AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 10 September 1999

Bankstown Chatswood Rifle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police NSW

[1999] NSWSC 901

Firearms & weapons
FIREARMS ACT AND REGULATION

Citation: Bankstown Chatswood Rifle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police NSW [1999] NSWSC 901
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division, Administrative Law List)
Date: 10 September 1999
Judge(s): Barr J

Background

The plaintiff was an incorporated rifle club, originally established to promote rifle skills for defence through rifle competition and instruction. When it incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1984, its stated objects reflected that narrow shooting-focused purpose, and it adopted standard model rules that said nothing about hunting or firearms collection.

In September 1997, the Commissioner of Police granted the club three approvals under Part 9 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997: as a Target Shooting Club, a Hunting Club, and a Collecting Club. After a closer review, the Commissioner's delegate concluded that the club's constitution did not provide for hunting or collecting activities. The Commissioner indicated he intended to revoke the hunting and collecting approvals, giving the club three months to amend its constitution.

The club disputed that its constitution was inadequate and refused to amend it, arguing the existing rules were sufficient. When the Director indicated notices of revocation would follow, the club brought proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking an order prohibiting the Commissioner from revoking the approvals.

  • Whether the Commissioner was entitled, under clause 79 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997, to revoke the hunting and collecting approvals on the basis that the club's rules were not appropriate for those purposes.
  • Whether the Commissioner had misdirected himself in law, failed to consider relevant matters, considered irrelevant matters, or acted in bad faith in forming that opinion.
  • Whether the Commissioner's decision could be said to be one that no reasonable authority could have reached (applying the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard).

Decision

Barr J examined the club's rules, which for the purposes of Part 9 of the Regulation comprised both the model rules adopted on incorporation and the objects and principal activities stated in the incorporation application. Those documents confined the club's purpose to promoting rifle skills for defence through rifle competition and instruction. Nothing in those documents referred, expressly or by implication, to recreational hunting, vermin control, or firearms collection.

The court rejected the club's submission that the Commissioner had confused corporate power with corporate purpose. The Commissioner's concern was not whether the club had the legal capacity to conduct hunting or collecting activities, but whether the club's rules were "appropriate" to a hunting club or collectors' club within the meaning of clause 78(3)(b). Those are distinct questions.

Barr J applied the standard of review drawn from Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation and related authority. His Honour concluded that the Commissioner had acted in good faith, had not misdirected himself in law, had not failed to consider relevant matters, and had not taken into account irrelevant matters. It was not possible to say that no reasonable authority could properly have arrived at the Commissioner's opinion.

Accordingly, the summons was dismissed.

Orders Made

  • Summons dismissed.
  • The plaintiff to pay the Commissioner's costs in an amount to be agreed or assessed.

Key Takeaways

  • Under clause 78(3)(b) of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997, the Commissioner must be satisfied that a club's rules are "appropriate" before granting approval. Where a club's rules are silent on hunting or collecting, the Commissioner may lawfully conclude they are not appropriate for those categories of approval.
  • A club's rules, for the purposes of the Regulation, are not limited to its formal model rules alone. The court treated the objects and principal activities stated in the incorporation application as forming part of the club's rules for the purposes of the approval regime.
  • The Commissioner's broad revocation power under clause 79(1), to revoke "for such reason as the Commissioner thinks fit," is subject to Wednesbury principles of administrative law but was not displaced on the facts of this case.
  • In dismissing the summons, the Supreme Court confirmed that the question of whether rules are "appropriate" is distinct from the question of whether a club has legal capacity to conduct the relevant activities. The Commissioner need not establish that a club is acting beyond its powers to form a view that its rules are inadequate.
  • No error of law, bad faith, or unreasonableness was established in the Commissioner's decision to revoke approvals where the club's foundational documents made no reference to hunting or collecting purposes.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), Part 2
- Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 (NSW), Part 9 (clauses 77, 78, 79)
- Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW), s 19

Cases:
- Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
- Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110
- Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163