16 May 2025
IR-01-25-15239
New Zealand Citizen
[email address]
Tēnā koe
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request dated 24 April 2025 where
you asked for information relating to an unlawful hunting case.
You stated the fol owing:
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 surveil ance. 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 stil 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 fol owing information under the Official Information Act
1982 in relation to Police case number 240821/3608.
I have answered each question below.
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 fol owed in making that determination?
Te Tari Pūreke – Firearms Safety Authority
Telephone: 0800 844 431
www.firearmssafetyauthority.govt.nz
Te Tari Pūreke – Firearms Safety Authority is a business unit of New Zealand Police.
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, kil ing, 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?
Police is withholding the information sought in Questions
1 to 4 of your request under
section 9(2)(a) of the OIA, where withholding is necessary to protect the privacy of natural
persons including deceased natural persons.
Police considers the interests requiring protection by withholding the information are not
outweighed by any public interest in the release of the information.
The nature of your questions about ‘the individual’ and that you have provided the Police
case number deems this decision necessary in order to protect the individual’s privacy,
that is, the information requested is clearly about an individual whose identity is plainly
apparent, to some degree, by you.
Note that personal information is information about an identifiable individual. Personal
information does not have to be factual; it can also be expressions of opinion or intention
about the individual. Personal information does not have to be of a particularly private or
sensitive nature. It is information of any nature that is about an identifiable individual.
However, I refer you to your request reference IR-01-25-15242 that you also submitted
on 24 April 2025, which will provide you with information relating to the “framework for
addressing unlawful hunting with firearms” in New Zealand. Police’s response to this
request wil be released to you in due course.
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?
link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3
The assessment of all firearms licence applicants is aligned to the purpose and principles
of section 1A
1 of the Arms Act 1983 (the Act). Section 24 of the Act requires that an
applicant must be a “fit and proper” person to be in possession of a firearm or an airgun.
The grounds for firearms licence revocation or suspension pending revocation under
sections 27 and 60A of the Act
2 include where the licence holder is not a fit and proper
person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.
From 24 December 2020, a new section 24A4
3 of the Act provided more detailed
statutory guidance on circumstances relevant to whether a person is fit and proper to
possess firearms or airguns.
These factors are relevant considerations when assessing whether a person is or
remains a fit and proper person to possess firearms or airguns. They are not an exclusive
list – section 24A(2)(c)
4 makes it clear that Police may take into account any other
relevant matters considered appropriate.
The assessment of a person’s fit and proper status requires consideration under a two-
stage process:
1. is a firearms licence holder involved in specific behaviours, offending or
circumstances defined in s24A(1)(a) - (n), or 24A(2) or as considered relevant,
and then,
2. the severity and recency of the circumstance(s) (specific behaviours, offending
listed above) individually at first, and then col ectively when considered overall.
One significant matter may suffice, or more less significant matters. This includes
all other matters deemed relevant.
The factors for consideration for assessment as a fit and proper person include the extent
of harm or risk of harm, including the danger of self-harm or harm to others.
Actions that create risks but do not actual y lead to harm occurring can stil be serious
and require a firm response of harm or the risk of harm includes the following factors:
•
Minimal or no harm or risk of harm,
•
harm is, or would likely be, easily mitigated,
1 Purposes of this Act (1) The purposes of this Act are to-
(a) promote the safe possession and use of firearms and other weapons; and
(b) impose controls on the possession and use of firearms and other weapons.
(2) The regulatory regime established by this Act to achieve those purposes reflects the following principles:
(a) that the possession and use of arms is a privilege: and
(b) that persons authorised to import, manufacture, supply, sell, sell, possess, or use arms have a
responsibility to act in the interests of personal and public safety.
Section 1A: inserted, on 25 June 2020, by section 5 of the Arms Legislation Act 2020 (2020 No 23).
2
https:/ www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1983/0044/latest/whole.html#LMS440344
3 24A Fit and proper person to possess firearm or airgun
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a member of the Police may find a person is not a fit and proper person to be in
possession of a firearm or an airgun if the member of the Police is satisfied that 1 or more of the following
circumstances exist [ … ]
https:/ www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1983/0044/latest/LMS440359.html
4 In determining whether, for the purposes of this Act, a person is a fit and proper person to be in possession of
a firearm or an airgun, the member of the Police may take into account: […] (c) any other relevant matters the
member of the Police considers appropriate.
• significant or widespread harm or potential for such harm is actually or potential y
caused to members of the community.
Conduct in this context means the behaviours, intent, and capability of the licence holder
whose actions are being considered.
Assessment of conduct includes the fol owing factors:
• It is first-time or one-off behaviour that is less serious or unlikely to be repeated,
• the conduct is accidental or resulted from momentary carelessness or the result
of a limited understanding of the law (where that is not inconsistent with the
expectations of someone holding a firearms licence),
• mitigating factors exist,
• the behaviour is deliberate, more serious, repeated, reckless or involving
consistent carelessness or involving disregard for New Zealand legislation,
• aggravating factors exist.
