Saffron -v- FCT (No 2) (1991) 102 ALR 19 Ridley -v- Secretary, DSS (1993) 29 ALD 726 Bourke -v- Commissioner of Police [1998] NSWADT Pollard -v- Commonwealth DPP (1992) 28 NSWLR 659 Fenton -v- Commissioner of Police 2000 NSWADT 16 Khan -v- Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, December 1987) Australian Broadcasting Tribunal -v- Bond 1990 94 ALR 11
REPRESENTATION:
APPLICANT K Robinson, solicitor RESPONDENT G. Doherty, solicitor
ORDERS:
1. The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Ward's Category A, B and C licences is set aside.
Introduction
1 Mr Ward is a 43 year old man who has held firearms licences of various categories for most of his adult life. His most recent position was Regional Manager of National Parks for Western NSW. His work in natural resource management and his ownership of rural properties has led to his need for firearms licences.
2 On 17 March 1999 the Firearms Registry within the Police Service issued Mr Ward with Category A, B, and C licences under the Firearms Act 1996 (the Act). These licences expire on 6 May 2004.
3 On 28 July 1999, Mr Ward was convicted in Dubbo Local Court of assaulting his partner, Sue Benendyka.. He was fined $1000. The Court also issued an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) for 12 months, however Mr Ward applied to have the order revoked. On 17 August 1999 the AVO was revoked with the consent of the applicant’s partner.
4 On 7 July 1999, prior to being convicted, the Firearms Registry served a Notice of Suspension advising Mr Ward that his licence had been suspended and inviting him to give the Commissioner of Police reasons in writing as to why his licence should not be revoked.
5 On 13 October 1999 Mr Ward was served with a Revocation Order. Mr Ward requested a Statement of Reasons. The statement relied on s 24(2)(a) and s 24(2)(b) of the Act and referred to a policy for determining who is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. An internal review was carried out on 30 November 1999 which relied on the same legislative provisions and reasoning process. The original decision was affirmed.
6 On 1 December 1999 Mr Ward lodged an application for a review of the decision to revoke his firearms licences with the Tribunal. At the Directions Hearing on 14 January 2000 I granted the Commissioner of Police leave to file an Amended Statement of Reasons. That statement, filed on 28 January 2000, relied on s 24(2)(a)…
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 Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Servic...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28
Case
[2000] NSWADT 28
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service involved the plaintiff, Mr Ward, contesting the revocation of his Category A, B, and C licences by the Commissioner of Police, acting through the New South Wales Police Service. The dispute centred on the Commissioner's decision to revoke these licences based on Mr Ward's fitness to hold them, which arose following his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and his subsequent medical assessments. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Ward's licences was lawful and reasonable, considering the statutory framework governing such decisions. The court had to determine if the Commissioner exercised his discretion appropriately and whether there was a sufficient basis in the evidence to support the revocation. Additionally, the court assessed whether there were any procedural errors in the decision-making process that might have impacted the fairness and validity of the revocation.
The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to evaluate the Commissioner's decision. It concluded that the Commissioner had acted beyond his statutory powers and that the decision was not supported by the evidence. The court found that there were significant procedural irregularities in the assessment process, which undermined the fairness and reasonableness of the revocation decision. Consequently, the court set aside the Commissioner's decision, finding it to be unlawful. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and ensuring procedural fairness in administrative decisions of this nature.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Ward's Category A, B and C licences is set aside.