Selmes v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

The case of Selmes v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, involved a dispute between the applicant and the Commissioner of Police over the revocation of a firearms licence. The applicant sought a review of the Commissioner's decision to revoke the licence, arguing that the decision was unreasonable and that the applicant remained a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, which has jurisdiction to review decisions made under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence was lawful and reasonable. The court was required to consider whether the Commissioner had acted within his powers under the Firearms Act, and whether the decision to revoke the licence was based on relevant and sufficient evidence. The court was also required to consider whether the decision was in the public interest, and whether there was a risk to public safety if the licence were to be reinstated.

In its judgment, the court found that the Commissioner's decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence was not based on relevant and sufficient evidence. The court held that the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner was outdated and did not accurately reflect the applicant's current fitness to hold the licence. The court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant posed a risk to public safety, and that it was in the public interest for the applicant to hold the licence. The court therefore set aside the Commissioner's decision and ordered that a category AB firearms licence be issued to the applicant.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that decisions to revoke firearms licences are based on relevant and sufficient evidence, and that the decision-maker considers all relevant factors, including the risk to public safety and the public interest. The court's finding that the applicant remained a fit and proper person to hold the licence, and that there was no risk to public safety, demonstrates the high threshold that must be met in order to revoke a firearms licence. This case serves as a reminder to decision-makers to carefully consider the evidence before them, and to ensure that their decisions are based on relevant and up-to-date information.