Copeland v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 40

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Copeland v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 40 Hearing dates: 6 December 2022 Date of orders: 6 December 2022 Decision date: 10 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: J Gatland, Senior Member Decision: 1. The Applicant sought to be permitted to lodge his application out of time, the application was opposed however, after hearing submissions from both representatives, the time in which to lodge the application by 4 November 2022 was granted. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Time — Extension of time Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 55 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 41 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW), rr 8, 24 Cases Cited: Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 Xpertise Construction Pty Ltd v Orantia [2023] NSWCATAP 22 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Craig Copeland (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Hartmann & Associates (Applicant) Crown Solicitor (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00330652

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. Craig Copeland, the applicant in these proceedings, had been refused a firearms licence on 23 February 2021. He had sought an internal review of the Commissioner's decision on 17 March 2021. Then, nearly a year later, on 16 March 2022, the Commissioner determined the internal review, affirming the original decision to refuse to grant Mr Copeland a firearms licence. 2. On 4 November 2022, Mr Copeland filed an application for review of a decision made by the Commissioner for Police, NSW Police Force, concerning whether Mr Copeland should be granted a category ABG and probationary pistol firearms licence. His application to the Tribunal was late by several months. 3. On 1 December 2022, nearly four weeks after Mr Copeland's application for review was filed, the Commissioner filed an interlocutory application seeking that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 55. The Commissioner does not specify which particular provision was relied upon in that section. Rather, in stating the grounds of the application for dismissal, the Commissioner asserted that the reasons for the decision had been "provided" to Mr Copeland's legal representative on 16 March 2022 and that, as a consequence, that Mr Copeland's application, filed on 4 November 2022, had been made contrary to the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 55(2) and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014, cl 24(4)(b). The effect of those provisions, according to the Commissioner, is that the applicant had sought review outside of the time permitted under the legislation. The Commissioner submitted that, absent an application by Mr Copeland to extend time for the lodgement of this application, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 4. Along with her interlocutory application flied 1 December 2022, the Commissioner lodged written submissions setting out that: 1. that in the absence of any filed application for an order under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 41, the Application was out of time, and the Tribunal "lacked jurisdiction to deal with his application"; and further that, 2. the application had been made 29 weeks beyond the date permitted by Administrative Decisions Review Act, s 55(2) and the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules, r 24(4)(b). The Commissioner, in submissions, did not refer to the operation of r 24(3), which makes r 24(4)(b) subject to the Tribunal's powers under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 41; and 3. in the event that the Applicant might make an application to extend the time for lodgement, "the Respondent reserves its right to file and serve evidence in reply, and to make further submissions in respect of any such application." I note that the Commissioner did not submit any further evidence concerning the internal review decision being provided to Mr Copeland or his representative aside from the internal review document itself. 1. On 6 December 2022, the matter was first before the Tribunal for administrative directions. At the directions hearing, and after considering the information on Mr Copeland's application form, the Commissioner's interlocutory application and submissions and hearing brief oral submissions from Mr Copeland's solicitor as well as the Commissioner's solicitor, the Tribunal granted Mr Copeland an extension of time to lodge his application by 4 November 2022, being the date when he had in fact lodged the application. Additionally, the Tribunal made a series of timetabling directions and set the matter down for a final hearing on 3 April 2023. 2. On 20 December 2022, the Crown Solicitor, on behalf of the Commissioner, requested written reasons for the decision to grant Mr Copeland an extension of time to lodge his application for review. 3. The Commissioner's request is made pursuant to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 62(2). Regrettably, due to the Tribunal's lack of availability over the holiday period, the Tribunal was not able to provide these reasons within the statutory timeframe provided under s62. Those reasons are now provided.