Marando v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the applicant, Marando, appealed against a decision by the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force to refuse his application for a firearm licence that included a silencer for his pistol. The silencer was intended for use in recreational and sporting hunting activities. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a genuine reason for needing the silencer, specifically whether he had demonstrated that it was required for his intended activities.

The court examined the definition of "genuine reason" and the meaning of "required" in the context of firearms licensing. It considered whether the applicant's need for the silencer was reasonable and necessary for his proposed activities. The court noted that the term "required" implies a necessity rather than a mere preference. The applicant argued that the silencer was essential for his hunting activities to protect his hearing and to ensure the humane killing of game. The Commissioner, on the other hand, contended that the silencer was not necessary for the applicant's purposes.

The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the silencer was required for his recreational or sporting hunting activities. It found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim that the silencer was necessary to protect his hearing or ensure humane killing. The court held that the term "required" in the context of firearms licensing meant that the firearm or part was necessary for the applicant's purposes, and the applicant had not met this burden. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to refuse the licence.