Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD)

Case [2006] NSWADTAP 43

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Lynch v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43
PARTIES: APPELLANT: Kerry Keith Lynch
RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police
FILE NUMBER: 069015
HEARING DATES: 19/07/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 07/19/2006
 
DATE OF DECISION: 
09/01/2006
BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Molony P - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: fail to apply principle correctly to the facts - opportunity to be heard
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 053364
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 03/20/2006
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms (General) Regulation 1997
Firearms Act 1996
CASES CITED: Lynch v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2006] NSWADT 80
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28
Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 75
REPRESENTATION:

APPELLANT
C Jackson, barrister

RESPONDENT
W Pisani, agent
ORDERS: Appeal dismissed

    REASONS FOR DECISION

    1 This is an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision affirming the revocation of a firearms licence issued under the Firearms Act 1996 (Firearms Act). The appellant, Mr Lynch is aged 62 years, and has used firearms for 50 years. He had, until the matters that have given rise to the revocation, an unblemished firearms and criminal history record.

    2 He lives on a working 100 acre property which runs beef cattle. He has two other farming properties. He has other business interests. Since his childhood he has used firearms for hunting (rabbits, wild pigs) and in more recent years for pest eradication on his properties (foxes). He has been involved in assisting local authorities in conducting baiting programs.

    3 Mr Lynch was found guilty on 4 May 2005 at the Nowra Local Court of several contraventions of the Firearms Act. The Court decided not to record a conviction, and instead placed Mr Lynch on a bond to be of good behaviour for two years as permitted by s 10(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act). This was followed in June 2005 by a decision of the Commissioner’s delegate to revoke the applicant’s category AB firearms licence.

    4 On 16 August 2005 Mr Lynch’s appeal to the District Court was successful to the extent that the good behaviour bond was set aside. The District Court found him guilty of the offences, but dismissed the charges in exercise of the discretion given by s 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

    5 Another delegate of the Commissioner then proceeded to deal with Mr Lynch’s application for internal review of the decision to revoke his licence, and by decision dated 18 October 2005 affirmed it. The decision relied on two alternative powers:

            (i) The power given by s 24(2)(b)(ii) providing that a licence ‘may be…

Continue reading Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43
Case
[2006] NSWADTAP 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) involved the appellant, Mr. Lynch, contesting a decision made by the Commissioner of Police. Mr. Lynch's appeal centred on the Commissioner's failure to apply a principle correctly to the facts of the case and his subsequent lack of an opportunity to be heard. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia. The central issue in this appeal was whether the Commissioner had correctly applied a relevant principle to the facts and whether Mr. Lynch was provided with a fair opportunity to present his case.

The court examined whether the Commissioner had failed to apply the principle correctly to the facts of Mr. Lynch's situation. The court also assessed whether Mr. Lynch was given a proper opportunity to be heard, as required by natural justice. The Commissioner argued that the principles were correctly applied and that Mr. Lynch had ample opportunity to present his case. Mr. Lynch, on the other hand, argued that the principles were misapplied and that his right to be heard was violated.

The court found that the Commissioner had indeed applied the principle correctly to the facts. The court also determined that Mr. Lynch had been afforded a fair opportunity to be heard. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was legally sound and that Mr. Lynch's rights were not breached.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision and found no merit in Mr. Lynch's appeal. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.