Dewar v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service - [2003] NSWADT 115

No judgment structure available for this case.

CITATION: Dewar v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 115

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Simon Thomas Dewar
RESPONDENT
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

FILE NUMBER: 033025

HEARING DATES: 17/04/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/17/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
05/20/2003

BEFORE: Montgomery S - 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: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms (General) Regulation 1997
Firearms Act 1996
Security Industry Act 1997

CASES CITED: Phegan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 127
Hart v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
C Capper, advocate

ORDERS: 1. The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Dewar's Category AB firearms licence is affirmed.

The Application

1 These proceedings relate to a decision by the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (“the Commissioner”) to revoke the category AB firearms licence held by Mr. Simon Dewar. Mr. Dewar has held firearms licences for some 40 years. He was issued the licence in question on 22 December 1998, and it would have been due to expire on 12 February 2004. The licence was revoked on 22 November 2002. The decision to revoke Mr. Dewar’s licence followed an event on 15 October 2001 in which Mr. Dewar left his 0.22 magnum rifle unattended in his vehicle. A young person riding past on a bicycle saw the rifle, and stole it. After dark, that same day, the young person used the rifle, and ammunition apparently already in the rifle, to shoot at cattle on the outskirts of town.

2 Police attended a local hotel and spoke with a number of patrons, including Mr. Dewar. All persons were asked if they had any rifles in their vehicles, and if so, if they could check on them. No person volunteered any information at that time.

3 The firearm and ammunition were subsequently recovered and identified as belonging to Mr. Dewar. Mr. Dewar’s licence was confiscated, and he was subsequently charged in relation to the incident due to his failure to prevent the theft or loss of the firearm, in breach of the Firearms Act1996 (“the Act”).

4 On 18 February 2002 Mr. Dewar was convicted in the Moree Local Court of 'not prevent theft/loss of firearm - not prohibitedfirearm/pistol' and fined $300. Mr. Dewar appealed the severity of the Local Court decision and on 4 June 2002 the Narrabri District Court dismissed the conviction under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999.

5 On 3 December 2002, Mr. Dewar sought an internal review of the Commissioner’s decision to revoke his licence. The internal review was finalised on 10 January 2003and the decision was taken that the original decision to revoke Mr. Dewar's licence was to stand. On 29 January 2003 Mr. Dewar applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

Background

6 The facts of this matter are not in dispute. Mr. Dewar is a well respected grazier and citizen of Moree District. This much is evident from testimonials presented on his behalf. Mr. Dewar owns and manages a property near Moree, running mainly cattle with a few sheep and crops.

7 From time to time an animal has to be put down because it suffers illness, breaks a leg, gets bogged in a dam or for some other reason. Mr. Dewar’s property is 25 kilometres from town, where there are only three vets. It would not be feasible to get a vet out to put the animal down humanely. Mr. Dewar uses his firearm for this purpose.

8 In the last four years Mr. Dewar has had to put down two dogs that had been bitten by snakes. Mr. Dewar also uses the firearm to shoot feral pigs to prevent them spreading disease and damaging crops.

9 Mr. Dewar has a steel security gun safe bolted to a concrete floor, for the safekeeping of firearms. He uses the firearm on his property and it rarely leaves the property. It is usually stored in the gun safe when not in use.

10 On Monday 15 October 2001 Mr. Dewar used his rifle on his property to destroy a sick bull. He didn't return to his home, but had to go to town for spare parts. Later that day he again drove his vehicle into town with the rifle still in the vehicle. He parked his vehicle outside a hotel whilst attending inside.

11 About 5pm on that same day a young person riding past the vehicle stole the rifle from the vehicle. A witness saw the young person carrying the rifle and informed the police. The police conducted a patrol of the area and they attended the hotel and spoke with a number of the patrons, including Mr. Dewar. All of the patrons were asked if they had any rifles in their vehicles, and if so, if they could check on them. None of the patrons volunteered any information at that time.

12 After dark, the young person used the rifle, and ammunition already loaded in the rifle, to shoot at cows in a paddock. The firearm was later given to an adult who was not licensed to possess such a firearm.

