Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Moustapha v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 279 Hearing dates: 22 August 2025 Date of orders: 14 November 2025 Decision date: 14 November 2025 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J McAteer, Senior Member Decision: The decision to refuse the Applicant’s Category AB Firearms Licence is affirmed.
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Firearms – objects of legislation – public interest – public safety – fit and proper – associations – confidential evidence
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Firearms Act 1996
Firearms Regulation 2017
Cases Cited: Artridge v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 188
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 94 ALR 11
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657
Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9
Constantin v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16
Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA; (1979) 46 FLR 409
Livadaru v Commissioner of Police [2008] NSWADT 160
Masterson v Commissioner of Police New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 205
State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69
Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28
Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 75
Wyong Shire Council – v- Shirt [1980] HCA 12 146 CKLR 40
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Louay Moustapha (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)Representation: One Group Legal Solicitors (Applicant)
Crown Solicitor (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/001235088 Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 64 (1) (b), 64 (1) (c ) and 64 (1) (d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication and release of the material in those paragraphs marked ‘[Not for publication]’ – paragraphs [40] – [44] inclusive are not to be published or released to any person other than the respondent or their representative.
Reasons for decision
What these proceedings are about
-
These proceedings concern the Commissioner of Police’s decision to refuse the applicant’s Category AB Firearms licence on 10 April 2024 and the upholding of that decision by way of Internal Review determined on 20 June 2024.
Introduction
-
The applicant in these proceedings is Mr Louay Moustapha (Mr Moustapha). The respondent is the Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force (the Commissioner). The Commissioner’s delegate in dealing with the application for a licence formed the view that it was not in the public interest for Mr Moustapha to hold a Category AB Firearms Licence.
Background
-
Mr Moustapha first applied to be issued with a Category AB Firearms Licence on 28 September 2009. That licence was approved and subsequently reissued every five years in 2014 and 2019 until on 11 December 2023 when the Commissioner’s delegate determined to revoke that licence.
-
The revocation arose in circumstances whereby Police had obtained information concerning a breach of certain requirements and obligations for maintaining…
Continue reading Moustapha v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Moustapha v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 279
- Case
- [2025] NSWCATAD 279
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this case were whether the Commissioner's decision was lawful and whether the decision was unreasonable in light of the evidence and relevant considerations. The applicant argued that the decision was not in accordance with the relevant legislative framework, was unreasonable, and did not adequately consider his associations and the confidential evidence provided. The Commissioner defended the decision by asserting that the applicant did not meet the fit and proper person test, and that the decision was made in the interest of public safety.
The court considered the legislative framework governing firearms licensing, including the relevant statutory provisions and the overarching objectives of the legislation. The court found that the Commissioner had correctly applied the statutory criteria in making the decision, and that the decision was not unlawful. The court further determined that the decision was not unreasonable, as it was supported by the evidence and was consistent with the public interest and public safety considerations. The confidential evidence, while not disclosed to the applicant, was properly considered by the Commissioner, and the court found no merit in the applicant's argument that the decision was unfair or lacked procedural fairness. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Commissioner's decision to refuse the applicant's Category AB Firearms Licence.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision to refuse the Applicant’s Category AB Firearms Licence 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.