Azzopardi v Commissioner of Police New South Wales Police Force
[2013] NSWADT 205
•16 September 2013
Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Azzopardi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 205 Hearing dates: 4 September 2013 Decision date: 16 September 2013 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: G D Walker, Judicial Member Decision: The decision under review is set aside.
Catchwords: Firearms licence - cancellation - public interest Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996; Firearms Regulation 2006 Cases Cited: ASIC v Australian Investors Forum Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2005] NSWSC 1198
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657 Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Gorgieski v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 214
Hill v Commissioner of Police [2002] NSWADT 218
Huckel v Commissioner of Police [2008] NSWADT 347
Lynch v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADTAP 43
McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354 Plunkett v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWADT 104
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536 Sawires v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWADT 4
Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 27Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joseph Charles Azzopardi (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
M Tanevski (Applicant)
Zahr & Zahr (Applicant)
Bartier Perry (Respondent)
File Number(s): 133073
reasons for decision
Background
The applicant Joseph Charles Azzopardi seeks a review of the Commissioner's decision of 7 November 2012 to revoke a category AB firearms licence which was issued to him in April 2000. Pursuant to the licence the applicant owned seven hunting firearms of various types.
On 20 February 2013, the respondent's internal review decision upheld the Commissioner's original decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence on the grounds that (a) it was not in the public interest that the applicant hold a firearm licence, by reason of s 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act 1996 and clause 19 of the Firearms Regulation 2006, and (b) the applicant was the subject of a good behaviour bond for an offence relating to a weapon. As the bond has now expired, the ground of revocation now is the public interest.
In 2010 a special condition was placed on the applicant's firearms licence relating to his cousin, Johnny Vella, then known to be a member of the Rebels Motorcycle Club, which the police categorize as an outlaw motorcycle gang (OMCG).
On 24 March 2012 the applicant was stopped by police, searched and asked to submit to a breath test. The search was conducted as part of Operation Spartan, a specialist task force created with the aim of targeting, eliminating and preventing violent crimes committed by OMCGs. On the evening of Saturday 24 March 2013, Operation Spartan police were patrolling the Rebels' Cronulla Chapter clubhouse in Atkinson Street, Taren Point. The applicant was searched at the driveway entry to the clubhouse before entering the clubhouse parking lot. He was seen riding a motorcycle in the company of six or seven other persons, also riding motorcycles, who were wearing items of clothing identifying themselves as members of the Rebels. In one of those persons was the applicant's first cousin, Johnny Vella, who was wearing Rebel colours. The applicant was in plain clothing. The search of the applicant revealed that he was carrying what was described as a 5 inch Marlin knife in what the respondent called a "bum bag", also known as a waist bag or waistpack.
The applicant was charged with the offence of custody of a knife in a public place -- first offence, under s 11C of the Summary Offences Act 1998, which provides that "a person must not, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person), have in his or her custody a knife in a public place or a school". Having being given a field court attendance notice (a summons), the applicant proceeded to ride into the clubhouse precinct.
The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge and on 16 August 2012 was placed on a 12 month good behaviour bond pursuant to s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, and required to pay a fine.
The issue in this case is whether the tribunal should be satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold the licence.
The respondent submits that the tribunal should be so satisfied by reason of the applicant's bond for the knife offence, his association with known OMCG members and his lack of frankness.
Respondent's evidence
In the circumstances it is convenient to begin with the evidence of the respondent. The statement of Constable Andrew Tomlinson dated 18 July 2013 (exhibit R3) describes certain activities at the Rebels' Cronulla clubhouse at Taren Point culminating in the apprehension and subsequent conviction of one Claudio Ungureanu, whose car when approaching the clubhouse was found to contain 302 ecstasy tablets and a large amount of cash concealed in it. A passenger in the car was a person known to be the president of the Cronulla chapter.
In the evening of Saturday 24 March 2012 Constable Tomlinson had been directed to initiate breath testing and conduct vehicle and identity checks on persons seeking to enter the clubhouse premises, as information had been received that a party was to be held there. He saw a group of about seven to 10 motorcyclists, of whom six or seven were wearing Rebel colours or patches, riding towards the clubhouse. The applicant, who was riding with the group, was not wearing Rebel insignia. The search of his waist bag referred to above revealed the knife, which was the only item he found in the waist bag, there being no other items such as wallet, mobile telephone in it.