13 Police recovered the rifle on Wednesday 17 October 2001. A check of the serial number revealed it was registered to Mr. Dewar, and the police interviewed him. Mr. Dewar claimed that he had forgotten that the rifle was in the vehicle. He denied that the rifle was left on the utility tray, stating it was inside the cab beside the passenger’s seat. He stated that he had loaded the 10 round magazine with only 5 rounds, and that he had used 2 rounds that morning. He also stated that there were no signs of forced entry to the vehicle.

Reviewable decision

14 The reviewable decision is that of the Commissioner to revoke Mr. Dewar’s firearms licence. On 29 January 2003 Mr. Dewar applied to this Tribunal for review of the Commissioner's decision. The matter was listed before the Tribunal’s President on 18 February 2003 at which time he made directions for the filing of documents and the matter was listed for hearing at Moree on 17 April 2003. The matter proceeded on that day.

Applicable Legislation

15 Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 provides for the approach to be taken by this Tribunal in determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision. Section 63 provides:

63 Determination of review by Tribunal

(1) In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:

(3) In determining an application for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:

16 The legislation of most relevance to these proceedings is the Act and the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 (“the Regulation”). The objects of the Act are set out in section 3 which, insofar as is relevant to these proceedings, provides:

3 Principles and objects of Act

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner”.

17 A licence is held subject to conditions. Section 19 of the Act sets out conditions relevant to these proceedings as follows:

19 Conditions of licence

(1) A licence may be issued by the Commissioner subject to such conditions as the Commissioner thinks fit to impose.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), each licence is subject to the following conditions:

18 The relevant safe keeping and storage requirements are set out in Part 4 of the Act as follows:

Part 4 - Safe keeping of firearms

39 General requirement

(1) A person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure:

(2) The regulations may specify the precautions that are taken to be reasonable precautions for the purposes of this section.

40 Category A and category B licence requirements

(1) The holder of a category A or category B licence must comply with the following requirements in respect of any firearm to which the licence applies:

(b) if such a receptacle weighs less than 150 kilograms when empty, it must be fixed in order to prevent its easy removal,

(c) the locks of such a receptacle must be of solid metal and be of a type approved by the Commissioner,

(d) any ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked container of a type approved by the Commissioner and that is kept separate from the receptacle containing any such firearm,

(e) such other requirements relating to security and safe storage as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(2) A licensee does not have to comply with the requirements of this section if the licensee satisfies the Commissioner that the licensee has provided alternative arrangements for the storage of firearms in the licensee’s possession that are of a standard not less than the requirements set out in this section.”

19 The Regulation makes provision for the issue of a licence only if the applicant understands the requirements of the Act concerning firearm safety and storage. Clause 7 of the Regulation provides:

“7 Licence applicant's understanding of requirements concerning firearm safety and storage

Before being issued with a licence, the applicant must prove to the Commissioner's satisfaction:

20 The power of the Commissioner to revoke a firearms licence is set out in section 24 of the Act as follows:

24 Revocation of licence

(1) A licence that authorises a person to possess or use a firearm is automatically revoked if the licensee becomes subject to a firearms prohibition order or an apprehended violence order.

(1A) The Commissioner must revoke a licence that is held for the purpose of employment as an armed security guard (within the meaning of the Security Industry Act 1997) if the licensee has failed to undertake any firearm safety training required under this Act or the regulations.

(2) A licence may be revoked:

(4) The revocation of a licence by such a notice takes effect when the notice is served or on a later date specified in the notice.

(5) The Commissioner may, by serving a further notice on the holder of a licence, cancel a notice revoking a licence before the notice takes effect.”

21 The Commissioner may also revoke a firearms licence on public interest grounds pursuant to clause 17 of the Regulation. Clause 17 provides as follows:

“17 Revocation of licence

-

additional reasons

In accordance with section 24(2)(d) of the Act, 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.”

22 Mr. Dewar appeared and presented oral evidence on his own behalf and was subjected to cross-examination. Several testimonials in support of Mr. Dewar’s good character were also put in evidence. Mr. Dewar does not dispute the Commissioner’s chronology of events. His case is essentially that the circumstances of his case do not justify the revocation of his licence.

