A judge has decided former Tauranga City Councillor Hayden Evans is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

This decision reinforces the original decision to revoke his licence.

Hayden Evans on his Ohauiti property.

In a reserved decision released following a hearing in September, Judge Robert Wolff says he remains concerned about Hayden's suspicious and querulous personality, a preparedness to threaten to use weapons in a domestic and work situation, his fascination with firearms, and his casualness with their use.

Also cited is what the judge says is Hayden's total absence of any acceptance or understanding that he may have had underlying problems in 2009 when his firearms licence was originally revoked – and the lengths which Hayden will go to attempt to prove the evidence on which the original decision was made was vindictive and wrong, in the face of compelling evidence that it was well meaning and right.

Hayden's licence was revoked in July 2009 at a time when he was under stress in his relationship, at work as a city councillor, and financially.

His ex-partner handed Hayden's firearms in to police, raising concerns about him retaining them.

A subsequent police investigation resulted in the firearms licence being revoked.

Hayden was appealing that police decision.

The court case required a fresh decision on the issue of his fitness – neither Hayden nor police had a burden of proof.

On firearms issues it is generally accepted that someone who might be considered unfit to keep firearms at any one time, may later have the decision reviewed – and have their licence returned.

This option was offered to Hayden.

Police went to Hayden after he had commenced proceedings and offered to reconsider his revocation.

'This entirely appropriate step was translated by Mr Evans into a view that the commissioner was trying to avoid court scrutiny of his earlier decision,” says the Judge.

In his review of the circumstance leading up to that earlier decision he was satisfied the original decision was correct, solidly based on reason and supported by the evidence.

The judge says Hayden's case is that the evidence given to police in 2009 was inaccurate and given by people with a bias against him – his ex, disaffected neighbours and political adversaries.

Hayden argued there should have been evidence from a wider range of witnesses, or at least should emphasise the evidence of those who knew him best and could elucidate the claims of bias and vindictiveness.

Hayden conducted his own case in a manner that personally criticised those who gave evidence against him, including his former partner who has permanent name suppression, and questioned the integrity of other witnesses.

That emphasis on criticism meant the true focus, whether Hayden is a fit and proper person at this time to be entrusted with a firearms licence has rather less been emphasised, says the judge.

'It appears to me that Mr Evans' view of the world is that the world is populated by two distinct groups of people. The first group are those who agree with him and there is another group who do not do so and who tend to conspire against him.”

The people initially interviewed by police were self selecting in that they represented Hayden's domestic life, his work life and his neighbourhood, says the judge.

'If one does not approach this case with the mindset of a conspiracy, there is nothing sinister in the choice of interviewees.”

A number of witnesses spoke highly of Hayden and were critical of his former partner, placing his domestic troubles firmly at her door.

But even if the supporting witnesses were included in the original investigation, the judge says there would still have been indications of something of concern under the surface.

Applications for costs or any other order must be filed by November 14.