Firearms license suspension after AVO dropped

[Simonp1972]

Hey guys,

I'm looking for some knowledge about firearms license suspensions.

I was charged and had an AVO placed on me, my license was suspended and firearms seized.

I have been to court and been found not guilty of the offenses and the AVO has been dropped.

Does anyone know the process for me to have my license reinstated and my firearms returned?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

[alexjones]

Have you rang the firearms licence branch?

[Simonp1972]

No not yet I’m trying to get some insight on what to expect when I do call firearms registry

[alexjones]

Where are your firearms and licence? Are they at the local police station? Or the station has the licence and a dealer has the firearms?

My understating was after a suspension the licensing tell the police at the local station to give your licence and firearms back.

A suspension is lot simpler than a refusal or a revocation. Once the reason for the suspension is removed the firearms and licence are returned.

[on_one_wheel]

Been through the same in SA.
I called the firearms branch and they assured me that after a few weeks I'd be right to pick my firearms up from the warehouse.

Sure enough, it happened just as they said.

Give it a week and call them

Ain't Fictitious AVO's grand.
Strangely enough, those who put them in place usually go unpunished.
Imagine the cost to not only the individuals, but the whole system... the police having their time wasted serving them, the courts and the countless public servants along the way shuffling paperwork.
No accountability, getting away with it Scott free.
What a world hey.

[Simonp1972]

Where are your firearms and licence? Are they at the local police station? Or the station has the licence and a dealer has the firearms?

My understating was after a suspension the licensing tell the police at the local station to give your licence and firearms back.

A suspension is lot simpler than a refusal or a revocation. Once the reason for the suspension is removed the firearms and licence are returned.

The police have my firearms and licence

[Simonp1972]

Been through the same in SA.
I called the firearms branch and they assured me that after a few weeks I'd be right to pick my firearms up from the warehouse.

Sure enough, it happened just as they said.

Give it a week and call them

Ain't Fictitious AVO's grand.
Strangely enough, those who put them in place usually go unpunished.
Imagine the cost to not only the individuals, but the whole system... the police having their time wasted serving them, the courts and the countless public servants along the way shuffling paperwork.
No accountability, getting away with it Scott free.
What a world hey.

Tell me about it

Waste of tax payer resources but it keeps everyone employed and everyone gets paid. Lawyers, court staff, police etc etc.

Even when complainants are found to have lied under oath there are no consequences, complete joke it is.

[Simonp1972]

Where are your firearms and licence? Are they at the local police station? Or the station has the licence and a dealer has the firearms?

My understating was after a suspension the licensing tell the police at the local station to give your licence and firearms back.

A suspension is lot simpler than a refusal or a revocation. Once the reason for the suspension is removed the firearms and licence are returned.

Thanks mate your explanation sounds logical and makes sense.

[Ballistix]

Hey guys,

I'm looking for some knowledge about firearms license suspensions.

I was charged and had an AVO placed on me, my license was suspended and firearms seized.

I have been to court and been found not guilty of the offenses and the AVO has been dropped.

Does anyone know the process for me to have my license reinstated and my firearms returned?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Sorry to be a dampener, but in NSW, if it was a final AVO, your licence will probably be revoked and you won't be able to obtain a new licence for ten years (refer s.29(3) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)). You needed to make an application for the AVO to be revoked before the order expired, otherwise, you no longer have the abilty to apply to the magistrate to revoke the order.

This is unfair, but the legislation was amended deliberately to do this. This issue was determined by the NSW court of appeal in Wass v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 71; 111 NSWLR 210.

If it isn't a final AVO, there might be other options. If you haven't already, I would go speak to your solicitor ASAP.

49 First, this construction conforms with the use of the word “revoke” elsewhere in the statute. Interim and provisional orders remain in force until they are revoked or until a final order is made or the application is withdrawn. That is the force of ss 24 and 32 of the Act. Section 24 provides:
24 Interim court order ceases when final court order made or served
(1) An interim court order remains in force until—
(a) it is revoked, or
(b) it ceases to have effect under subsection (2), or
(c) the application for a final apprehended violence order is withdrawn or dismissed,
whichever first occurs.
(2) If a final apprehended violence order is made in respect of an interim court order (whether with or without variation), the interim court order ceases to have effect—
(a) in a case where the defendant is present at court—when the final apprehended violence order is made, or
(b) in any other case—when the defendant is served in accordance with this Act with a copy of the final apprehended violence order.

50 Section 32 is in substantially identical terms but is applicable to provisional orders. Both provisions proceed on the basis that the order to be “revoked” under s 24(1)(a) or s 32(1)(a) must be one which had hitherto been in force. In neither of those sections is the word “revoke” used to apply to an order which has expired.