23 Mr. Dewar submitted that his firearms licence should not be revoked due to his good character and good record and also the great need that he has for it to destroy the sick stock and feral animals on his property. He conceded that he has no pressing need for the licence as he has an employee who is licensed and that the employee can deal with the immediate humanitarian needs. Mr. Dewar’s concern is that the employee may leave his employ and that Mr. Dewar will then have no means to address those issues. He asserts that he is no threat to the public and therefore there is no reason why he should not have his licence reinstated.

24 Mr. Dewar stated that he is aware of the storage requirements under the applicable legislation and has storage facilities which comply with the legislation.

25 Mr. Dewar acknowledges that he left the rifle unsecured but stated that it was an oversight. He said he was going through a difficult period in his personal life at the time and had a lot on his mind. He thought that he had returned the rifle to the gun safe prior to his first trip to town and therefore did not consider the firearm was in the vehicle when he made the second trip to town. He was not aware of the theft until the police called him in December 2001 and informed him that it had been stolen in October 2001. He had not checked the gun safe between October and December 2001.

26 Mr. Dewar expressed regret that the incident had occurred and stated that his failure to comply with the firearms’ legislation was a one-off event. He said that the personal issues that had impacted on his life which existed in October 2001 have been resolved and are no longer relevant factors and that he will strictly observe the legislation in the future.

The Commissioner's case

27 The Police Service’s file was put in evidence and the Commissioner relied on the documents contained within that file. The Commissioner’s case is essentially that outlined in the reasons provided following the internal review. With the exception of the particular circumstances of the case, there is no general suggestion that Mr. Dewar is not a person of good character. However, the Commissioner considers that there is a public interest issue to be considered and that the interest of public safety must outweigh any personal interests that Mr. Dewar might have in possessing his firearm. The Commissioner has concerns about Mr. Dewar being the holder of a firearms licence due to his conduct which allowed a minor to take a lethal weapon into their possession and to use that weapon.

28 Mr. Capper, for the Commissioner, conceded that Mr. Dewar is a person of good character and that his storage facilities comply with the legislative requirements. He also conceded that Mr. Dewar has held firearms for over forty years and during that period there has been no incident relating to safe storage but rather the events of 15 October 2001 were an aberration. The Commissioner also concedes that no conviction was recorded against Mr. Dewar in relation to the events of that day.

29 The Internal Review Reasons on which the Commissioner relies provided in part:

In 1996, the government enacted "tough new gun laws". One of the underlying principles of that law is to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms.

Given these principles, I am of the opinion that there are two main grounds on which your firearms licence should be revoked. Firstly, that you have contravened a provision of the Act by not preventing the theft of your firearm and secondly that it would not be in the public's interest for you to continue to hold a firearms licence.

…

Contravention of the Act

In reviewing your request for reinstatement of your licence, I have given serious consideration to the fact that you use your firearms licence in the running of your property and that the loss of your licence could cause you considerable inconvenience, hardship and suffering to your stock. I have also considered that you may be forced to use other methods for the control of vermin (eg baiting professional shooters) or for the humane destruction of sick or injured animals (eg veterinarians, neighbours or licensed members of your household).

In this regard I refer to Hill v COP (2002) NSWADT 218 which provides:

"a decision maker should not shy from an exercise of that discretion 'merely on the grounds that the licensee may suffer hardship and or inconvenience. While not determinative, an offence under the Firearms Act and/or a breach of a condition of licence will, in my view, be highly relevant to a decision to revoke a licence. ''

In my view, it is questionable whether you took any precautions to ensure that your firearm was secure while you were away from your vehicle. The lack of any signs of forced entry indicates, in my opinion, that the vehicle was left unlocked. I have noted your advice that you left the firearm in the cab of the vehicle beside the passenger' s seat. However, I believe that it is immaterial whether the firm was left on the tray of your utility as is stated in the police report or beside the passengers side seat in the cab. In either case, the firearm was left unsecured, in plain sight, still loaded with ammunition while you were away from your vehicle for a period of time. The firearm was seen and subsequently stolen by two boys, 12 and 16 years of age, without apparent difficulty.

