Dear New Zealand Police / Firearms Safety Authority,

It is my understanding that the individual referred to in Police case number 240821/3608 continues to hold a firearms licence.
This individual admitted to unlawful hunting during a Police interview and was identified on at least ten separate occasions engaging in this behaviour over a year of surveillance. On three of these occasions, the individual discharged a firearm on private land. Despite the strength of the evidence and the seriousness of the conduct, no charges were laid.

Behaviour such as unlawful hunting may indicate a disregard for:
• The rule of law,
• Responsibilities associated with firearm ownership, and
• Safe and ethical hunting practices.

In light of this, I am seeking clarification as to why this individual is still considered a "fit and proper person" to possess firearms. I would also like to understand what specific assessment or process was undertaken by NZ Police and/or the Firearms Safety Authority to reach this determination.

Please note that I am not seeking any information that could identify the individual involved. This request is focused solely on understanding the process and decision-making framework applied by the relevant authorities in relation to this case.

Accordingly, I respectfully request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982 in relation to Police case number 240821/3608.

1. Did NZ Police notify or refer the individual to the Firearms Safety Authority following the presentation of strong and overwhelming evidence, along with their admission to unlawful hunting on private property?
– If not, why was this not considered necessary?
– If a referral or recommendation was made, what was the nature of that referral, and what process was followed in making that determination?

2. What assessment process or criteria were applied by NZ Police and/or the Firearms Safety Authority to determine that this individual remains a “fit and proper” person to hold a firearms licence, despite the presentation of strong and overwhelming evidence, including their admission to unlawful hunting on private property?
– Please provide any relevant guidelines, policy documents, or assessment checklists used in making this determination

3. Was the individual’s use of a firearm on private property without permission considered a breach of the Arms Act 1983 or a violation of their licence conditions?
– If not, why was this not regarded as a cause for concern regarding their fitness to hold a firearms licence?

4. Was the individual's behaviour — specifically hunting, killing, or possessing wild animals, or discharging a firearm on private land without the owner’s or occupier’s authority — considered under Section 8 of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977?
– Although the individual was not charged, the conduct did occur. Was this behaviour considered a significant factor in evaluating their firearms licence status? If not, why?

5. Does NZ Police and/or the Firearms Safety Authority consider unlawful hunting or trespassing with a firearm as behaviour that would automatically disqualify an individual from being deemed a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence?
– If not, what criteria or considerations are used to determine whether such behaviour impacts an individual’s eligibility to hold a firearms licence?

6. To what extent did the absence of a criminal conviction or a clean criminal record influence the decision not to suspend or revoke the individual’s firearms licence?
– Was greater weight given to this factor over the behavioural evidence (e.g., repeated unlawful hunting), and does current policy allow for this discretion?

7. Were any mitigating factors considered in the decision not to suspend or revoke this individual’s firearms licence?
– If so, what were these factors, and how were they weighed against the seriousness of the unlawful hunting incidents?

8. Did NZ Police or the Firearms Safety Authority consider the individual's unlawful hunting on private land as a non-compliance issue under Section 24A(1)(g), a relevant behavioural matter under Section 24A(2)(c), or any external sources under Section 24A(3) of the Arms Act 1983 when assessing this individual’s fitness to possess a firearm, even in the absence of a conviction?
– Can you provide any documentation, reports, or internal notes that reference these sections in the decision-making process?
– If the unlawful hunting was not considered under these provisions, please explain why, given the strength of the evidence and its relevance to the individual’s conduct.

9. In evaluating the individual’s fitness to hold a firearms licence, did NZ Police/Firearms Safety Authority consider the full pattern of behaviour observed during the surveillance period — including the ten separate occasions the individual was identified engaging in unlawful hunting, three of which involved entering private property and discharging a firearm — or did the assessment primarily focus on the single occasion when the individual was apprehended on private land cutting up the carcass?
– Please clarify whether the broader context of repeated behaviour, including trespassing and the use of a firearm on private land, was taken into account in the decision-making process regarding their status as a “fit and proper person” under the Arms Act.

10. How do NZ Police and the Firearms Safety Authority address concerns about fairness, public confidence, and transparency in light of their decision not to prosecute or revoke this individual’s firearms licence — despite strong evidence of repeated unlawful hunting and trespassing with a firearm on private property?
– Was any communication or internal review undertaken to consider how this decision might be perceived by the general public if the details of the case become widely known

Your Sincerely
New Zealand Citizen

Please note: This request is made by a New Zealand citizen, in accordance with Section 12 of the Official Information Act 1982.