Case

Which case won?

casea
The case for the Commissioner of Police
  • The licensee has engaged in behaviour that poses a risk to public safety.
  • He was in possession of a rifle which had a stock fitted to it that was designed to operate telescopically. This was a prohibited firearm under the firearms legislation.
  • The licensee says that he made modifications to the stock to stop it from being used telescopically, however our expert was still able to do so.
  • Although the licensee’s licence did not authorise him to manufacture or attempt to manufacture parts for firearms, he nevertheless attempted to manufacture a magazine with a capacity of more than ten rounds using his 3D printer. Had he succeeded, the resulting firearm part would have been a prohibited weapon.
  • As Commissioner of Police, I have the power under the firearms legislation to revoke a licence if satisfied that it is not in the public interest for a person to continue to hold that licence.
  • It is clearly not in the public interest for this licensee to continue to hold a licence, given his possession of the prohibited firearm and his nefarious 3D printing activities.
  • The appeals panel must reject the licensee’s appeal and uphold the revocation of his firearms licence.
caseb
The case for the licensee
  • It’s true that my rifle stock was designed to operate on a telescopic basis. In order to move the stock in that fashion, the β€œpin” that locked it in the position needed to be pulled in a downward motion. However, I made alterations to the pin and inserted cardboard around the pin to prevent the telescopic action from being readily engaged.
  • These modifications were in place at the time the police seized my rifle, so I was not in possession of a prohibited firearm.
  • Nor was I attempting to make firearm parts with my 3D printer. The items identified in the evidence to support this theory were scale models, were not functional due to their incompleteness and the plastic used for printing was not of a suitable quality to produce a functioning part.
  • Since I did not possess a prohibited weapon and I did not act unlawfully in using my 3D printer, the Commissioner of Police was wrong to revoke my licence on public interest grounds.
  • It follows that the appeals panel must reinstate my licence.

So, which case won?

Cast your judgment below to find out
Case A Case B

Case A won. You were right!

How people voted
case a64%
case b36%

Expert commentary on the court's decision

Peter Schmidt
Peter SchmidtLawyer
β€œThis case is a good example of the relevance of public policy in the crafting of legislation and in the way that such legislation is applied. Both the tribunal and the appeals panel emphasised that possession and use of a firearm is a privilege which is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.”
Court finds in favour of Commissioner of Police

InΒ Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South WalesΒ [2017] NSWCATAP 206,Β theΒ appeals panel of theΒ NSW Civil and AdministrativeΒ Tribunal dismissed the appeal of theΒ licensee, Tristan Masterson,Β andΒ affirmedΒ theΒ police’s decision to revokeΒ MrΒ Masterson’sΒ firearmsΒ licence.Β Β 

Licence only reinstated if virtually no risk to public

The appeals panel noted that β€œthe objects of theΒ Firearms ActΒ state there is a need to ensure public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use ofΒ firearms and confirms that an authority to use and possess firearms is a privilege”.Β 

The appeals panelΒ alsoΒ notedΒ that for theΒ tribunal to reach a conclusion thatΒ MrΒ Masterson’sΒ licenceΒ should be reinstated,Β itΒ had to be satisfied thatΒ there isΒ β€œvirtually no risk” to the public.Β 

Rifle fitted with stock operating telescopically is prohibited firearm

Under theΒ Firearms Act, a rifle fitted with a stock β€œthat is specially designed” to operate on a telescopic basis is aΒ prohibitedΒ firearm.Β Β 

MrΒ Masterson’sΒ licenceΒ did not grant himΒ authorityΒ to possessΒ thisΒ prohibited firearm.Β Β 

MrΒ Masterson argued that theΒ modificationsΒ he made meant that theΒ firearm was not prohibited.Β However, the appeals panelΒ rejected this argument.Β Β 

Rather, the appeals panelΒ said thatΒ althoughΒ the modifications may have prevented telescopic action being readily engaged at a particular point in time,Β β€œthe modifications… were not of such a nature so as to permanently modify the original design so that the stock was incapable of operating in a telescopic manner in any circumstance”.Β Β 

Facts surrounding licensee’s rifle relevant to determining public interest question

TheΒ appealsΒ panelΒ concluded thatΒ theΒ fitting of a modified stock to a firearmΒ thatΒ MrΒ Masterson was entitled to possess, and the fact that the stock could be altered back to a state where it could operate telescopically,Β were relevantΒ considerations.Β The tribunal was entitled to considerΒ these inΒ determiningΒ whether it was in the public interest to allowΒ MrΒ Masterson to hold a firearmsΒ licence.Β Β 

The appeal panelΒ alsoΒ foundΒ thatΒ these matters were sufficient for the tribunal to reach the conclusion thatΒ MrΒ Masterson’sΒ licenceΒ should be revoked andΒ the police’s decision should be affirmed.Β 

Licensee can manufacture firearm parts to maintain legally held firearms

Given the above, theΒ appeals panelΒ said thatΒ itΒ wasΒ unnecessary toΒ deal with the other grounds of appeal.Β However, it chose to do so.Β Β 

One of those grounds related to the manufacture of firearm parts byΒ MrΒ Masterson using his 3D printer.Β Β 

The tribunal had concluded that the making of firearm parts was not authorised andΒ β€œeffectively undermines the objects of theΒ Firearms Act… in promoting public safety through the strict control and possession of firearms.” 

The appeals panel accepted the tribunal’s conclusion thatΒ MrΒ Masterson hadΒ in factΒ attempted to manufacture firearm parts,Β even though his printer was not good enough to do it.Β Β 

However, theΒ appeals panelΒ said theΒ tribunal was incorrect in finding thatΒ MrΒ Masterson could not manufacture any firearm partsΒ at all.Β Β 

Rather, the correct interpretation of theΒ legislationΒ was that heΒ wasΒ entitled to manufacture parts for the repair or maintenance of firearms whichΒ heΒ was entitled to use and possess.

Licensee attempts to manufacture prohibited weapon

TheΒ tribunal also found thatΒ the firearm partΒ thatΒ MrΒ Masterson wasΒ attemptingΒ to manufacture wasΒ a magazine with a capacity of more thanΒ tenΒ rounds, which would be a prohibited weapon.Β Β 

Under the firearms legislation, this was somethingΒ thatΒ MrΒ Masterson was notΒ authorisedΒ to do.Β Β 

The appeals panel found that the tribunal was entitled to consider this conduct in determining whether it was in the public interest to revoke Mr Masterson’s firearms licence.

Public policy in protecting against risk from firearms

This case is a good example of the relevance of public policyΒ inΒ the craftingΒ of legislation andΒ inΒ the way that such legislation is applied.Β Β 

Both the tribunal and the appeals panel emphasised that possession and use of a firearm is a privilege which isΒ β€œconditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.” 

MrΒ Masterson behaved in a way that posed a risk to public safety, and so he lostΒ theΒ privilegeΒ of possessingΒ firearms, and consequently, his firearmsΒ licence.Β 

NOTICE: This article is accurate as at the time of publication and does not constitute legal advice. Please see our legal notices page for more information. Information related to coronavirus can be outdated very quickly.

Latest from Stacks

chat button

Fill out this form and one of our local law professionals will be in contact

By submitting this form you agree to the terms of our Privacy policy