Baldwin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Baldwin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2025] NSWCATAD 239

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Baldwin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Baldwin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 239

Hearing dates:

26 August 2025

Date of orders:

25 September 2025

Decision date:

25 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

N Isenberg, Senior Member

Decision:

The decisions under review are set aside.

Catchwords:

LICENSING – firearms – father and son – ongoing dispute with other family members - fit and proper person – public interest 

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Firearms Act 1996

Firearms Regulation 2017

Cases Cited:

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Arnold [2023] NSWCATAP 264

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50

Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218
LY v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115

Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97
McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357
Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP

Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10
Pemberton v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 288

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

Tolley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 149

Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

Webb v Commissioner of Police, New

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Proceedings 2025/00149936
Ken William Baldwin (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Proceedings 2025/00149949
Zac William Baldwin (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
C Honnery (Applicants)

Solicitors:
McDonald Law (Applicants)
McCulloch Robertson Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/00149936, 2025/00149949

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 10 January 2025, the Respondent decided to revoke the firearms licences of both Applicants, Ken and Zac Baldwin (Ken and Zac, respectively). That decision was affirmed on internal review and the Applicants now seek review by this Tribunal.  

Issue before the Tribunal

2. The Respondent contended that the Applicants should not have firearms licences because there is reasonable cause to believe that they may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of their domestic circumstances, or that their access to firearms endangers public safety, nor is it in the public interest that they hold firearms licences. The Applicants submitted that the evidence does not support such a finding.

Relevant legislation  

3. The general principles of the Firearms Act 1996 (the Act) are set out in s 3 of the Act, relevantly: 

3 Principles and objects of Act  

(1) The underlying principles of this Act are:  

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and  

(b) to improve public safety:  

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and  

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and  

(c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.  

4. Section 24(2) of the Act relevantly provides:

(2)   A licence may be revoked—

(a)   for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind, or

…

(c)    if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or

(d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations.

5. Relevant to s 24(2)(a) of the Act, s 11 provides:

(3)   A licence must not be issued unless:

(a)   the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace;

(4)    Without limiting the generality of subsection (3)(a), a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of—

(a)   the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances

…

(7)   Despite any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

6. Relevant to s 24(2)(d) of the Act, cl 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (Regulation) provides:

20 Revocation of licence—licence not in the public interest

The Commissioner may revoke a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence.

Evidence   

7. The Applicants each provided an affidavit, gave evidence and were cross examined. 

8. For the purposes of the internal review the Applicants provided evidence reflecting positively of their character and contributions to their community. Although commendable, this evidence did not directly address the issue at hand.

9. The Respondent provided material in accordance with s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act), and later supplementary documents.  Material filed by the Respondent included a body worn video (BWV) recording made by attending Police and also CCTV footage which had been provided to Police by the Applicants or others. I reviewed this material  after the hearing. 

10. The Respondent also filed a statement by Constable Jasmine Levingston, but she was not required for cross examination.   

11. Because the facts giving rise to the revocation are so intertwined, both matters were heard together.    

Tribunal’s approach 

12. Section 63 of the ADR Act provides that in determining an application for review the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it, and any applicable written or unwritten law.  It is well established that a tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the decision-maker, but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Shiv Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31.  Under s 28(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: s 38(2) of the CAT Act. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner's, and there is no presumption that the decision of the Commissioner is correct: McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357. The standard of proof that applies in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. There is no onus of proof: Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10. 

CONSIDERATION 

Background 

13. Ken's elderly parents are Owen and Olive, who are now in their 90s. Ken’s partner is Helen and she is Zac’s mother. Ken has three brothers: Terry, Keith and John. Terry’s son is Alec, with his former partner, Janelle. Reuben Hararp is Janelle’s partner. Janet is Terry's current partner. Darcee is Alec's partner. Wendy is Keith's partner.

14. Ken is a licensed motor mechanic and the sole director of a company which operates school bus services around Bowraville. In 2017, Ken was issued with a Category AB firearms licence for the purpose of primary production on two properties near his home. That licence was renewed in 2023. Ken has never breached any condition of his licence, nor been warned or cautioned for any firearms related offence. 

15. Zac has lived the majority of his life on his parents’ farm; he has always wanted to be a dairy farmer. To that end he obtained a Certificate Ill in Agriculture (Dairy Production) and a Certificate IV in Agriculture. On 20 September 2021, Zac was issued a firearms licence for the genuine reason of recreational hunting and vermin control based on permission from Ken and Terry to shoot on their rural land. Zac has never breached any condition of his licence, nor been warned or cautioned for any firearms related offence. 

