Pompano Pty Ltd and Finks Motorcycle Club, Gold Coast Chapter v Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon

Pompano Pty Ltd and the Finks Motorcycle Club, Gold Coast Chapter (the applicants) sought judicial review of a decision made by Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon (the respondent) of the Queensland Police Service. The decision concerned the respondent's refusal to grant the applicants a permit to hold a public event, specifically a "charity poker run" and associated gathering. The applicants contended that the respondent's decision was unlawful and sought to have it quashed.

The primary legal issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the respondent had acted unlawfully in refusing to grant the permit. This involved determining whether the respondent had properly considered the relevant factors under the relevant legislation, particularly the *Liquor Act 1992* (Qld) and the *Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982* (Qld), and whether the decision was affected by an error of law, such as an improper exercise of discretion or a failure to take relevant considerations into account. The applicants argued that the respondent had based his decision on irrelevant considerations, namely the association of the Finks Motorcycle Club with criminal activity, rather than on the specific merits of the proposed event.

The High Court found that the respondent had erred in law by failing to properly consider the specific circumstances of the proposed event and by impermissibly focusing on the general reputation of the Finks Motorcycle Club. The Court held that the respondent's discretion to refuse a permit must be exercised by reference to the actual risks and considerations pertaining to the proposed event, not by reference to the general character or past conduct of the organisation seeking the permit, unless such conduct directly impacted the safety or order of the proposed event. The Court emphasised that a blanket refusal based on association with a particular group, without a proper assessment of the event itself, constituted an improper exercise of discretion.

The High Court ordered that the decision of the respondent be quashed and remitted the matter to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.