Chrisis v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 142

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Chrisis v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 142 Hearing dates: 3 May 2013 Decision date: 18 June 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: C Huntsman, Judicial member Decision: The decision is affirmed Legislation Cited: Sections 3, 4C, 7, 7A, 11, 24, Firearms Act 1996; clauses 19, Firearms Regulation 2006 Cases Cited: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 DP v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2007] NSWADT 27 Constantin v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16 (18 April 2013); New South Wales Police [2007] NSWADT 27 Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276; Category: Principal judgment Parties: Konstantinos Chrisis (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: K Chrisis (Applicant in person) Sparke Helmore Lawyers, (Respondent) File Number(s): 123353

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1This was an application by Mr Chrisis, the applicant, for review of a decision of the Commissioner of Police, the respondent, to revoke the applicant's firearms licence. The applicant was issued with a Category ABH firearms licence on 23 February 2012, to expire 18 April 2017. That licence was suspended on 3 May 2012 and revoked on 8 September 2012. On internal review, on 14 November 2012, the decision was affirmed. On 10 December 2012 the applicant applied to the tribunal for review of this decision. 2The history of the applicant's firearms licence is as follows. The applicant was first issued with a Category AB firearms licence on 31 March 2000, for the genuine reason of recreational hunting/vermin control. On 17 May 2002 the Category H was added to that licence (genuine reason target shooting and employment as a security guard). The genuine reason of employment was removed from his Category H license on 23 December 2004. In accordance with legislative obligations, on 11 April 2002, the applicant reported to police that his only registered firearm had been stolen during a break and enter in which his firearms safe was prised open. 3The police have twice inspected and approved the applicant's firearms safekeeping provisions, on 26 March 2004 and again on 17 March 2009. On the date of that second inspection the firearms were not present as they were seized on 6 March 2009 due to a domestic violence incident (which was between other people and did not involve the applicant). His firearms licence was suspended because of that dispute but was returned to the applicant on 12 March 2009. The applicant successfully reapplied for his firearms licence and his Category ABH firearms licence was issued from 25 October 2005 for the genuine reasons of Target shooting for Category ABH and recreational hunting/vermin control for category AB. On 4 September 2010 the Firearms Registry automated licensing system automatically generated reapplication papers for the applicant's licence, which were posted to his residential address. On 1 December 2010 the firearms licence expired leaving the applicant in unauthorised possession of two category A firearms and two Category B firearms and one Category H pistol, in contravention of section 7 and 7A of the Firearms Act 1996. On 24 January 2011 police attended the applicant's residence with instructions to seize his firearms and ammunition because he held no current licence or permit for possession. Police found in his storage a quantity of ammunition for firearms/pistols which the applicant was not authorised to possess. Following a record of interview with police, the applicant was charged with several offences relating to firearms and ammunition. 4The respondent stated in the internal review decision that a Category H firearms licence does not authorise possession of high-calibre pistols. Pursuant to clause 70 of the Firearms Regulation 2006, possession and use of a pistol with the calibre of more than .38 inches (but not more than .45 inches) that is not otherwise a prohibited pistol, must be authorised by way of a Commissioner's Permit for High Calibre Pistols. The respondent notes the applicant has never been issued with a Commissioner's Permit for High Calibre Pistols. Pursuant to section 65 of the Firearms Act 1996 a person must not purchase or possess any type of ammunition unless they hold a licence or permit for a firearm which takes that ammunition. 5On 27 January 2011 the applicant surrendered to Ashfield Police further ammunition for .38 .22 and 12 gauge ammunition, as his licence had expired. 6On 31 January 2011 the Firearms Registry received the applicant's application for a Category ABH firearms licence, for an application signed 27 January 2011. 7On 13 February 2012 at Burwood Local Court the applicant was found guilty of two offences - possess ammunition without holding licence/permit/authority; and Not surrender firearm to police when licence not in force, however no conviction was recorded pursuant to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Five other charges relating to unauthorised possession of the pistol and four firearms were withdrawn by the prosecution on that date. 8On 23 February 2012 the applicant was issued with a Category ABH firearms licence for the genuine reasons of Target Shooting for Category ABH and Recreational Hunting/Vermin Control the category AB. 9On 3 May 2012 the applicant's Category ABH firearms licence was suspended and the licence was revoked on 8 September 2012. 10In the internal review decision the respondent notes that police records contain several reports that the applicant has advised police that he is friends with several members of the Outlaw Motor Cycle Gang, the Hells Angels, but is not a member or an associate of the Club. 11The respondent in the internal review decision noted that whilst the applicant had not renewed his firearms licence before it expired, he had contacted the Firearms Registry on 10 January 2011, to request that new applications forms be sent to him. The respondent states that at that time the applicant was advised to store his guns with police, a firearms dealer or another licence holder and notes the applicant's explanation that he says he was advised police would collect his firearms for storage. The respondent considers the provision of this advice by the Firearms Registry unlikely. The respondent considered that the applicant's failure to keep the licence current, and the applicant's poor understanding of his obligations as a licensed firearms holder as demonstrated in his dealings with police and the record of interview, and the applicant's possession of ammunition for firearms which he was not authorised to possess, all indicated that it was not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a firearms licence. 12On internal review it was noted by the respondent that the applicant's firearm licence had been granted following the finalisation of the applicant's court matters. However the respondent considers that information available at the time of internal review of the revocation decision, was not readily available to the person who granted the licence application. In this context the respondent placed particular emphasis on the record of interview with police on 24 January 2011, which raised concerns regarding the ability of the applicant to understand the conditions on which a firearms licence was issued, and his willingness to abide by those conditions. Given the absence of demonstrated contrition by the applicant for his actions and behaviour, and the absence of acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and given that he way he dealt with police seemed evasive, the respondent considered that it was not in the public interest, and not in the interests of public safety, for the applicant to be authorised to possess firearms. 13The applicant states that the decision maker is wrong in holding that it is not in the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence. He states that his firearms and ammunition were always locked up and secured at all times and his firearms were randomly checked by officers on a regular basis, and there is no evidence it is not in the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence. The applicant gave evidence in support of these matters at the hearing, as detailed below.