16. Ken’s home is near that of Owen and Olive where they have lived for over forty years (the Property). The Property is approximately 200 acres and approximately 5 km from the Applicants' home – a 7-minute drive.  Owen previously owned the entire Property but sold the front portion of the Property to Terry. Owen also leased Terry approximately 90 acres of the Property for 25 years for use as a dairy farm. He also leased a separate portion to Ken.

Family dispute  

17. Sadly, members of the Baldwin family have been embroiled in a dispute, mainly relating to the use of the Property.

18. There is a road leading into the Property from the main road which provided the only access to Owen's home (the shared road). When Terry purchased his portion of the Property, he moved into a house next to the shared road and about 350 metres from Owen’s house. Owen understood that, when he sold part of the Property to Terry, he retained a right of way to use the shared road to access his residence. Terry, however, complained about the speed that others, including Owen, drive on the shared road and believes that he owns the shared road and has a legal right to control who uses it. Ken said in his evidence that Terry wants to “extinguish” the right of carriageway over the shared road. Ken visits his aged parents 1-2 times a week, and, by necessity, must use the shared road. Owen has issued Terry with an eviction notice for the leased portion of the Property and these proceedings are ongoing. Ken said in his evidence that he will “be on Owen’s side” in the proceedings.

19. Ken said in his evidence that he has seen Terry be very aggressive and this had started in about December 2023 – at about the time Owen was putting together his submission to the local council in relation to Terry’s proposal to extinguish the right of carriageway over the shared road. Ken said Terry had “threatened to deck [him]” if he saw him in public.

20. The Respondent relied on a number of incidents involving the Applicants, Terry and his son, Alec and, and other family members, as demonstrating the risk associated with the Applicants holding firearms licences. Some of the incidents did not involve either of the Applicants at all. The Respondent’s position was that all parties were becoming increasingly agitated towards one another such that Police had suspended the firearms licences of all relevant family members. 

Incidents not directly involving the Applicants

21. 12 March 2024 — Incident involving Owen and Terry  On 12 March 2024, Owen reported to Police that, on 8 March 2024, Terry approached his house enraged for unknown reasons and had been "up at [him] and raging out of control", including saying "I wish you were dead'. Owen alleged that Terry told him that he was the "lowest thing on earth". Owen told Police that this had occurred on six previous occasions, but that he did not know what Terry was "on about" on any of these occasions. While Owen said he did not have any fears about Terry's comments, he stated that during one of the recent encounters he stayed seated on his sofa because "Terry could not have a hit at me down here". Owen believed Terry's outburst was the result of ongoing tensions about Terry's right to the Property. Owen did not allege there had been threats or physical violence, but said he wanted to report the incident to Police as he is getting older and is unable to defend himself should the situation escalate. On 18 March 2024, when Police spoke with Terry, he told them of an ongoing dispute over the Property spanning several years and that, as a result of that dispute, he had not had contact with Owen since January 2024. Terry alleged that Olive had dementia, that Owen had delusions, and after Owen had a partial stroke "a couple of [his] brothers had taken [Owen] to the lawyers to try and change the will”. Terry denied that he had seen Owen since January 2024 and that he had said "I wish you were dead". Police subsequently seized Terry's firearm as a result.

22. 29 March 2024 — Incident involving Owen and Terry On 29 March 2024, Janet (Terry's partner) reported to Police that she has had ongoing issues with Owen, who, she alleged, whilst intoxicated, attended a campsite she and Terry run on the Property, although she had previously asked him not to. Janet and Terry said that Owen frequently drives to the vicinity of campers on the Property. When Police subsequently spoke with Owen and Olive on 30 March 2024, Olive stated that they had not spoken to visitors at the camp. Owen said that he has lived at the Property for over 40 years and drives a route (which is near the campers) at sunset as part of his afternoon routine. Owen also told Police that he is allergic to "malt" and has not consumed alcohol in decades. Owen reasoned that Terry and Janet had made complaints against him because "what [Terry] wants is our farm". Owen stated that he believed that Terry wanted to combine their properties and sell them together. Owen again referred to recent incidents in which Terry had entered his house enraged. Owen stated that he was frightened of Terry as he had exhibited a "mad rage ... a rage that terrifies me", and that Keith and Ken are "frightened for me, really frightened”.