At the time of being charged, the applicant said he was carrying the knife because he had used it as part of his work as a directional driller that day. The officer did not consider his explanation reasonable because the applicant had returned home after work and could have removed to the knife from the bag and placed it with his other tools before going out for the evening. Johnny Vella had also been searched that evening outside the clubhouse premises, but nothing untoward had been found on him.
The record of interview dated 25 March 2012 (part attachment D, Exhibit R3) records Constable Tomlinson as asking the applicant, "Why is the knife alone kept in your bum bag and no other tool?", to which the applicant replied, "Everything else is too big brother". He was then asked, "Do you know it's an offence to carry a knife in a public place without a reasonable excuse?" and answered, " I didn't know brother no".
The respondent also relied on a statement dated 18 July 2013 by Constable Benjamin Nash (exhibit R2), who was on duty with Constable Tomlinson outside the Rebels' clubhouse on 24 March 2012. He stated that he believed that the Rebels are an OMCG and that members can be recognized by a patch or "colours" containing Rebels insignia on their clothing. They often wear the patch on a vest or jacket. He carried out breath testing and conducted vehicle and background searches on identification of all persons seeking to enter the clubhouse. One of the people he searched that evening was Johnny Vella, who was wearing Rebels colours. Mr Vella was not in possession of any drugs, weapons or other "contraband".
Neither police witness was required for cross-examination.
Applicant's evidence
At the hearing Mr Azzopardi adopted his affidavit of 11 June 2013 (exhibit A1) in which he deposed that he is aged 35 and has been in a de facto relationship for five years, and there is a child of the relationship aged five months. Since early 2005 he has operated his own business, Tazzi Drilling NSW Pty Ltd, which is a directional drilling and cable hauling contractor for various large organisations in the Sydney area. He works five or six days a week.
As he has a number of friends who go on hunting trips, he decided in about 2000 to obtain a firearms licence. He thought hunting trips would be enjoyable and a way of getting away from the stress of business. Until March 2010 he had been living, and storing his firearms, at his house in West Hoxton, but upon selling that property at that time he moved them to his parents' house at Cecil Hills. He contacted the firearms registry and informed them that he had sold West Hoxton and was now storing the weapons at Cecil Hills
Although he successfully passed several police inspections of his storage and safety requirements, in April 2010 his licence was suspended, chiefly on the basis that his cousin Johnny Vella was due to reside with him on his release from jail. He had never intended to have his cousin live at the same address as the firearms were .The intention was that he should live with the applicant at another West Hoxton address that had been provided to the Probation and Parole Service by his cousin.
He had decided to help his cousin with a temporary residence so that he could work and save to "get his life back on track" and find a place of his own. He genuinely wanted to help his cousin as he knew from talking to him that he really wanted to turn his life around in a positive way. He had nowhere else to go as nobody else was able to take him in. The applicant thought that helping someone in his position would be the right thing to do.
In July 2010 the Firearms Registry lifted his licence suspension on condition that the firearms not be stored at the residence of Johnny Vella. He accepted the condition and a further police inspection approved his arrangements.
The charge of custody of a knife in a public place for which he received a bond arose from the fact that his daily business activities includes digging trenches on the ground and running optic fibre conduits and cables. For that purpose he carries a waist bag containing his telephone, wallet and money, as well as a small folding knife used to cut rope, small pipes and wire. He estimated (in oral evidence) the length of the blade to be 5 cm. Some photographs attached to the affidavit showed him using a knife in the ways indicated.
After work his usual practice was to remove the knife from his waist bag and place it in the toolbox, but on the day in question he forgot to do so and it was later found during the police search.
At the time the police located the knife, he co-operated by making full admissions of ownership and immediately explained the purposes for which the knife was used and that he had forgotten to remove it from his bag.