51 Section 79 deals with the duration of final apprehended violence orders. It provides:
79 Duration of apprehended personal violence orders
(1) An apprehended personal violence order remains in force for such period as is specified in the order by the court.
(2) The period specified in the order by the court is to be as long as is necessary, in the opinion of the court, to ensure the safety and protection of the protected person.
(3) If the court fails to specify a period in the order, the order remains in force for a period of 12 months after the date that the order is made.
(4) This section is subject to section 73 (Variation or revocation of final apprehended violence orders and interim court orders).

52 The effect of the first three subsections is that the order remains in force for the period specified in the order, in lieu of which for 12 months. The fact that those time periods are subject to the power conferred by s 73 is consistent with the conclusion that the s 73 power to vary can be exercised to extend the period during which an order remains in force, and the s 73 power to revoke can be exercised to reduce the period during which the order remains in force. If the s 73 power to revoke were confined to the revocation of orders which remained in force, that would sit easily with the operation of s 79(4) being subject to s 73. This is not however decisive, for the fact that one provision is “subject to” another does not mean that the two make different provision in respect of the same subject matter; it merely entails which is to prevail in the event that there is conflict. As Megarry J pointed out in C & J Clark Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1973] 1 WLR 905 at 911; [1973] 2 All ER 513 at 520, “[w]here there is no clash, the phrase does nothing: if there is collision, the phrase shows what is to prevail”: see also Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513 at 580; [1997] HCA 38.

53 Secondly, a construction that the power to “revoke” is confined to orders which are in force also makes sense of former subsections (5)-(8) of s 72, in particular subsection (5). Mr Wass was forced to the submission that, under the earlier form of the legislation, subsection (5) was enacted for the avoidance of doubt, because on his preferred construction, former subsection (1) authorised applications to revoke an expired final apprehended violence order. That is of course possible, but telling against that is that it is “a known rule in the interpretation of Statutes that such a sense is to be made upon the whole as that no clause, sentence, or word shall prove superfluous, void, or insignificant, if by any other construction they may all be made useful and pertinent”: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 at [71], quoting Griffith CJ in Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 at 414; [1905] HCA 11, and see also State of New South Wales v Kaiser (2022) 108 NSWLR 476; [2022] NSWCA 86 at [57(4)]. Also telling against that construction is the purpose of the 2008 amendments.

54 Thirdly, it is natural to read the power in s 73 to “vary or revoke” as applying to the same object. But does it make sense to “vary” an order which has expired? This was raised during submissions:
KIRK JA: Your key focus is revocation. What about the notion of variation? Can one meaningfully vary a non-extant order?
HOOKE: Again, your Honour, the question of practical utility would loom very large.
KIRK JA: Sure, but is it part of your argument to say that, yes, you could even apply to vary a non-extant order?
HOOKE: In theory, but in practical terms, an application to do so once the order was expired would have no practical utility …

55 I do not think that the unlikelihood of a court’s being satisfied that “in all the circumstances it is proper to do so” is an especially attractive answer to the question. A better construction of s 73 is that power is only given to “vary” orders which have not expired. That supports the construction that power is also only given to “revoke” orders which have not expired.

56 Fourthly, that construction accords with at least some of the ordinary meanings of “revoke”. One speaks of revoking parole, or revoking bail, or revoking an offer at any time prior to its acceptance, in circumstances where the act of revocation will have immediate legal consequence upon the right or entitlement enjoyed immediately beforehand pursuant to the grant of parole, or the grant of bail, or the offer which was capable of acceptance. One does not speak of revoking parole or bail after the grant of parole or bail has ceased to entitle the person to conditional liberty. One does not speak of revoking an offer which is no longer capable of acceptance – or, if one does, one does so only out of an abundance of caution because there is a chance that the offer is capable of acceptance.

57 True it is that there are contexts in which the meaning of the word “revoke” is different. However, limited assistance is to be derived from the authorities collected in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Armstrong Scalisi Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 129; 343 FLR 374 at [137]-[145], not merely because they were in a revenue context, but also because the legislation made it clear that “where an estimate is revoked it is taken never to have been made”: see at [142].

58 Fifthly, this construction promotes the purpose of both the 2008 and, especially, the 2016 amendments.

Conclusion and orders

59 For those reasons, I conclude that this is a case where the power to “vary or revoke” an order is to be construed as confined to a power to vary or revoke an unexpired order. That accords with natural meanings of “vary” and “revoke”. It is consistent with the use of “revoked” in ss 24 and 32 in circumstances where the order must necessarily be in force immediately before it is revoked. It avoids the awkwardness of former s 72(5) being otiose or enacted for the avoidance of doubt. It accords with the explicitly enunciated purpose in the statutory review and the extrinsic materials in 2016, and it also accords with the explicitly enunciated purpose of the amendments in 2008.

