either the Applicant or to the public
REasons for decision
GENERAL DIVISION (S MONTGOMERY, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)): These reasons relate to two applications brought by Mr Anastasios Davos ("the Applicant"). The matters were heard together and evidence in one was regarded as evidence in the other.
The Applicant was issued with a Class 1AC security licence under the Security Industry Act on 30 June 2010. On 15 December 2007, Labourforce Group Pty Ltd ("the corporation") was issued with a Master security licence and the Applicant is the Nominated Person for that licence.
On 2 December 2010 the Applicant was charged with "Possess unauthorised prohibited firearm". The Applicant served an 18 day period of detention and was then subject to bail obligations until the charges were subsequently withdrawn in June 2011.
On 6 December 2010, the decision was made to revoke the security licences as it was considered that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person in the context of the Security Industry Act and it would not be in the public interest for him to continue to hold a security licence.
That determination was affirmed on internal review.
Matter No.113259
This application concerns a determination…
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 Davos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Davos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 7
Case
[2013] NSWADT 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Davos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force involved an appeal against decisions made by the Commissioner of Police to revoke the applicant's security industry licence and firearms licence. The applicant, Davos, sought judicial review of these decisions in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales. The core dispute centred on whether the Commissioner's decisions were legally sound and justified under the relevant legislative frameworks.
The legal issues before the court included whether the Commissioner had the authority to revoke the applicant's licences and if the decisions were made in accordance with the applicable laws. Specifically, the court had to determine if there were procedural errors in the decision-making process and whether the decisions were supported by proper evidence. The court also considered whether the revocations were proportionate and whether there were any grounds for the applicant to challenge the decisions based on natural justice or procedural fairness.
In its reasoning, the court examined the statutory provisions governing the revocation of security industry and firearms licences. It found that the Commissioner had acted within his legal authority and that the decision-making process adhered to the necessary legislative requirements. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the Commissioner's decisions, and no procedural errors were identified that would render the revocations invalid. The court also confirmed that the decisions were proportionate and did not infringe upon any principles of natural justice.
The court ultimately affirmed the Commissioner's decisions to revoke the applicant's security industry licence and firearms licence, dismissing the applicant's appeals. The court's judgment was grounded in a thorough analysis of the legislative provisions and the evidence presented. The final orders of the court confirmed the affirmation of the decisions under review in both matters.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In matter No. 113050 the decision under review is affirmed
2. In matter No. 113259 the decision under review is affirmed