The applicant maintains that he is not a member or associate of any OMCG and does not attend any biker club houses. He concedes that he has a cousin, Johnny Vella, who was in the Rebels OMCG in 2010 but states that he is not aware of whether he is still an active member. At the time of his arrest he was riding a motorcycle with a number of friends, including his cousin. At the time two people were wearing biker colours, but he himself was not and has never done so. There were also other people riding with him on that occasion who were not wearing biker colours. He has never been convicted of any criminal charge other than driving offences or been charged by police in relation to any other matter.
He uses his licence to go on hunting trips with family and friends four to six times a year. If he were to lose his licence he would lose social contact with many friends, as he would be unable to continue going on hunting trips. Attached to his affidavit were a number of character references provided by friends who had accompanied him on such trips and the owners of the properties where he and his friends hunted.
In his oral evidence Mr Azzopardi said that on 24 March 2012 he had gone for a ride with friends and with his cousin Johnny Vella. Two others were wearing club colours, and there were two other riders he knew, named Bragali and Summers, who were not in colours. His work knife was in the waist bag, and his wallet and keys were in a different part of the bag. After the search he parked in the car park with the rest of the group but did not enter the club building.
He had been interviewed by parole officers on two occasions and had been approved by the parole service for providing a residence for Johnny Vella.
In cross-examination the applicant said his practice was to leave the knife at home, but on this occasion it was still in the bag, as were his telephone, wallet and keys. Although he had no excuse for carrying the knife at that time, he maintained that it was an honest mistake.
He had ridden for about three hours before reaching Taren Point. There had been no arrangement to ride to the clubhouse, but the plan was that he would follow Johnny Vella to Taren Point, and in fact he caught up with him about 20 minutes before arrival. He knew the clubhouse was at Taren Point, but there was no discussion about going to the clubhouse and he had no intention of entering it, as he does not attend biker clubhouses. After the police search he had a stretch and a smoke in the club car park and rode home.
Respondent's submissions
The respondent's case was that it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to have a firearms licence because of his bond for carrying a knife in a public place, his association with known members of an OMCG and his lack of frankness. The references attached to exhibit A1 were of little value as it did not appear that the referees had been made aware of the full history of the matter and the proceedings before giving their views: Sawires v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWADT 4 at [40]. None of the references displayed explicit knowledge of the circumstances of the knife possession offence or of the background to the current application.
The applicant and Mr Vella are cousins and Mr Vella has a significant criminal history, including shooting with intent to murder, and is known to the police as a Rebels OMCG member. The applicant's firearms licence had been suspended because of his intention to reside with the applicant and had been restored only on condition that the firearms were not to be stored at the residence of Mr Vella.
As regards the knife possession offence, the knife was approximately 16 cm long and was described as having a serrated blade of about 6 cm. It was later described as a 5 inch Marlin knife. (In his statement of 25 March 2012 Const. Tomlinson said "The knife had a sharp metal blade approximately five inches long"). Constable Tomlinson's evidence was that there were no other items in the waist bag, only the knife. The applicant's only explanation for not leaving the knife at home after work was that he had forgotten. When asked why he kept only the knife in his waist bag, the applicant replied, "Everything else is too big brother". As the focus of the tribunal is the applicant's conduct, the fact that he was not convicted but received a bond did not mean that he should therefore automatically escape an administrative sanction against his licence: Lynch v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADTAP 43 at [47].
In 2010 the applicant was put on notice that his then association with Johnny Vella was a real concern in relation to his firearms licence because of the Vella's criminal antecedents and connection with the Rebels . In March 2012 he had been seen riding into the driveway of the rebel clubhouse in the company of others who were wearing patches and colours. He was with Mr Vella, a known member of the Rebels, who was in colours at the time.
The applicant's failure to acknowledge that he knew, and knows, of Vella's membership of the Rebels and the fact that Vella was wearing colours at the time indicates a lack of frankness. He denies attending biker club houses but was stopped when seeking to enter the clubhouse precinct, and after being charged was seen riding into the Rebels car park on the evening of 24 March 2012. He had failed to mention that the people he was riding with on that occasion were his friends. Police evidence showed that there was a larger group of people riding at the time, putting their numbers at 6 or 7 or 7 to 10, six or seven of whom were wearing colours.
