Zarour v Commissioner of Police

Case [2022] NSWCATAD 262

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Zarour v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 262
Hearing dates: 3 May 2022, written submissions closed 10 June 2022
Date of orders: 10 August 2022
Decision date: 10 August 2022
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: D Dinnen, Senior Member
Decision:

(1)   The Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s firearms licence application is affirmed.

(2)   The confidentiality orders made 13 April 2022 and 3 May 2022 are continued.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - firearms – refusal of licence – AVO - disqualification period – expiry – history of domestic aggression – threats of self harm - risk to public safety – public interest.

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Firearms Act 1996

Firearms Regulations 2017

Mental Health Act 2007

Cases Cited:

AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5

Aubrey v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 266

Austrac Operations Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2003) FCA 1013

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50

Dale v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 134

Davos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 7

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1991) 1 VR 63

DMC v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 219

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60

Esterman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 70

Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124

Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5

Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89

Joseph v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31

Kocic v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (2014) 88 NSWLR 159

LY v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115

Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43

Madziala v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 269

Manning v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 111

Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97

Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276

Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206

O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210

Petas v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2013] NSWADT 137

Vella v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 91

Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28

Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110

Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 75

Texts Cited:

none

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ahmed Zarour (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Applicant (Self-represented)
Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00016132
Publication restriction: Paragraphs 31 and 47: not for publication pursuant…

Continue reading Zarour v Commissioner of Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Zarour v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 262
Case
[2022] NSWCATAD 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Zarour, sought to overturn the decision of the respondent, the Commissioner of Police, to refuse his application for a firearms licence. The applicant's application was refused on the grounds of a history of domestic aggression and threats of self-harm, which created a risk to public safety. Zarour argued that the refusal was unreasonable because the disqualifying period had expired, and there was no current risk to public safety. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the decision of the Commissioner was lawful, rational, and based on the relevant considerations. Specifically, the tribunal had to determine whether the expiry of the disqualifying period for an AVO and the absence of any current risk to public safety meant that the decision to refuse the firearms licence was unreasonable. The tribunal also had to consider whether the decision was in the public interest.

The tribunal found that the decision of the Commissioner was lawful, rational, and based on the relevant considerations. The tribunal noted that the applicant had a history of domestic aggression and threats of self-harm, which created a risk to public safety. The tribunal found that the expiry of the disqualifying period for an AVO did not necessarily mean that there was no longer a risk to public safety. The tribunal also found that the decision was in the public interest, as it was necessary to prevent the applicant from obtaining a firearms licence that could potentially cause harm to others. The tribunal affirmed the decision of the Commissioner to refuse the applicant's firearms licence application. The confidentiality orders made 13 April 2022 and 3 May 2022 were also continued.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s firearms licence application is affirmed.

(2) The confidentiality orders made 13 April 2022 and 3 May 2022 are continued.

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.