[on_one_wheel]

If his AVO was dropped it would have been an interim AVO.

I'd be speaking with the firearms branch before I'd make a very expensive call to a professional leach.

[Oldbloke]

If his AVO was dropped it would have been an interim AVO.

I'd be speaking with the firearms branch before I'd make a very expensive call to a professional leach.

"I have been to court and been found not guilty of the offenses and the AVO has been dropped."

I think on_one_wheel is making sense.

Have you got some sort of proof/document the AVO/offences has been dropped. A case number to quote perhaps?

Just my 2c

[Ballistix]

If his AVO was dropped it would have been an interim AVO.

I'd be speaking with the firearms branch before I'd make a very expensive call to a professional leach.

You're more optimistic than me. Firearms Registry in NSW are known to use any and all reasons to refuse a licence.
Sometimes AVOs are left interim pending resolution of proceedings, but not usually.
I think the comment about lawyers is unfair. Many lawyers don't earn that much and/or (like me) donate their time for free to help people in the community.

[Simonp1972]

Hey guys,

I'm looking for some knowledge about firearms license suspensions.

I was charged and had an AVO placed on me, my license was suspended and firearms seized.

I have been to court and been found not guilty of the offenses and the AVO has been dropped.

Does anyone know the process for me to have my license reinstated and my firearms returned?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Sorry to be a dampener, but in NSW, if it was a final AVO, your licence will probably be revoked and you won't be able to obtain a new licence for ten years (refer s.29(3) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)). You needed to make an application for the AVO to be revoked before the order expired, otherwise, you no longer have the abilty to apply to the magistrate to revoke the order.

This is unfair, but the legislation was amended deliberately to do this. This issue was determined by the NSW court of appeal in Wass v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] NSWCA 71; 111 NSWLR 210.

If it isn't a final AVO, there might be other options. If you haven't already, I would go speak to your solicitor ASAP.

49 First, this construction conforms with the use of the word “revoke” elsewhere in the statute. Interim and provisional orders remain in force until they are revoked or until a final order is made or the application is withdrawn. That is the force of ss 24 and 32 of the Act. Section 24 provides:
24 Interim court order ceases when final court order made or served
(1) An interim court order remains in force until—
(a) it is revoked, or
(b) it ceases to have effect under subsection (2), or
(c) the application for a final apprehended violence order is withdrawn or dismissed,
whichever first occurs.
(2) If a final apprehended violence order is made in respect of an interim court order (whether with or without variation), the interim court order ceases to have effect—
(a) in a case where the defendant is present at court—when the final apprehended violence order is made, or
(b) in any other case—when the defendant is served in accordance with this Act with a copy of the final apprehended violence order.

50 Section 32 is in substantially identical terms but is applicable to provisional orders. Both provisions proceed on the basis that the order to be “revoked” under s 24(1)(a) or s 32(1)(a) must be one which had hitherto been in force. In neither of those sections is the word “revoke” used to apply to an order which has expired.

51 Section 79 deals with the duration of final apprehended violence orders. It provides:
79 Duration of apprehended personal violence orders
(1) An apprehended personal violence order remains in force for such period as is specified in the order by the court.
(2) The period specified in the order by the court is to be as long as is necessary, in the opinion of the court, to ensure the safety and protection of the protected person.
(3) If the court fails to specify a period in the order, the order remains in force for a period of 12 months after the date that the order is made.
(4) This section is subject to section 73 (Variation or revocation of final apprehended violence orders and interim court orders).

52 The effect of the first three subsections is that the order remains in force for the period specified in the order, in lieu of which for 12 months. The fact that those time periods are subject to the power conferred by s 73 is consistent with the conclusion that the s 73 power to vary can be exercised to extend the period during which an order remains in force, and the s 73 power to revoke can be exercised to reduce the period during which the order remains in force. If the s 73 power to revoke were confined to the revocation of orders which remained in force, that would sit easily with the operation of s 79(4) being subject to s 73. This is not however decisive, for the fact that one provision is “subject to” another does not mean that the two make different provision in respect of the same subject matter; it merely entails which is to prevail in the event that there is conflict. As Megarry J pointed out in C & J Clark Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1973] 1 WLR 905 at 911; [1973] 2 All ER 513 at 520, “[w]here there is no clash, the phrase does nothing: if there is collision, the phrase shows what is to prevail”: see also Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 513 at 580; [1997] HCA 38.