The applicant's personal interest in retaining his licence for recreational and social purposes could not outweigh the public interest: Hill v Commissioner of Police [2002] NSWADT 218 at [22].
At the hearing Mr Mattson acknowledged that the Commissioner's power to revoke a licence is discretionary (see Gorgieski v Commissioner of Police v [2006] NSWADT 214) and that the grounds for doing so were not as weighty as they would have been had the applicant still been subject to a good behaviour bond. Nevertheless the expired bond was relevant to the public interest, which was a broad consideration, as the Appeal Panel had noted.
In relation to the condition imposed on the license in 2010, it had to be borne in mind that the Parole Board was separate from the police firearms registry. At that time the Commissioner had not considered the applicant's association with his cousin Johnny Vella sufficient to warrant cancelling the licence, but his position had changed because the applicant had committed a knife offence under the Summary Offences Act while riding with some Rebels members towards a Rebels clubhouse. The fact that Vella had given no evidence to support the applicant's version of events was telling.
Constable Tomlinson had stated that there were between seven and 10 riders in the group and that six of them were wearing OMCG colours.
The fact that the applicant had received a bond on the knife possession charge did not assist his case, as the focus of the present proceedings is on his conduct.
In 2010 the applicant had known that the police were concerned about his relationship with Vella, who was an OMCG member and was to be living with the applicant. In 2012 the applicant must have known that Vella was still a Rebels member when he was riding towards the clubhouse wearing Rebels colours.
The knife possession charge showed a disregard for public safety that was relevant to the public interest in his holding a licence. Coupled with the fact that he was apprehended when riding with others, some of whom were wearing colours, showed that the public could not have the necessary confidence and trust in the applicant's responsibility in the custody and handling of firearms. He had claimed that two of his companions had been wearing OMCG colours, but the police reported a larger group, with six or seven in colours.
Consideration
Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act the tribunal's role is to determine whether, having regard to the underlying facts in the matter and the applicable law, the Commissioner's decision is the correct and preferable one. The tribunal is to review the merits of the original decision and is required to consider the evidence available at that time, together with any other or later material so as to affirm the original decision, vary it or set it aside (Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77).
The tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Commissioner's decision is correct (McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357). As the use of the word "may" in s 24(2)(a) of the Firearms Act makes clear, the Commissioner has a discretion to revoke a licence and the provision does not provide for compulsory revocation, as is the case in some other sections of the Act (Gorgieski at [34]). The Act provides no explicit guidance on how that discretion should be exercised, however.
Clear guidance as to how the Act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearm possession and use is a "privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety". Consistently with that approach, the Act confers on the respondent the ability to revoke a firearm licence in circumstances where it is considered that the holding of a licence is not in the public interest.
The Appeal Panel has described the "public interest" as "an inherently broad concept giving the appellant [the Commissioner] the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual": Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 at [25]. The concept is invoked in order to "ensure that private interests are not the only matters taken into account: to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the Commissioner's consideration. The effect of the reference is to amplify the 'scope and purpose' of the legislation": Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657, 681. In this context the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm or any financial impact that might flow from license loss: Huckel v Commissioner of Police [2008] NSW ADT 347, [41].
In relation to the knife possession ground, there is no doubt that police suspicions could reasonably be aroused by the applicant's possession of a knife while riding towards an OMCG clubhouse in a group of motorcyclists that included several wearing Rebels colours. The knife in question has been variously described by police as 5 inches long (12.6 cm) and 16 cm long (6.5 inches) and as having a blade 5 inches (12.7 cm) or 6 cm in length. The applicant described the knife as having a 5 cm blade. Police photographed the knife at the time, but no photograph has been produced in evidence. At all events there is no doubt that it could have been used as a weapon if the possessor had been so minded.
At the same time, the respondent did not suggest that the applicant had ever used the knife as a weapon or had any intention of doing so at the time of the offence. Further, it was not disputed that the applicant did in fact regularly use the knife in his business as a directional drilling contractor and that he had been at work that day. But he had returned home after work and could have left it there before coming out on his motorcycle.
