Hawatt v Commissioner of Police

Case [2021] NSWCATAD 109

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hawatt v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 109
Hearing dates: 2 March 2021
Date of orders: 30 April 2021
Decision date: 30 April 2021
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member
Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

LICENSING — Firearms licensing – refusal – fit and proper person – in the public interest – driving offences

Legislation Cited:

Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) [1955] HCA 28

Jameson v Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWCATAD 25

Hook v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 250

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276

Keegan Jaques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Omar Hawatt (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Hartmann and Associates (Applicant)
Sparke Helmore (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/00296053
Publication restriction: None.

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is an application for the review of the refusal by the respondent to issue the applicant a firearms licence.

  2. The applicant lodged an application for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act 1989 with the respondent on 3 October 2019. After 12 months had passed, the respondent had not determined the application. On 13 October 2020 the applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal. On 3 November 2020 the respondent issued its decision and refused the application for a licence under s 11(3)(a) and (7) of the Firearms Act.

Relevant legislation

  1. Section 75 provides:

“75   Administrative reviews by Civil and Administrative Tribunal of certain decisions

  1. A person may apply to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of any of the following decisions—

    (a)   the refusal of or failure by the Commissioner to issue a licence or permit (other than a permit in respect of a prohibited firearm) to the person,

    (b)   a condition imposed by the Commissioner on a licence or permit issued to the person,

    (c)   the revocation of a licence or permit issued to the person (other than a revocation on the basis that the holder of the licence or permit is subject to a firearms prohibition order or an apprehended violence order),

    (d)   the refusal of or failure by the Commissioner to register a firearm,

    (e)   the cancellation of the registration of a firearm by the Commissioner,

    (f)   a firearms prohibition order made against the person,

    (g)   a decision made under the regulations concerning the person that belongs to a class of decisions prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

(1A)   Despite subsection (1), a person may not apply for a review of a firearms prohibition order made against the person if the person would be required under…

Continue reading Hawatt v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hawatt v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 109
Case
[2021] NSWCATAD 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hawatt v Commissioner of Police involved the appellant, Mr. Hawatt, challenging a decision by the Commissioner of Police to refuse his application for a firearms licence. Mr. Hawatt contended that the refusal was not justified under the relevant statutory provisions. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the Commissioner's decision to deny Mr. Hawatt's firearms licence application was lawful and whether it was within the Commissioner's discretion to refuse the application based on the appellant's history of driving offences. The court was required to determine if the Commissioner's assessment that Mr. Hawatt was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and that the grant of such a licence was not in the public interest was supported by the evidence and in accordance with the law.

The court found that the Commissioner's decision was well-founded and within his statutory discretion. The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Hawatt had accumulated numerous driving offences over a period of years, indicating a disregard for traffic laws and a propensity for reckless behaviour. This history was deemed relevant to the assessment of Mr. Hawatt's fitness to hold a firearms licence, as such a licence requires a high degree of responsibility and respect for the law. The court held that the Commissioner was entitled to conclude that granting a firearms licence to Mr. Hawatt would not be in the public interest due to the risk he posed. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision under review.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.