Background
Sebastian Papa held a Category AB firearms licence. In April 2026, police imposed special conditions concerning firearms at any location where his wife’s brother resided. When officers attended Mr Papa’s property to serve the conditions, he made abusive, argumentative and conspiratorial remarks about police, the firearms registry and government. He had also challenged police authority during an earlier firearms-related interaction.
On 29 April 2026, an adjudication officer revoked Mr Papa’s licence on public-interest grounds. Mr Papa sought internal review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW). A senior adjudicator affirmed the revocation on 2 June 2026, finding serious concerns about Mr Papa’s future cooperation with police and adherence to the firearms-licensing regime. Mr Papa then sought judicial review of both decisions.
The Court’s Holding
Chen J dismissed the summons. Under the internal-review scheme, the review was a de novo merits review and the internal-review decision was the sole operative decision. The original revocation decision was therefore not independently amenable to judicial review.
The Court rejected Mr Papa’s claims that the reviewer failed to consider mandatory matters, including his lack of convictions, compliance history, compliance with police requests, and statutory declarations. Lack of convictions was not a mandatory consideration for a revocation under the public-interest ground, and the reasons showed that the reviewer had considered the submitted material and compliance history.
The Court also rejected legal unreasonableness. The public-interest revocation power was broad and was not limited to direct firearm misuse or immediate public-safety risk. It was open to the reviewer to regard Mr Papa’s conduct and attitude toward police and the regulator as bearing on his future compliance, suitability, and the public interest in maintaining a strict firearms-licensing system.
Key Takeaways
- Following a de novo internal review under s 53 of the ADR Act, the review decision is the operative decision for judicial-review purposes.
- A relevant factor is not necessarily a mandatory consideration; the statute’s text, scope and purpose determine that question.
- Public-interest firearms revocation may take account of a licensee’s cooperation with police and respect for the licensing regime, even without firearm misuse or criminal convictions.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the breadth of the Commissioner’s public-interest power to revoke firearms licences under s 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) and cl 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW). It also underscores that judicial review examines legality, not whether the Court would have made a different licensing assessment.
The Court dismissed the proceedings, ordered Mr Papa to pay costs, and discharged the stays that had prevented the revocation decisions from taking effect.