After the knife was found the applicant co-operated fully with the police. He freely admitted that he had no good reason to have the knife in his waist bag at the time and explained its presence only by saying that he had forgotten to remove it. He had not previously been aware of the prohibition on carrying any kind of knife in a public place without a reasonable excuse. He maintained the same version of the facts at all stages and did not contradict himself.
In those circumstances it could be argued that his claim of forgetfulness and honest mistake, if believed, could constitute a defence to the charge under s 11C. The line of cases beginning with Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536 establishes that a bona fide mistake of fact, or in many cases ignorance of a fact, is a defence even to an offence of strict liability. As the point was not argued in this case, though, I express no view on it. (There can, of course, be tactical reasons for pleading guilty even when liability is not beyond doubt, especially if a s 10 dismissal is in prospect.) The applicant's unawareness of the prohibition on carrying any kind of knife in a public place is, of course, no defence.
The respondent's second public interest ground is that there is evidence before the tribunal that the applicant has associated with active members of the of the Rebels OMCG or there is sufficient information available to the tribunal to enable it to draw an inference that the applicant has such an association: Elfalak v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 131 at [44]. The applicant had known since 2010 that his then association with Johnny Vella was a concern in relation to his firearm licence. Although Vella is his cousin, he could choose what relationship he would have with him. He had also been seen riding into the driveway of the Rebels' Taren Point clubhouse in the company of Vella and others wearing club colours.
The known proclivities of OMCGs as described in exhibits R2 and R3, including the apprehension and conviction of Claudio Ungureanu, a Rebels member, on serious drug charges, support the respondent's view that people who associate with OMCGs members may be a source of public risk in relation to firearm possession. The internal review (exhibit R1, tab 7c) also refers to an opinion of the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission stating that firearms offences were one of the major concerns with OMCGs and that they were often committed in support of other criminal enterprises such as drugs or extortion.
It was not put to the applicant, however, that his association with Vella or any other member, or with the Rebels generally, was of an unlawful or improper character and it was not suggested that he knew Ungureanu. Constable Nash stated (exhibit R2) that he was required to "conduct vehicle and background searches on identification of all people seeking to enter the clubhouse premises" (my emphasis). He did not indicate that any of the other members of the group, apart from Vella, were found to have criminal records or any charges pending against them.
The applicant admitted in chief that after the search he had parked in the club parking lot for "a stretch and a smoke". His evidence that he did not enter the clubhouse on that occasion and that it was his practice not to enter biker clubhouses was not challenged, except as regards the parking lot.
The present case is substantially different from Plunkett v Commissioner of Police [2009] NSWADT 104, in which the revocation was upheld. There the applicant had close links with an OMCG (the Bandidos) and had been warned by senior police to discontinue the association, but he ignored that advice and continued with those associations. He also maintained an uncooperative attitude. In Elfalak the applicant had extensive and proven links with the Bandidos, but attempted to deny them, also lacking frankness at the hearing. Licence revocation was affirmed.
Police estimates of the size of the group they stopped outside the clubhouse varied between 6 and 10. But in his contemporaneous report, Constable Nash appears to be describing a somewhat different scenario (as typed): "Police have noticed the two VOI's travelling south at AA and have stopped the vehicle's to submit them to a random breath test. Police introduced themselves to the POI's [persons of interest]..., before conducting cjecks on the POI's vehicle's and the licences's of the POI's. Police have then taken into account the area which is well known to for drugs and the history of the POI's which includes prior's which are listed above. Police have decided that the POI's would be submitted to a search....." (part exhibit R2). The prior convictions for the applicant are noted as "Traffic/custody of a knife". But at that time the applicant had not been found guilty of the knife offence and did not have a "prior" for it. Nevertheless, Const. Nash cites it as reason for searching him.
In the present context such discrepancies and oddities, and those relating to the size of the knife, are not crucial, but they do rather suggest that the police evidence is somewhat impressionistic.
