The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Webb's Category AB firearms licence is set aside.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 On 17 March 2003 Mr Rowan Webb lodged an application with the Tribunal for review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Police (“the Commissioner”). That decision was to revoke Mr Webb’s Category AB firearms licence held under the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”).
Background
2 Mr Webb was issued with a Category AB firearms licence on 9 August 2001 and it was due to expire on 7 September 2006. However, this licence was revoked on 18 November 2003. On 25 September 2003 Mr Webb made an application for a Permit to acquire a Category B firearm and on 9 October 2003 he made an application for a Permit to acquire a Category A firearm. These applications were refused on 18 November 2003. The refusal was linked to the revocation of Mr Webb’s licence and the view that in order to acquire the firearms Mr Webb must be the holder of a current licence or permit authorising the possession or use of the type of firearm he applied to acquire.
3 Mr Webb’s licence was revoked as a consequence of two incidents. The first occurred on 20 June 2003 and the second on 13 November 2003. There is no significant dispute about the facts of those incidents. The facts sheets prepared by the Commissioner in relation to those incidents provide a reasonable account of the events.
4 The facts sheet prepared in relation to the first incident states:
“On Friday the 20th of June, 2003 the defendant Rowan Webb, David Thurling and Nathan Tetley travelled to a Rural Property situated at Tinderry Road, Michelago, in a Motor Vehicle owned by Rowan Webb. Webb had with him a.22 Calibre Voere Voehrenvach Rifle serial 732224, which is registered in NSW. Webb is the holder of a current New South Wales Shooters Licence No 408319242. Nathan Tetley was in possession of.22 magnum rifle which is not registered and Nathan Tetley does not hold a current shooters licence in…
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 Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Servic...
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110
Case
[2004] NSWADT 110
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Mr Webb, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service, to revoke his Category AB firearms licence. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness of the decision-making process. The case was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Commissioner had provided Mr Webb with an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and whether the decision to revoke his licence was unreasonable. The court needed to determine if the procedural requirements under the Firearms Act 1996 were properly followed and if the decision was made on lawful and rational grounds.
The court found that the Commissioner had not provided Mr Webb with a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. Specifically, the court held that the information provided to Mr Webb did not sufficiently detail the reasons for the proposed revocation, which violated the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court found that the Commissioner's decision to revoke the licence was unreasonable given the evidence presented. The court concluded that the Commissioner's actions were not supported by the material before him and that the decision was not rationally connected to the evidence. The court therefore set aside the Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Webb's Category AB firearms licence.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr Webb's Category AB firearms licence is set aside.