53 Secondly, a construction that the power to “revoke” is confined to orders which are in force also makes sense of former subsections (5)-(8) of s 72, in particular subsection (5). Mr Wass was forced to the submission that, under the earlier form of the legislation, subsection (5) was enacted for the avoidance of doubt, because on his preferred construction, former subsection (1) authorised applications to revoke an expired final apprehended violence order. That is of course possible, but telling against that is that it is “a known rule in the interpretation of Statutes that such a sense is to be made upon the whole as that no clause, sentence, or word shall prove superfluous, void, or insignificant, if by any other construction they may all be made useful and pertinent”: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 at [71], quoting Griffith CJ in Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 at 414; [1905] HCA 11, and see also State of New South Wales v Kaiser (2022) 108 NSWLR 476; [2022] NSWCA 86 at [57(4)]. Also telling against that construction is the purpose of the 2008 amendments.

54 Thirdly, it is natural to read the power in s 73 to “vary or revoke” as applying to the same object. But does it make sense to “vary” an order which has expired? This was raised during submissions:
KIRK JA: Your key focus is revocation. What about the notion of variation? Can one meaningfully vary a non-extant order?
HOOKE: Again, your Honour, the question of practical utility would loom very large.
KIRK JA: Sure, but is it part of your argument to say that, yes, you could even apply to vary a non-extant order?
HOOKE: In theory, but in practical terms, an application to do so once the order was expired would have no practical utility …

55 I do not think that the unlikelihood of a court’s being satisfied that “in all the circumstances it is proper to do so” is an especially attractive answer to the question. A better construction of s 73 is that power is only given to “vary” orders which have not expired. That supports the construction that power is also only given to “revoke” orders which have not expired.

56 Fourthly, that construction accords with at least some of the ordinary meanings of “revoke”. One speaks of revoking parole, or revoking bail, or revoking an offer at any time prior to its acceptance, in circumstances where the act of revocation will have immediate legal consequence upon the right or entitlement enjoyed immediately beforehand pursuant to the grant of parole, or the grant of bail, or the offer which was capable of acceptance. One does not speak of revoking parole or bail after the grant of parole or bail has ceased to entitle the person to conditional liberty. One does not speak of revoking an offer which is no longer capable of acceptance – or, if one does, one does so only out of an abundance of caution because there is a chance that the offer is capable of acceptance.

57 True it is that there are contexts in which the meaning of the word “revoke” is different. However, limited assistance is to be derived from the authorities collected in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Armstrong Scalisi Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 129; 343 FLR 374 at [137]-[145], not merely because they were in a revenue context, but also because the legislation made it clear that “where an estimate is revoked it is taken never to have been made”: see at [142].

58 Fifthly, this construction promotes the purpose of both the 2008 and, especially, the 2016 amendments.

Conclusion and orders

59 For those reasons, I conclude that this is a case where the power to “vary or revoke” an order is to be construed as confined to a power to vary or revoke an unexpired order. That accords with natural meanings of “vary” and “revoke”. It is consistent with the use of “revoked” in ss 24 and 32 in circumstances where the order must necessarily be in force immediately before it is revoked. It avoids the awkwardness of former s 72(5) being otiose or enacted for the avoidance of doubt. It accords with the explicitly enunciated purpose in the statutory review and the extrinsic materials in 2016, and it also accords with the explicitly enunciated purpose of the amendments in 2008.

As stated in the original post the AVO has been dropped.

It was an interim AVO whilst my matter was before the court. I was found not guilty of assault and the AVO was subsequently dropped

[Simonp1972]

If his AVO was dropped it would have been an interim AVO.

I'd be speaking with the firearms branch before I'd make a very expensive call to a professional leach.

Correct it was an interim AVO, I was found not guilty of assault and magistrate dropped the AVO

Don’t think I’ll be spending more money on lawyers for this I’ll be calling Firearms registry and asking for suspension to be ended and firearms licence to be reinstated as there is now no reason for the licence to remain suspended

[Simonp1972]

If his AVO was dropped it would have been an interim AVO.

I'd be speaking with the firearms branch before I'd make a very expensive call to a professional leach.

"I have been to court and been found not guilty of the offenses and the AVO has been dropped."

I think on_one_wheel is making sense.

Have you got some sort of proof/document the AVO/offences has been dropped. A case number to quote perhaps?

Just my 2c

Yes most certainly I have a case number and the judgement from the court

[Simonp1972]

If his AVO was dropped it would have been an interim AVO.

I'd be speaking with the firearms branch before I'd make a very expensive call to a professional leach.

You're more optimistic than me. Firearms Registry in NSW are known to use any and all reasons to refuse a licence.
Sometimes AVOs are left interim pending resolution of proceedings, but not usually.
I think the comment about lawyers is unfair. Many lawyers don't earn that much and/or (like me) donate their time for free to help people in the community.

Final avos are not generally granted until proceeding to which they relate are finalised.

Again I was found not guilty so the magistrate didn’t grant a final AVO

[alexjones]

Please update the thread when you get your guns back. Just to see how long it all takes.