Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Saad v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 207 Hearing dates: 14 June 2022 Date of orders: 21 June 2022 Decision date: 21 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member Decision: 1. Decision under review set aside.
2. A category AB firearms licence is to be reissued to the applicant.
Catchwords: LICENSING – firearms – licence revocation – public interest – discretion.
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Artridge v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 188;
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316;
Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42;
Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT AP 16;
Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50;
Dale v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 134;
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60;
El Saadi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 336;
Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218;
Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117;
Kogias v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 297;
Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 368;
Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97
McDonald v Director-General, Social Security [1984] FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354;
Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10;
Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10;
Todorovski v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 192;
Vella v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 91;
Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110.
Category: Principal judgment Parties: George Saad (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
Hartmann & Associates (Applicant)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00039721
Reasons for decision
-
The applicant Mr George Saad applied to this tribunal on 10 February 2022 for review of a decision made by the respondent Commissioner on 30 December 2021 to revoke the applicant’s category AB firearms licence. The grounds for the revocation included that the applicant had not held club membership since 2011 and had failed to comply for the requirements of his club membership, such that his genuine reason for applying for and maintaining a category AB licence was no longer valid.
-
The revocation letter also stated that by certifying that he could produce evidence of his genuine reason for re-applying for his licence in both 2014 and 2019, when he did not hold a…
Continue reading Saad v Commissioner of Police
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Saad v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 207
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATAD 207
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the Commissioner of Police had acted unlawfully in revoking the applicant's firearms licence. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the decision to revoke the licence was made without proper consideration of the relevant statutory criteria and whether the decision was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the decision was in the public interest.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Commissioner of Police had indeed failed to properly consider the statutory criteria when revoking the applicant's firearms licence. The court held that the decision was not proportionate to the alleged misconduct and was not in the public interest. Consequently, the court concluded that the revocation decision was unlawful and set it aside. The court ordered that the applicant's category AB firearms licence be reissued, emphasising that the decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and did not set a broad precedent for similar situations.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Decision under review set aside.
2. A category AB firearms licence is to be reissued to the applicant.
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.