23. 24 September 2024 — Graffiti on Keith’s property  On 24 September 2024, at about 1.41am, Keith's partner (Wendy) discovered the word "Rapist" had been spray-painted on their driveway. Later that day, Keith reported the graffiti to Police.

24. 25 September 2024 — Incident involving John and Terry On 25 September 2024, at about 4.30pm, John was driving his vehicle along the shared road. Terry yelled at John that he must close the gate so the cattle would not get out. Terry drove his motorbike in front of John’s vehicle blocking the shared road; John tried to drive around Terry. There was a heated argument during which Terry alleged that John yelled "move out of the way or I will run you over". The argument continued for approximately 3 minutes. Janet shouted at John, "You are the insane one. You are a rude, horrible human, just like your father and just like your other brothers". The matter was not ultimately pursued any further as Terry told Police he was not scared of John and did not feel intimidated.

25. 25 November 2024 — Incident involving Terry and Owen On 25 November 2024, Terry reported to Police that he had received a voicemail from Owen, stating “drop the charges or I'll get the heavies involved”. Terry told Constable Levingston that the ‘charges’ related to NCAT proceedings to have a guardian appointed in relation to Olive. Terry said that he did not have any fears as a result of the voicemail but was concerned about his father's welfare as he believed Owen to have been suffering from mental health issues. Owen admitted to Police that he left the voicemail. Attending Police also noted that Owen was articulate and appeared to comprehend what was going on and did not appear to be suffering from any obvious health issues. 

26. 1 January 2025 — Incident involving Alec and Owen  On 1 January 2025, Owen reported a verbal argument with his grandson, Alec to Police. Owen had been driving out of the Property and Alec allegedly slammed the gate behind him, hitting the rear of Owen’s vehicle. Following the incident, Alec was, according to the COPS record, “verbally aggressive” towards Owen and Olive.

27. 6 March 2025 — Incident involving Keith On 6 March 2025, Keith attended Macksville Local Court and tried to report an intimidation incident that had occurred previously. Keith was told that there was no offence detected and no further action was taken by Police. 

28. 4 April 2025 — Incident involving Terry and Keith On 4 April 2025, Terry noticed that Keith was sitting in his ute outside Terry's farm. When Terry saw Keith outside the property, Terry began riding his motorcycle out and began filming Keith. A short time later, Keith used the shared road to go to his father's home. About 10 to 15 minutes later, Keith drove back along shared road to leave the Property, however, Terry's cattle were in the way. Keith slowed down and nudged one of the cattle with his bull-bar to make it move off the road. Terry contacted Police, telling them that the animal did not suffer any injuries and there was no revenue lost. When Police queried what assistance Terry sought, he said that he wanted an AVO against Keith, stating that Keith is "volatile, he is the one I have been concerned about right from day one". No AVO appears to have been issued.

29. 6 July 2025 — Report of damage to property  On 6 July 2025, Owen contacted Police alleging that Terry had damaged a bridge and that the signage to his property had also been damaged three times. Police later contacted Owen to arrange a time to discuss, however, Owen replied that he did not want Police to attend. 

Incidents involving Ken

30. 5 June 2024 —Incident involving Ken, Zac, Janet, Terry, Alec and Darcee On 5 June 2024, Police attended Terry's property after receiving separate calls from Ken and Janet. At about 10.00am that day, Ken and Zac attended the Property with a loaded cattle truck and attempted to drive through Terry's property (which is a dairy farm) rather than driving around to the entrance to his own adjacent property. A tractor was parked across the shared road, Ken said, with a detour sign. He went instead through a fence and did not re-instate the fence. Ken and Zac were stopped by Terry, Janet, Alec and Darcee who refused entry onto the farm, allegedly for biosecurity reasons. Zac’s evidence was that Alec drove right in front of them, causing them to brake.

31. Terry also alleged that, during the encounter, Ken made threats against Alec; in his evidence Ken denied raising his voice at all and that Alec was “screaming” at him. Terry said that one of the brothers, most probably John said to Alec "it is war until death". Terry also alleged that Owen then drove his vehicle to the gate and commenced revving his car engine at Darcee.

32. Ken left in his cattle truck but later returned to the front gate in another vehicle, claiming he was being restricted from going to his father's house. Terry and Alec claimed that they had only asked him to drive to see their father by an alternate route as they were repairing the roadway he was trying to use. He said in his evidence that he was waiting for the Police but ultimately had to leave to go to work. Janet told Police that she decided to report the matter when Ken was sitting at the gate for two hours because it made her feel anxious about her own safety. She stated further that "we feel intimidated all the time" by Ken and Keith, and that she feels most concerned about circumstances where she and Darcee are at their residence without Alec or Terry as "we don't know what's going to happen”.

