Reserved decision — revocation of firearms licence — fit and proper person — criminal convictions — District Court jurisdiction — statutory interpretation — Arms Act 1983, ss 1A, 23, 27(2), 62 & 62B — Arms Legislation Act 2020, s 90 — Legislation Act 2019, s 10. The appellant appealed a police decision to revoke his firearms licence on the grounds that he was not a fit and proper person. The revocation was because of criminal charges that the appellant faced at the time. However some of the charges were later withdrawn, and on the rest of the charges the appellant was discharged without conviction. Following the resolution of his criminal charges, the appellant sought from the Commissioner of Police a review of the decision to revoke his licence. The appellant sought the review outside the 28-day limit set by the Arms Act (the Act). However the appellant submitted that he had been waiting for the outcome of the criminal charges before seeking a review. The Commissioner declined to review the revocation, on the grounds that the appellant had applied out of time. On appeal, the Court had to decide if it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, when the appellant had failed to meet the timeframe set by the Act. The Court examined s 62B of the Act, which provided the right to appeal against the decision of a review. The Court found that the plain wording of s 62B made it clear that there were only narrow grounds to hear an appeal against a decision to revoke a firearms licence. Further, s 62(5) of the Act clearly set out the timeframes for a review of a decision to revoke a licence. To hear an appeal outside the timeframes would make s 62(5) pointless. The appellant had not properly applied for a review under s 62, and so had no right of appeal. The Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. Judgment Date: 7 March 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *