Larsson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 65

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Larsson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 65 Hearing dates: 16 March 2018 Date of orders: 22 March 2018 Decision date: 22 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R C Titterton, Principal Member Decision: 1. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the summons dated 15 February 2018 issued to the respondent are set aside. Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – setting aside a summons – no legitimate forensic purpose Legislation Cited: Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 Cases Cited: Becwell Legal Services Pty Ltd v McMaster [2011] FCA 1501 CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Stephen Frank Larsson (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Applicant: self-represented

Counsel:

Mr H El Hage (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00378299

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1. By application dated 14 December 2017 the applicant, Mr Stephen Frank Larsson, seeks a review of a decision of the respondent dated 20 November 2017. On 11 May 2017, he had applied for a Prohibited Weapons Permit. The weapon for which he required the permit was a silencer, which is defined as a prohibited weapon under cl 4(3) of Sch 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) (the Act). 2. On 26 September 2017, a delegate of the respondent found that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine reason to possess and use the silencer, by virtue of failing to demonstrate that the recreational or sporting activity for which he wanted to use the silencer required the silencer's possession or use. 3. The applicant then sought an internal review of that decision. The delegate noted that the applicant was 62 years of age, had no criminal convictions and no concerns had been raised regarding his good character. The delegate noted that the applicant had been authorized the firearms without blemish since at least 1990. The delegate reassessed the relevant materials submitted by the applicant, then came to the conclusion that he agreed with the earlier decision. This was notwithstanding the applicant put additional matters to the delegate which he had not put to the original decision-maker. These included the need to protect his already damaged hearing from further hearing loss; that pest control was more effective as suppressors diffuse the directional report of a rifle which in turn confuses targeted animals; reduced noise disturbance for neighbours, reduced disturbance of stock animals, and reduction of firearm recoil. 4. Based on upon the totality of the information before him, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that the recreational/sporting activity concerned required the use of a silencer. 5. It is that decision that the applicant seeks to be reviewed by this Tribunal.