Eichner v Registrar of Firearms (Administrative Review)

Eichner, the applicant, sought a review of a decision made by the Registrar of Firearms, the respondent, to deny his application for a permit to acquire a Barrett M98B.338 Lapua Magnum bolt action rifle. The dispute was heard and determined by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central issue before the AAT was whether the Registrar's decision was legally sound and if the applicant's licence allowed him to purchase the specified firearm. This involved an examination of the provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) and the particulars of the applicant's firearm licence.

The AAT examined the statutory framework governing firearm licensing and the acquisition of firearms in the Australian Capital Territory. The court considered the definition of a prohibited firearm as outlined in schedule 1, items 5 and 8 of the Firearms Act. It also assessed whether the applicant's current firearm licence permitted him to own the type of firearm he sought to acquire. The Tribunal held that while the Registrar's initial decision to deny the permit was not flawed in its reasoning, it was incorrect in its application of the law to the facts. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the applicant's licence did not authorise him to purchase the firearm in question, which was classified as a prohibited firearm.

Consequently, the AAT set aside the Registrar's decision and substituted its own decision to refuse the permit. The Tribunal clarified that the refusal was not based on the grounds initially cited by the Registrar but rather on the fact that the applicant's licence did not allow him to acquire the specified firearm. In light of this, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to refuse the permit on the basis that the applicant's licence did not permit the purchase of a prohibited firearm.