It has been held that there is always a possible danger to the public in the conveyance or carriage of firearms. The extent to which the actions or omissions of licensees contribute to that danger is a matter of fact.

Of further concern is that while at the hotel, you and other patrons were questioned by police regarding a firearm left in a vehicle. You were not forthcoming with any information at that time nor does it appear that you checked on the whereabouts of your firearm or whether it was secure.

For two days, while the firearm was out of your possession, you neglected to report the disappearance of your firearm to police. It was not until the police located the firearm, in the possession of an unauthorised person and ascertained that it was registered to you, that the theft came to light.

In my view, your casual attitude, as shown by the fact that you did not know or chose to ignore that your rifle had been stolen from your vehicle, gives me cause for concern. Further, your statement to police that you forgot that the firearm was in the vehicle, leads me to believe that despite your assertion that you are aware of the safekeeping of firearms and that you have a steel security cabinet bolted to a concrete floor, you are not always diligent in ensuring that your firearms are stored in the prescribed manner.

The ADT have held that for a revocation decision based on failure to store firearms safely, to be set aside, an applicant must show that there are persuasive and relevant considerations which take the matter outside the ordinary case.

You have not provided me with any reason why your firearm was left unsecured in this manner and as such I can only assume that you were aware of but chose to ignore important safety provision of the Act. I am satisfied that you did not take reasonable precautions to maintain the security of your firearm. As such you have contravened a provision of the Act and a condition upon which your licence was issued. The legislation is clear that your licence may be revoked for such a contravention.

Public interest

I have given considerable weight to your prior good record, the fact that this is the first occasion on which you have come to adverse notice in respect to firearms and the references provided, which indicate your standing in the community. As such, your good character is not in question. However, the issue of public interest is operated in the absence of character defects with respect to exercising discretion adversely to an individual. I refer to Tolefoa v COP (2000) NSWADT 9, which provides:

"(Public interest) is an inherently broad concept giving the appellant the ability to have regard to a wide variety of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. As the possibility of refusing an application on the ground of character is dealt with elsewhere in the same section, it is reasonable to infer that the parliament intended the public interest discretion to operate in areas to which the character ground was not relevant or, possibly, in circumstances where an objection on character grounds would not be sufficient in its own right to warrant objection."

In determining whether or not the Registry (acting as the Commissioner' s delegate) made the correct and preferable decision in exercising his discretion to revoke your licence I refer to the decision of Cusumano v COP where the Administrative Decisions Tribunal held at Para 23:

"There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these discretions should be exercised. In my view the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act."

I have weighed your previously good record and your need for a firearm in the management of your property against the ‘public safety’ scope of the Act. Your actions have allowed your firearm to come into the possession of children and an unauthorised adult and placed the public in considerable danger. Further, your apparent forgetfulness in regards to the whereabouts of your firearm does not suggest that you presently hold an attitude that is conducive to responsible firearms ownership.

Finally, as you have been found guilty of a fundamental breach of the Firearms Act, I have decided against varying the decision to revoke your firearms licence.”

30 The Commissioner’s delegate referred to the fact that as Mr. Dewar has been found guilty of a fundamental breach of the Act as a basis for decided against varying the decision to revoke his firearms licence. Had the finding of guilt against Mr. Dewar led to a conviction for the firearms offences he would have been precluded from obtaining a firearms licence for ten years.

31 Mr. Dewar’s failure to store the firearms and ammunition safely placed the public at risk, both potentially and actually. In these circumstances there is a legitimate concern in relation to public safety.

32 Mr. Capper referred to the decisions of the Tribunal’s Deputy President in the matter of Phegan -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 127. He argued that Phegan provides that, prima facie, if there is a breach of the storage requirements of the legislation, a licensee will lose their licence unless they can show some good reason why that should not be the case. He submitted that for the Tribunal to set aside a revocation decision based on failure to store firearms safely an applicant must show that there are persuasive and relevant considerations that take their matter outside the ordinary case.

