Australia, July 25 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 25:

1. The Applicant has held a firearms licence since 27 March 1993. On 20 April 1999, he was granted a Category AB firearms licence for the genuine reasons of Sport/Target Shooting and Recreational Hunting Vermin Control - Hunting club membership. The licence was renewed, most recently, on 1 February 2019. However, in November 2023 his firearms licence was revoked on the basis that he had failed to maintain his shooting club membership and undertake the mandatory shoots organised by the club.

2. On 10 September 2024, the Applicant lodged a new application for a Category AB firearms licence for genuine reasons of Sport/Target Shooting and Recreational Hunting/Vermin Control, but his application was refused. That decision was affirmed on internal review and the Applicant now seeks review by this Tribunal.

Relevant legislation

3. The general principles of the Firearms Act 1996 (the Act) are set out in s 3 of the Act:

3 Principles and objects of Act

(1) The underlying principles of this Act are:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and

(b) to improve public safety:

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

(c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

(2) The objects of this Act are as follows:

(a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

(b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms,

(c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms,

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

(f) to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms.

4. The Act, in setting out restrictions on the issue of licences, provides, relevantly at s 11(7) that the Commissioner (and hence the Tribunal on review) may refuse to issue a licence if it is considered that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

Evidence

5. The Applicant provided a lengthy statement, gave evidence and was cross-examined. I also asked him questions.

6.The Applicant provided references from:

1) Mark Morrisson OAM dated 10 May 2025

2) Jodie Griffiths dated 2 May 2025

3) Susan Ramke dated 2 May 2025

4) Carol Piper dated 3 May 2025

5) David Kyle dated 3 May 2025

6) Allan Hinchliffe dated 5 May 2025

7) David Murphy dated 1 May 2025

8) John Niland dated 1 May 20925

7. None was required for cross examination.

8. The Respondent provided material in accordance with s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act). The material included the COPS Event which related to a complaint by V, the Applicant's former partner.

Tribunal's approach

9. Section 63 of the ADR Act provides that in determining an application for review the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it, and any applicable written or unwritten law. It is well established that a tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the decision-maker, but may has regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31. Under s 28(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: s 38(2) of the CAT Act. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner's, and there is no presumption that the decision of the Commissioner is correct: McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357. The standard of proof that applies in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. There is no onus of proof: Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10. *Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1979f04a363c40f43e93d7e7)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.