GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

Case [2023] NSWCATAD 155

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 155
Hearing dates: 7 June 2023
Date of orders: 19 June 2023
Decision date: 19 June 2023
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) Decision under review is affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (CAT Act), the publication of the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, or matters contained in the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3 is prohibited.

(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, or matters contained in the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal.

(4) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential hearing of these proceedings, including confidential exhibit CR3 and any evidence given during the hearing, is prohibited, and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked “[Not for publication]” are not to be published or released to the applicant.

Catchwords:

LICENSING – firearms – licence refusal – fit and proper person – public interest – criminal history – domestic circumstances – OMCGs

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33, (1990) 170 CLR 321;

Azzopardi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 205;

Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254;

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316;

Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42;

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16;

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2001] NSWADT 50;

Director-General, Transport New South Wales

v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65;

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60;

Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218;

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127;

Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117;

Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCA 368;

Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97;

McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354;

Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10;

Sciberra v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 206;

Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force and New South Wales Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184;

Stealth Enterprises Pty…

Continue reading GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 155
Case
[2023] NSWCATAD 155
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force, the applicant, GGW, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Police to refuse to grant him a firearm licence. The dispute centred on the Commissioner’s determination that GGW was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence due to his criminal history and membership in a criminal organisation. The matter was heard and determined by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, which affirmed the Commissioner's decision.

The key legal issues before the tribunal were whether the Commissioner's decision was lawful, reasonable, and whether GGW was a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. The tribunal considered the criteria under which a licence may be refused and the relevant legislative provisions, including the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) and the Firearms Regulation 2016 (NSW). It also examined whether the Commissioner took into account relevant and irrelevant matters, whether he failed to take into account a relevant consideration, and whether the decision was affected by a mistake of law or fact.

The tribunal found that the Commissioner's decision was lawful and reasonable, based on the evidence presented, including GGW’s criminal history and involvement with organised crime. The tribunal held that the Commissioner had correctly identified that GGW’s past conduct and affiliations made him unsuitable to hold a firearm licence, given the potential risks to public safety. The tribunal also found that the Commissioner had not erred in his consideration of the relevant and irrelevant matters and that the decision was not affected by any mistake of law or fact. The tribunal further ruled that the confidential nature of certain evidence must be maintained in accordance with the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.

The tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision to refuse GGW a firearm licence and imposed restrictions on the publication and disclosure of certain confidential material. This included prohibiting the publication of specific confidential documents and the recording of the confidential hearing, in line with the statutory provisions for protecting sensitive information. The applicant was also barred from publishing or releasing certain paragraphs of the tribunal’s reasons that were marked as not for publication.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Decision under review is affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (CAT Act), the publication of the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, or matters contained in the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3 is prohibited.

(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, or matters contained in the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal.

(4) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential hearing of these proceedings, including confidential exhibit CR3 and any evidence given during the hearing, is prohibited, and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked “[Not for publication]” are not to be published or released to the applicant.

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.