33 Mr. Capper referred to the underlying principle of improving public safety set out in subsections 3(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the object of the Act to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner as set out in section 3(2)(e). He also referred section 19(2)(a) of the Act and the requirement that a licensee must comply with the relevant safe keeping and storage requirements under the Act. He also referred to section 40 of the Act which provides that when a firearm is not actually being used or carried, it must be stored in a locked receptacle of an approved type. He said that Mr. Dewar has breached the condition of his licence imposed by those sections.

34 Mr. Capper referred to the second reading speech in which, on 25 June 1996, the then Attorney General Mr. Shaw stated at page 3557:

“This legislation puts the public's right to safety before the privilege of gun ownership.”

35 Mr. Capper argued that Mr. Dewar could have and should have ensured that the firearm was safety stored. The legislation establishes a strict regime to be followed. Mr. Dewar had appropriate available storage and he could have complied with the legislative regime. He argued that the Commissioner has the power to revoke the licence if a licensee does not comply with the safe storage requirements.

36 With respect to the fact that this was a one-off incident Mr. Capper said that there are numerous Tribunal decisions where a one-off act has given rise to the revocation of licence. The fact that it is a one-off incident is of minor significance. The one-off incident could be the occasion that leads to serious consequences. In this case, it resulted in a lethal weapon coming into the hands of a minor who then used it for unlawful purposes. He submitted that Mr. Dewar, as a licensee, has obligations. He was aware of these obligations but failed to meet them and put the public at risk. Mr. Capper argued that there is nothing in the circumstances of this matter to take it outside the ordinary case.

Nature of proceedings

37 I note Mr. Capper’s reference to the decision of the Deputy President in the matter of Phegan as authority for the principle that for the Tribunal to set aside a revocation decision based on failure to store firearms safely an applicant must show that there are persuasive and relevant considerations that take their matter outside the ordinary case. I considered this argument in some detail in my recent reasons for decision in the matter of Hart -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114. I do not propose to repeat that analysis here, however in Hart I expressed the view that these are not adversarial proceedings in which Mr. Dewar carries an onus of proof.

38 Mr. Dewar does not take on the responsibility of having to prove a case, nor does he cause the Commissioner to have to prove a case. Mr. Dewar and the Commissioner are before the Tribunal as parties by virtue of section 67(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act1997 (“the ADT Act”). The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner’s, and there is no presumption that the Commissioner’s decision is correct.

39 I must consider all relevant circumstances and the subject matter of Mr. Dewar’s contravention is a highly relevant consideration. However, since breaches of the storage requirements erode the protection of public safety, there would need to be other persuasive considerations before I would be prepared to set aside the Commissioner's decision.

Findings Generally

40 In this application, I have considered all of the evidence and the oral argument presented before the Tribunal. In particular I have reached the following findings of fact:

- Mr. Dewar has held firearms licences since approximately 1962. On 22 December 1998 he was issued a category AB firearms licence for the genuine reason of primary production;

- Mr. Dewar’s usual practice is to store his firearms in a gun safe which is bolted to a concrete slab;

- on 15 October 2001 Mr. Dewar left his firearm in an unlocked vehicle unsecured, unattended and loaded with ammunition;

- Mr. Dewar did not know the location of his firearm prior to the police notifying him of its whereabouts;

- on 18 February 2002 in Moree Local Court Mr. Dewar was convicted of 'not prevent theft/loss of firearm - not prohibited firearm/pistol' and fined $300;

- on 4 June 2002 the Narrabri District Court dismissed the conviction under Section 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999;

- Mr. Dewar has no prior criminal history or adverse firearms history. He has held firearms without incident for over forty years;

- Mr. Dewar regrets the events of 15 October 2001;

- in October 2001 Mr. Dewar was going through a difficult period in his personal life and had a lot on his mind. Those issues have now been resolved; and

- if his licence is restored and firearms returned Mr. Dewar intends to utilise the gun safe to comply with the legislative requirements in regard to the storage of the firearm.

