ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Where there are two administrative decisions, one original and one a de novo review on the merits — Where the review decision was the operative decision — Where only the operative decision is amenable to judicial review
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Whether the decision-maker failed to take into account mandatory considerations — Requirement for the failure to consider material to be a consequence of legal error regarding the function being exercised
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Legal unreasonableness — Whether the finding that the plaintiff was argumentative and confrontational was legally unreasonable — Breadth of considerations going to public interest — No error established — No issue of principle
Quick Take
1Under s 53(8) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), where an administratively reviewable decision is affirmed on internal review, only the internal review decision is the operative decision amenable to judicial review; the original decision does not independently subsist as a separate reviewable decision.
2The 'public interest' ground for revocation of a firearms licence under s 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) and cl 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW) is a broad, multi-factorial evaluative discretion not confined to public safety; it extends to considerations of a licensee's suitability, prospective adherence to the licensing regime, and cooperative dealings with the regulator and police.
3A failure to consider a particular factor in an administrative decision only constitutes jurisdictional error if the factor was a mandatory consideration and the failure was a consequence of legal error about the function being exercised; where a power is conferred in broad discretionary terms, a wide range of considerations will be permissible but few will be mandatory.
