Hatton v Commissioner of Police

Case [2022] NSWCATAD 49

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hatton v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 49
Hearing dates: 3 February 2022
Date of orders: 14 February 2022
Decision date: 14 February 2022
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J Levine, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) The Decision under review is set aside.

(2) A Category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the Applicant for recreational hunting/vermin control.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Licensing – Firearms - Refusal to issue category AB firearms licence – Whether licence would be contrary to the public interest – history of traffic offences – one charge of offensive behaviour – relevance of conduct underlying withdrawn offences – fit and proper person not contested – genuine reason for licence

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

AML v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 5

Aubrey v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 266

Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Esterman v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATOD 70

Farrugia v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWCATAD 208

Joseph v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCA 31

Keegan-Jaques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145

Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144

Madziala v Commissioner of police [2021] NSWCATAD 269

Martin v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 97

Petas v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 137

Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116

Ward v Commissioner of NSW Police (2000) NSWADT 28

Webb v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWADT 110

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: William Hatton (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
William Hatton (Applicant)
Maddocks Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/00282636

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This case concerns review of a decision to refuse a firearms licence application.

  2. On 20 July 2020, Mr William Hatton (the “Applicant”) applied for a Category AB Firearms Licence from the Commissioner of Police (“Commissioner” or “Respondent”). The genuine reason provided for the licence was “recreational hunting/vermin control”.

  3. On 8 July 2021, the Applicant was notified that his licence application had been refused under section 11 the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (“Firearms Act”), by a Senior Constable at the NSW Firearms Registry acting as a delegate of the Respondent (“Decision”). The Decision referred to an incident in December 2019 for which Mr Hatton was issued a Conditional Release Order without conviction (“CRO”). In light of that incident, and relying on sections 11(3)(a) and 11(7) of the Firearms Act, the delegate refused to issue the licence because he did not believe Mr Hatton is “currently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence” nor that “it is in the public interest for [him] to be able to access firearms”.

  4. Mr Hatton applied for internal review of the Decision on 28 July 2021. He was advised that if he had not been notified of the outcome within 21 days, the internal review would be taken to be finalised under section 53(9)(b)…

Continue reading Hatton v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hatton v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 49
Case
[2022] NSWCATAD 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hatton v Commissioner of Police, the applicant sought judicial review of the Commissioner's decision to refuse to issue a category AB firearms licence. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable because it was based on an incorrect application of the relevant statutory provisions. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court, which had to determine whether the decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's decision to refuse the licence was justified under the applicable statutory framework. The court had to consider whether the Commissioner's decision was based on a proper consideration of all relevant matters and whether the decision was in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The applicant argued that the Commissioner had failed to consider relevant mitigating factors and had placed undue weight on historical traffic offences and one charge of offensive behaviour. The court had to determine whether these factors were relevant to the decision and whether the decision was based on an accurate understanding of the applicant's circumstances.

The court found that the Commissioner's decision was flawed because it was based on an incorrect application of the statutory provisions. The court held that the Commissioner had failed to consider all relevant factors and had placed undue weight on historical traffic offences and one charge of offensive behaviour. The court found that the applicant had provided evidence of a genuine reason for the licence, and that the underlying conduct of the withdrawn offences was not relevant to the decision. The court held that the decision was unreasonable and that a category AB firearms licence should be issued to the applicant for recreational hunting and vermin control. The court set aside the decision under review and ordered that a category AB firearms licence be issued to the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Decision under review is set aside.

(2) A Category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the Applicant for recreational hunting/vermin control.

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.