Mr David Nassif (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Nassif v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Forc...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Nassif v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 119
Case
[2025] NSWCATAD 119
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nassif v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force is a case where the applicant, Mr Nassif, sought a review of a decision by the Commissioner of Police to revoke his security industry licence. The dispute centred around the revocation of his category 1A 2B security licence and the legal basis for the revocation decision. The case was heard in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia.
The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the Commissioner's decision to revoke the applicant's security licence was legally sound and whether it was appropriate for the court to grant a stay of the revocation pending a full merits review. The applicant argued that the Commissioner's decision was unreasonable and that the revocation was not in the public interest. The Commissioner, on the other hand, maintained that the revocation was necessary to protect the public interest due to the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offence committed.
The court found that the Commissioner's decision to revoke the applicant's licence was flawed as it did not adequately consider the public interest factors and the circumstances of the offence. The court also held that the Commissioner's decision was unreasonable and that a stay should be granted pending a full merits review. Consequently, the court set aside the Commissioner's decision and ordered that the applicant's category 1A 2B security licence be reissued. This decision underscores the importance of a balanced and thorough consideration of public interest factors in revocation decisions within the security industry.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Decision under review set aside.
(2) A category 1A 2B security licence is to be reissued to the applicant.