Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Jameson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 25 Hearing dates: 29 January 2019 Date of orders: 07 February 2019 Decision date: 07 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member Decision: (1) Decision under review set aside.
(2) The applicant’s category ABH firearms licence is to be restored to him.Catchwords: LICENSING - firearms – safe storage contravention – handguns stolen – licence revocation – persuasive and relevant circumstances favouring restoration of licence. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW);
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW);
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW);
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW);
Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW).Cases Cited: Bevan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 1;
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657;
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9;
Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16;
Cook v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 30;
Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 30;
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] Vic Rep 6, (1991) 1 VR 63;
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60;
Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2012] NSWADT 218;
Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31;
Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43;
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57, 1 FLR 354;
Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10;
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66, (1992) 110 ALR 449;
O’Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61, (1989) 168 CLR 210;
Uzelac v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 226;
Yaghi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 91.Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Barry J Jameson (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Hartmann & Associates (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/00289508 Publication restriction: Nil
Reasons for decision
-
The applicant Mr Barry J Jameson applied to this tribunal on 21 September 2018 for review of a decision by the respondent Commissioner to revoke his category ABH licence No. 411316288 under the Firearms Act 1996. The licence was for a term of five years, expiring on 24 March 2020. The decision to revoke was affirmed on 28 August 2018 following an internal review.
-
The applicant had been issued with a category A licence and a probationary pistol licence for the purposes of target shooting on 5 February 2015. On 3 June 2015, category B (also for target shooting) was added to his existing licence, to expire on 24 March…
Continue reading Jameson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police For...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Jameson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 25
- Case
- [2019] NSWCATAD 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved Jameson, who had his category ABH firearms licence revoked by the Commissioner of Police following the theft of three handguns from his possession. Jameson sought to have the revocation overturned, arguing that persuasive and relevant circumstances favoured the restoration of his licence. The Commissioner of Police contested the application, arguing that the theft of firearms from Jameson's premises was a serious breach of the conditions of his licence, justifying the revocation. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the revocation of Jameson's firearms licence was justified in the circumstances. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the theft of the firearms from Jameson's premises constituted a breach of the licence conditions warranting revocation, or whether there were persuasive and relevant circumstances that favoured the restoration of his licence. The court also had to consider the relevant statutory framework, which imposed strict conditions on the storage of firearms and the consequences of breaching those conditions.
In delivering the judgement, the court found that while the theft of the firearms was a serious matter, it did not necessarily mean that the revocation of Jameson's licence was justified. The court considered a range of factors, including Jameson's previous good standing as a licensee, his cooperation with authorities in the investigation of the theft, and the possibility that the theft may have occurred without his knowledge or involvement. The court concluded that these factors constituted persuasive and relevant circumstances favouring the restoration of Jameson's licence. The court found that the Commissioner of Police had not adequately considered these factors in making the decision to revoke the licence.
Accordingly, the court set aside the decision to revoke Jameson's licence and ordered that his category ABH firearms licence be restored to him. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in making decisions about the revocation of firearms licences, and the need for decision-makers to act reasonably and in accordance with the law.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the revocation of Jameson's firearms licence was justified in the circumstances. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the theft of the firearms from Jameson's premises constituted a breach of the licence conditions warranting revocation, or whether there were persuasive and relevant circumstances that favoured the restoration of his licence. The court also had to consider the relevant statutory framework, which imposed strict conditions on the storage of firearms and the consequences of breaching those conditions.
In delivering the judgement, the court found that while the theft of the firearms was a serious matter, it did not necessarily mean that the revocation of Jameson's licence was justified. The court considered a range of factors, including Jameson's previous good standing as a licensee, his cooperation with authorities in the investigation of the theft, and the possibility that the theft may have occurred without his knowledge or involvement. The court concluded that these factors constituted persuasive and relevant circumstances favouring the restoration of Jameson's licence. The court found that the Commissioner of Police had not adequately considered these factors in making the decision to revoke the licence.
Accordingly, the court set aside the decision to revoke Jameson's licence and ordered that his category ABH firearms licence be restored to him. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors in making decisions about the revocation of firearms licences, and the need for decision-makers to act reasonably and in accordance with the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Decision under review set aside.
(2) The applicant’s category ABH firearms licence is to be restored to him.
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.