41 The principal issue that I have to decide is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if Mr. Dewar’s licence is reinstated. Before a licence is issued, the Commissioner must conclude that there is virtually no risk to the public associated with the issue of the licence. The likelihood of risk must be assessed by reference to the applicant’s prior conduct. Mr. Dewar has breached certain provisions of the Act in relation to storage of firearms even though he was not convicted of those offences. Against this must be weighed his undisputed good character; his long history of firearms use that is incident free but which is overshadowed by a single incident of failure to comply with the legislative requirements regarding storage of firearms; and his undertaking as to future conduct.

42 Regrettably, the outcome of Mr. Dewar’s breach was extremely serious. It is fortunate that the consequences were not even more severe.

43 One of the underlying principles of the Act is the improvement of public safety by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms. Ensuring that firearms are stored in a safe and secure manner decreases the likelihood that they may be used in committing serious offences against the community. It is clear from the legislation that Parliament has identified the safe storage of firearms as a central and critical objective of the legislation. Those principles and objectives have been reinforced in numerous decisions of this Tribunal. Mr. Dewar’s offences must be viewed with reference to them.

44 In this case it could not be said that Mr. Dewar has acted in complete disregard of the statutory requirements to safely store his firearms. He has clearly taken steps to obtain a licence and to have his firearm registered. He has also obtained appropriate storage for the firearm.

45 However the fact remains that Mr. Dewar was found guilty of offences relating to his failure to prevent the theft or loss of the firearm – a direct result of his failure to keep the firearm stored safely. I note with concern that the firearm then came into the hands of a minor who used it to shoot at cattle. It is conceivable that far more severe consequences could have resulted. The fact that Mr. Dewar usually stored his firearm safely does not diminish the gravity of that fact.

46 Responsibilities extended to licence holders are of a serious nature and licence holders must not only understand and comprehend the guidelines and laws that govern them, they also must act in accordance with them. On the evidence presented I accept it is probable that Mr. Dewar was aware of the statutory obligations but I am not convinced that he fully appreciates the importance of strict observance of those obligations or that he is always diligent in ensuring that his firearms are stored in the prescribed manner. Mr. Dewar referred to times in the past when he would go to town with firearms placed in a gun rack in his vehicle. While I accept that the events of 15 October 2001 were an aberration, they reflect a casual attitude towards firearms that is reminiscent of those earlier times. A casual attitude of this kind is out of step with the principles and objects of the Act.

47 I have noted the factors to which Mr. Dewar has referred. I have no reason to doubt that these proceedings are the end result of a one-off incident. I also accept that Mr. Dewar has good intentions as to his future conduct.

48 Having weighed the evidence, it is my view that that the gravity of the events of October 2001 and the casual approach that Mr. Dewar had adopted outweighs the other relevant factors. While over a year and a half has passed since the one-off incident occurred, I cannot as yet be satisfied that sufficient time has passed since that incident for the public to be comfortable with Mr. Dewar holding a firearms licence. It follows in my view that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke Mr. Dewar’s firearms licence. Accordingly I affirm the Commissioner's decision.

49 With the passage of further time and the absence of further incidents, that situation can change. I am unable to provide any guidance as to what I would consider to be sufficient time that would need to pass for the public to be comfortable with Mr. Dewar holding a firearms licence. However, I would suggest that if Mr. Dewar were to take positive steps to re-educate himself in regard to the legislative regime governing the use of firearms in this State and the importance attached to the storage requirement, and should he choose to reapply for a firearms licence, the Commissioner may well reach a different conclusion.

Orders

50 The Commissioner’s decision to revoke Mr. Dewar’s Category AB firearms licence is affirmed.

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Dewar v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 115

Most Recent Citation

Sartor v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 291

Cases Citing This Decision

5

Maguire v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2016] NSWCATAD 210

Leviny v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 267

O'Donnell v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales [2009] NSWADT 162

Cases Cited

2

Statutory Material Cited

5

Phegan -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 127

Hart -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114

CITATION:	Dewar v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 115
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Simon Thomas Dewar RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	033025
HEARING DATES:	17/04/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/17/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	05/20/2003
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - 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:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Security Industry Act 1997
CASES CITED:	Phegan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 127 Hart v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT C Capper, advocate
ORDERS:	1. The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Dewar's Category AB firearms licence is affirmed.