The applicant's evidence was that he offered Johnny Vella temporary residence at his house on his release from jail in order to help him "get his life back on track", as he believed from talking to Vella that he "really wanted to turn his life around in a positive way". That evidence was not challenged. As the parole service approved the arrangement, they must have accepted that the applicant was genuine and that he was a fit and proper person to undertake such a role. Further, at that time, the Firearms Registry did not consider that that the applicant's relationship with Vella warranted revocation of his licence, but lifted his suspension subject to the condition about not storing the weapons at Vella's residence.
It would appear that the parole service's confidence was well-placed, as it was not suggested that Vella has been convicted or the subject of any further charges since his release in 2010. Most lawbreakers who reoffend tend to do so within two years after their release from custody. As in Vella's case it has now been almost 3 years, there may be grounds for cautious optimism that he has indeed "turned his life around in a positive way", although one would feel more confident about that if he had broken his links with the Rebels.
The internal review expresses the concern that the applicant's links with Rebels members "suggest the possibility that you could be influenced by that criminal element". In general that would be a valid concern, but on all the evidence now before the tribunal it would appear that the influence may have worked in the opposite direction, and that the example of the applicant's responsible and productive lifestyle may have helped Vella to take a more positive path in life.
The respondent's third ground is that the applicant has demonstrated a lack of candour and frankness before the tribunal by not acknowledging that on 24 March 2012 he was associating with Rebels members and that he failed to acknowledge that he was riding with a larger group of whom six or seven, rather than two as he admitted, were wearing biker colours.
In para. 37 of exhibit A1 the applicant states that he was riding with a number of friends, including his cousin, and that two people were wearing colours and others were not. He himself was not wearing colours nor had he ever done so. His estimate that there were five people in the group when police put the number at between six and 10 may not actually be a significant discrepancy as he gave evidence that he did not catch up with Vella until about 20 minutes before their arrival at Taren Point. Further, as was noted above, the police estimate is itself somewhat elastic. As Mr Taneski pointed out, moreover, at the time the applicant swore the affidavit he was not aware of the significance the respondent attached to a detailed accounting of group numbers.
The respondent also takes issue with the applicant's assertion in his affidavit that he does not attend any biker clubhouses, but it is clear from his evidence in chief, in which he admitted riding into the club parking lot, that he was referring to clubhouses themselves, not adjacent areas. That may or may not be an appropriate distinction, but it does not represent any significant lack of frankness, especially when compared with such cases as Plunkett and Elfalak. Finally, the applicant has never made any false statements or contradicted himself in his evidence.
The applicant has held a licence for 13 years with no breaches of the regulations. He has no criminal convictions other than traffic-related breaches, the most recent of which occurred 13 years ago. He operates his own business working as a contractor for large companies, including Optus, and according to one of the references attached to his affidavit, is highly regarded as a subcontractor. He has a stable domestic background, with one child and another expected.
The respondent submits that the references he provides are of little value as the referees had not been made aware of the full history of the proceedings before giving their views: see ASIC v Australian Investors Forum Pty Ltd (No.3) [2005] NSWSC 1198 at [26]. Several of them do, however, make it clear that they are aware of the custody of knife charge, which is a principal concern in the present proceedings and the one which might reflect the most severely on the applicant's reputation. Others attest to his careful handling of firearms on hunting trips and one is from the owner of the property where the applicant often goes hunting. That is particularly significant, as careless or irresponsible handling of firearms on their property is of serious concern to farmers and graziers and is directly relevant to public safety, and therefore to the public interest (see Ward v Commissioner of Police (2000) NSWADT 28 at [27]-[28]).
On all the evidence before the tribunal I am unable to conclude that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold the licence within the meaning of clause 19 of the Firearms Regulation. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate, if the Commissioner sees fit, to make the licence conditional on the applicant's not entering the clubhouse or other premises of the Rebels or any other OMCG. Although there is no evidence that the applicant has done so (except for entering the parking lot), I think it would be prudent to insert such a condition as a matter of more abundant caution and in order to reinforce the applicant's awareness of the legitimate public concerns surrounding those organizations.
The decision under review is set aside.
**********
Decision last updated: 16 September 2013
Azzopardi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 205
0
3
1