Public interest can be described as something being in the interest of the wider public or
of public importance. Considerations include whether the event reflects a widespread
problem that can be usefully addressed by highlighting the need for compliance.
Assessment of public interest includes the fol owing factors:
• the conduct occurred some time ago and has ceased,
• a decision not to act would undermine public confidence in Police as a regulatory
authority, and
• enforcement action is necessary to deter others from similar conduct.
Each case wil have its own set of specific and unique circumstances, meaning that the
decision maker wil need to identify the relevant factors applicable on a case-by-case
basis.
The final consideration in the fit and proper assessment requires Police to review the
totality of the specific behaviour / offending by the licence holder, in the context of the
aims of the Act, in order to reach a fair and justifiable decision.
Conversely, there wil also be instances where Police’s decision wil be based on the
totality of the specific behaviour / offending, where the licence holder does not meet the
threshold for consideration of revocation, and remains, however marginal y or otherwise,
a fit and proper person to possess a firearm or airgun.
Police may instead issue a warning letter to the licence holder setting the relevant facts
and corresponding legislative grounds under section 24A that may affect the licence
holder’s fit and proper status and the consequence of potential revocation of the firearms
licence for any subsequent offending/behaviour.
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 al ow for this discretion?
I refer you to my response to questions 1 to 4, also noting that each case wil have its
own set of specific and unique circumstances, meaning that the decision maker wil need
to identify the relevant factors applicable on a case-by-case basis.
Please refer to Te Tari Pūreke’s policy which is publicly available in the link below.
https://www.firearmssafetyauthority.govt.nz/firearms-safety/hunter-safety/hunting-access-
and-unlawful-hunting-activities
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)I, 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 surveil ance 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.
Police is withholding the information sought in Questions 7 to 9 under section 9(2)(a) of
the OIA, where withholding is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons
including deceased natural persons. I also refer you to my response to questions 1 to 4
above.
Police considers the interests requiring protection by withholding the information are not
outweighed by any public interest in the release of the information.
In relation to a fit and proper assessment, please see my response to question 5 above.
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
As an organisation Te Tari Pūreke wil continue to work on lifting trust and confidence
from the public and the licence holder community with the purpose of helping to keep all
communities safe.
Te Tari Pūreke is committed to working with the firearms sector – and the wider
community - to listen and understand their ideas and feedback, as wel as their
challenges and concerns.
While I cannot disclose information about the particular case you are referring to due to
privacy reasons, I can advise that Police / Te Tari Pūreke (along with other stakeholders)
is doing our part to contribute to preventing unlawful hunting and wil continue to
investigate reports of this nature.
Te Tari Pūreke works closely with relevant groups, such as the Recreational Firearms
Users Working Group which includes organisations such as the Game Animal Council,
Federated Farmers of New Zealand and the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association,
whom have considerable investment in addressing the unlawful hunting issue.
One of the Core Functions of Te Tari Pūreke is to promote the safe and legitimate use of
firearms. Lawful hunting access is one the key elements of legitimate firearms use, and
the consistent message is that al firearms users must have permission to use firearms on
the land that they hunt or shoot on. This has been communicated in the seasonal roar
and gamebird hunting messaging and in involvement in the National Goat Hunting
Competition Steering Group. The Te Tari Pūreke website has information on hunting
access and shooting on lifestyle blocks:
Hunting access and unlawful hunting activities | Firearms Safety Authority New Zealand
Shooting on rural lifestyle properties or smal holdings | Firearms Safety Authority New
Zealand
There are considerable penalties for unlawful hunting activities in both the Wild Animal
Control Act 1977 and the Wildlife Act 1953. Te Tari Pūreke has regular meetings with
staff from the Department of Conservation and Fish & Game, in which compliance and
enforcement issues are commonly raised.
The creation of the centralised Te Tari Pūreke Resolutions team in 2021, has helped to
give greater oversight of this type of il egal activity and provides increased consistency
and assurance in respect of the appropriate regulatory intervention made in such
circumstances, regarding the individual concerned, on a case-by-case basis (noting
unlawful hunting offences are dealt with by Police, while Te Tari Pūreke, as a dedicated
branded business unit within Police, focus on regulating the firearms system).
You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review this decision if you are not satisfied
with the response to your request. Information about how to make a complaint is
available at:
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
For your information, Police has developed a process for proactive release of information,
so the anonymised response to your request may be publicly released on the New
Zealand Police website.
Nāku noa, nā
Mike McIlraith
Kaihautū Kōtui | Director Partnerships & Communities
Te Tari Pūreke | Firearms Safety Authority
