Registrar of Firearms v Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd

[2015] SASCFC 59

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Permission to Appeal)

REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS v MARKSMAN TRAINING SYSTEMS PTY LTD

[2015] SASCFC 59

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Kelly)

27 April 2015

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT - REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS

The Respondent operates a family owned and operated business as a firearms dealer. It is also a recognised commercial firing ranger operator. An audit of the premises was conducted in June 2013 pursuant to orders of the District Court. The audit and an internal audit SAPOL considered 26 firearms registered to the Respondent were not accounted for. The Registrar issued “show cause” notices to the Respondent and after a number of exchanges between parties cancelled the firearms licence of the business. The Respondent appealed those decisions to the District Court, his honour generally found in favour of the Respondent in a number of decisions.

The Registrar now appeals those judgments to this court and applies for permission to appeal on questions of fact.

Held:

1.  Permission to appeal on questions of fact related to appeal ground 1 is refused. Such questions concern findings of fact of the lower court Judge who undertook an extensive investigation.

2.   Permission to appeal on questions of fact related to grounds 3, 4 and 6 is granted.

3.   Permission to appeal on questions of fact related to ground 7 is granted in so far as it is necessary.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED

"Permission to appeal", "Detailed investigation", "Question of fact"

REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS v MARKSMAN TRAINING SYSTEMS PTY LTD
[2015] SASCFC 59

Full Court:  Kourakis CJ, Vanstone and Kelly JJ

1. THE COURT:      The appellant, the Registrar of Firearms, has appealed on many grounds which are questions of law.  Permission is sought to appeal associated questions of fact. 

2. Appeal ground 1 primarily raises an error of law as to the adequacy of reasons given by the Registrar of Firearms.  However, appeal ground 1 also challenges certain findings of fact made by the Judge which contradicted the factual basis on which the Registrar of Firearms proceeded.  Those questions of fact concern the safe keeping of firearms by Marksman and require a complex process of following through inspections, audit trails and Marksman’s returns as to the locations at which its firearms are kept.  The Judge appears to have undertaken a very detailed investigation.  Whether the Judge is right or wrong in his conclusions based on that investigation is not a matter that should be re-agitated in the Full Court.   Permission to appeal on questions of fact related to appeal ground 1 is refused.

3. The questions of fact in appeal grounds 3, 4 and 6 are closely related to the questions of law raised by those grounds.  The questions of 'fitness and propriety', 'public interest' and the definitions of prescribed firearms in the context of the enforcement of the Firearms Act 1977 (SA), are of general importance and are difficult to properly consider without reference to the underlying factual issues.

4. Appeal ground 7 relates to the costs order.   The argument in support of permission is premised on success on appeal ground 1 and not an independent complaint about the costs order.  In those circumstances it is not necessary to give permission to appeal the costs order.  If the appellant succeeds on appeal ground 1, the question of setting aside the costs order will necessarily arise. 

5. Permission to appeal is granted on questions of fact associated with appeal grounds 3, 4 and 6.  In so far as it may be necessary, permission to appeal is further granted on questions of fact related to appeal ground 7.