(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 6 March 2026 and has been lightly edited from the transcript).
[2]
On 30 September 2025, the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner) purported to exercise his power under s 192 of the Firearms Act 2024 (WA) and cancelled the applicant's firearm authority.
The applicant commenced an application in this Court on 29 October 2025 seeking judicial review of that decision under O 56 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (Rules).
Principally, the applicant sought to agitate the question of whether the Commissioner followed mandatory requirements under the Firearms Act before exercising his power.
The Commissioner seeks dismissal of the application under O 56, r 5(2)(j) or (k) of the Rules.
Principally that is because it is submitted that there is an alternative preferable or equally adequate remedy available to the applicant. That is said to be found in a combination of of the and the relevant provisions of the (WA).
The applicant says that he would be out of time to now commence proceedings in the Tribunal.
The Commissioner has given an undertaking that if proceedings were to be commenced by the applicant in the Tribunal, the respondent would not oppose any application for an extension of time.[1]
It is common ground between the parties that an extension of time would be discretionary on the part of the Tribunal.
I approach the question, however, on the basis that the applicant would have a good explanation for being out of time, namely a combination of: his commencing in good faith in this Court; this decision; and the undertaking proffered. If I am wrong and the Tribunal were not to extend the time to the applicant, then, without prejudice, in my view it would be open to the applicant to commence proceedings again in this Court, and again he would have very significant arguments favouring the overcoming of any time limitation.
Of course, I am not able, and I do not seek to fetter the discretion of the tribunal on any application, but I am proceeding with what I consider to be the reasonable expectation that the Tribunal would extend time.
There are a great many strong statements in appeal cases which are to the effect that there is a predisposition to refuse prerogative relief if there is an alternative avenue of relief available. The Commissioner has cited a number of cases, but I think for present purposes I need only refer to the decision in VB v CEO of the Department of Communities [2020] WASCA 146, where it is stated that:
[3]
Relief will be in the ordinary way refused if there is a more satisfactory alternative avenue for relief or an equally adequate remedy.[2]
[4]
I consider that here s 335 of the Firearms Act does provide such a pathway.
On the materials before me, I do not consider that there is any particular compelling or extraordinary reason for the matter to remain in this Court.
The principle enunciated in the cases, as I understand it, reflects the legislative policy and framework that lies behind the State Administrative Tribunal being established in this State. That is, generally speaking, administrative decisions should not be reviewed on technical legal grounds but should be reviewed on their substantial merits. To allow the applicant's case to remain in this Court does, in my view, threaten the coherence of that framework to some degree. And without there being a compelling reason would tend to undermine the application of well-established authority.
At this point of delivering my reasons, the applicant wanted to make plain that he was contending that the Commissioner's failure to provide him procedural fairness (as per s 194 of the Firearms Act) was such a compelling reason.
I do not consider that it is.
For those reasons, I consider that the application should be refused under O 56 r 5 (2)(j) or (k) of the Rules.
I therefore make orders in the terms sought by the Commissioner, namely:
[5]
(1) The application for judicial review be dismissed; and
(2) Each party bear their own costs.
[6]
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
[7]
[1] Respondent's outline of submissions dated 12 February 2026 [43] and ts 14.