Mulligan v Commissioner of Police

The applicant, Terrence Kevin Mulligan, appealed a decision by the respondent to impose a special condition on his firearms licence, which stated that he was prohibited from storing firearm bolts, breech blocks, and ammunition at any location where his former partner resided or frequented. The applicant argued that the condition was overly broad and not limited to the address of his former partner, which he claimed was an error by the respondent. The dispute was heard in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue was whether the special condition imposed by the respondent was beyond the scope of its authority, and if so, whether the AAT could appropriately vary the condition. This required the AAT to consider the proper scope of the condition and whether it was reasonable and proportionate to the risk posed by the applicant.

The AAT found that the special condition was indeed broader than necessary, as it extended to any location where the former partner resided or frequented, rather than being limited to her address. The AAT determined that it had the authority to vary the condition to reflect the proper scope. The AAT varied the condition to specify the former partner’s address, thereby limiting the scope of the condition to that specific location. The AAT affirmed the decision in all other respects, including the imposition of the special condition itself.

The AAT varied the decision by rewording the special condition to specify the former partner's address, affirmed the decision in all other respects, and ordered certain materials not to be published or released to the applicant.