Livet v Commissioner of Police, New South Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 144

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Livet v Commissioner of Police, New South Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 144 Hearing dates: 13 August 2014, 8 September 2014 Decision date: 17 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Prof G D Walker, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: FIREARMS - licence revocation - firearm being carried - safe storage --silencer Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013; Firearms Act 1996; Firearms Regulation 2006; Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. Cases Cited: Azzopardi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (CoP) [2013] NSWADT 205; Bidas v CoP [2013] NSWADT 220; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179, (1979) 46 FLR 409; French v CoP [2013] NSWADT 221; Green v CoP [2014] NSWCATAD 59; Kudrynski v CoP [2001] NSWADT 101. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aaran Thomas Livet (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (Respondent) Representation: McGirr Lawyers (Applicant) Sparke Helmore (Respondent) File Number(s): 1410228 Publication restriction: S64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to confidential exhibit CR 3; and confidential evidence of S/Const Millar.

reasons for decision 1The applicant Mr Aaran Thomas Livet on 20 September 2012 applied to the respondent for a firearms licence. A category AB licence was granted to the applicant on 10 November 2012. That licence was suspended on 26 June 2013 as the Commissioner formed the view that there might be grounds for revoking it. On 3 October 2013, a delegate of the Commissioner revoked the licence on the basis that it was not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold a licence. 2An internal review of the Commissioner's decision affirmed it on 5 February 2014 on public interest grounds for the reasons that the applicant had taken his firearms to work to show to colleagues, had left them unsecured in his vehicle while he continued to work, had made a silencer for one of his firearms in the workshop at his place of employment and had informed work colleagues that he had done so. 3The applicant applied to this tribunal for a review of the Commissioner's decision on 2 May 2014. The tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct such a review by reason of s 29 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (No 2) 2013 (CAT Act) and s 75 of the Firearms Act 1996 (the Act). In considering an application for review, the tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the original decision-maker, but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409. 4For the purposes of the review the Commissioner originally relied on five grounds in seeking to have the decision under review affirmed: * It is not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold a licence (s 25(2)(d) of the Act and cl 19 of the Firearms Regulation 2006) for the reason that the applicant infringed s 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (WP Act) in that he possessed a silencer within the meaning of cl 4(3) of schedule 1 of the WP Act. * * The applicant is not a fit and proper person who can be trusted with firearms without danger to public safety or the peace (ss 11(3) and 24(2)(a) of the Act). * * The applicant supplied information that was false or misleading in a material particular in his application for a licence (s 24(2)(b) of the Act). * * The applicant contravened a (safe storage) provision of the Act or the Firearms Regulation, regardless of whether he was convicted of an offence for the contravention (s 24(2)(b)(ii) of the Act) * * There are criminal intelligence reports or criminal information that the applicant is a risk to public safety and the applicant's possession of a licence would be contrary to the public interest (ss 11(5A) and 24(2)(a) of the Act). 5At the submissions stage the respondent withdrew the fit and proper person ground, but maintained the public interest ground and the other specific objections raised. Those specific matters also had a bearing on the public interest. 6The issue in this review is thus whether the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the Commissioner's decision, set it aside or vary it, having regard to the grounds relied on by the respondent.