Hells Angels bikie loses Supreme Court appeal against firearms ban

A senior Hells Angel bikie has lost a Supreme Court appeal to quash a Firearms Prohibition Order he claimed was unjustified and infringed his rights.

A senior member of the Hells Angels bikie gang has lost a Supreme Court bid to quash a ban on him owning a firearm.

Trucking contractor Paul Savage, 57, argued a mandatory Firearms Prohibition Order imposed on him simply because he was a member of a declared criminal organisation was an imposition on his “rights, interests and liberties’’, and was not justified.

He also claimed that any future searches of his house by police for firearms – which could occur at any time under the conditions of an FPO – would cause his sick daughter and her children “anxiety and distress’’ if they were present.

Such an order, if strictly applied, would also prevent him from attending community events such as Anzac Day celebrations where firearms were present.

A Hells Angels member. Picture: Jono Searle

More than 500 South Australians are the subject of Firearm Prohibition Orders that impose strict conditions banning ownership and being in the company of those with firearms.

The FPO list include all bikie gang members and dozens of criminals convicted of violent crimes.

Mr Savage, of Modbury North, was first advised by police in September 2018 that an FPO was to be issued against him.

In December 2018, his lawyer wrote to police and put submissions as to “why it was not necessary or appropriate’’ to make the order.

After further exchange of letters between police and Mr Savage’s lawyer, he was advised in May 2019 that the FPO would be issued.

The letter advised the order was being imposed after consideration of “the need to protect the public and prevent criminal activity involving the use of firearms’’ and government firearms policy.

It also advised the issuer had “taken into account the government’s policy to protect the community from the illegal activity engaged in by criminal organisations by restricting the ability of members of such organisations to obtain, use and deal in firearms’’.

As a result of submissions from Mr Savage’s lawyer, several exemptions from the strict provisions were conceded so that his employment as a haulage subcontractor would not be jeopardised.

Those conditions enabled him to be in the company of a person who was in possession of a firearm as long as it was during the course of his employment.

Despite those conditions, Mr Savage appealed the decision to impose the FPO in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. His appeal was dismissed.

He subsequently appealed that decision in the Supreme Court and lengthy argument was heard before Auxiliary Justice Graham Dart.

During the hearing, the court heard Mr Savage had no relevant criminal history and previously held a firearms licence for almost 40 years. He had been involved with registered firearms clubs, but had not held a firearms licence since 2016.

There was no evidence he had been suspected of possessing a firearm or ammunition since ceasing to hold a licence.

“One of the notable aspects of this matter is the fact that the appellant does not submit that he has any need or use for a firearm,’ Auxiliary Justice Dart stated in his judgment.

“The complaint is primarily about the consequences that come with the imposition of a Firearms Prohibition Order.’’

In confirming the imposition of the order, Auxiliary Justice Dart said it was “clear’’ the Act has a wide reach and there was a “significant risk of unintended consequences’’ but they could be dealt with “by the making of appropriate conditions’’.