33. Terry further stated that he was “really concerned about especially my family's welfare because we're sitting ducks here. We know Ken's got a gun. He sat at that front gate for nearly two hours today just parked there... [audio unclear] …. We just had to stay here because we don't know what he's going to do; It's just constant, been going on for months and my concern is I know Ken's got dad's old shotgun, his old 22. He sat at the front gate and I dead-set told everyone to stay in the house. He'd been there for an hour and a half. Ken is a "dark sort of person, he worries me".

34. On 6 June 2024 Police again attended the Property and spoke with Ken and Owen. Ken provided a similar account to the account provided by Terry, Janet, Alec and Darcee but asserted that Alec was not permitted to block his entry through the shared road, and as a result, he had called Police. During the Police visit, Owen referred to Terry's demeanour as escalating, "from a red rage to a mania rage. I am scared of him". While documenting firearms were seized from both Terry and Ken, Police concluded that there were no offences.

30. It was the Applicants' evidence that on that day a further incident occurred when Terry followed Ken and Zac as they were towing a cattle trailer. The Applicants have characterised this incident "an intimidation and predatory driving offence” by Terry and called the Police.

31. On 9 June 2024, Terry contacted Police and informed them that speed signs had been damaged/destroyed (photographs showed the speed signs were altered with a marker and then cleaned) and that a fence belonging to Owen had been cut. No offences were observed, and no further action was taken by Police.

32. Police seized Terry's and Ken's firearms.

33. 13 - 14 July 2024 — Incident involving Ken, Keith and Terry On 13 July 2024, Ken and Keith attended the Property to visit Owen and Olive and to conduct fencing. To get to Owen's, Ken and Keith travelled via the shared road. Keith said that their access was blocked by Terry's industrial loader which was parked in the middle of the road. Ken pushed a concrete block beside the loader away with his tractor so they could exit. Later that night at about 10.00pm, Keith returned to the Property to check if the shared road was clear. At about 11.00pm, Terry contacted Police to report that Keith drove near his home and began sounding his horn for about 2 to 3 minutes before driving away. Police subsequently attended Keith's home. Police considered Keith to be affected by alcohol, but he denied drinking to excess. Keith accepted that he passed by Terry's residence because "he is sick of my little brother giving grief to my parents, I am so sick of it”. However, he denied responsibility for his horn sounding, instead alleging that "every time my car goes over those speedbumps my horn goes off, the speedhumps are so harsh it is going to blow the horn every time it goes over it". When directly asked by Police if he had pulled up to Terry's house and beeped the horn for a couple of minutes, Keith became agitated and deflected the question, stating, "I am going to drive along that right of way whenever I want to. I can blow the horn if I want to blow the horn. It is not against the law it is?^" Attending Police informed Keith that they would be required to seize his firearm due to the ongoing family dispute. 

34. As Keith went to get his firearm for the Police, he had difficulty finding the key to this gun safe and he continued to complain about the actions of Terry, referring to him as "that little psychopath" and "a little prick". Keith further stated that "the reality is that little prick is trying to take all my mum and dad's dignity…”

35. On 17 July 2024, Keith sought to have his firearms returned. Following receipt of this request, Police noted: "Upon reviewing the COPS records and speaking with the parties it is evident the feud has not resolved and is ongoing with all parties continuing their behaviour and no sign of them being willing to stop. Given the ongoing behaviour and it being evident that the parties are becoming more and more agitated towards one another, Police cannot in good conscious recommend that any of the parties [including Keith] have their firearms returned and have issued all parties with suspension notices. It is the opinion of the author and colleagues that [the Baldwins] no longer meet the criteria of (sic) good and proper persons to possess firearms at this time and hold fears of further escalating domestic violence". 

36. 11 August 2024 —Incident at the Property At approximately 12.00pm on 11 August 2024, Ken and Keith attended Owen’s home to remove speed humps which had been installed on the shared road in front of Terry's home. In his evidence Ken said he believed Alec had installed the speed humps. When Keith was undoing the bolts, he heard a vehicle "roaring" up behind him. Alec got out of the vehicle and approached Ken and Keith, stating, "[y]ou think no one was home". Ken got out of his vehicle and approached Alec with his phone in front of him, appearing to record Alec. In contrast to the CCTV footage, Ken's evidence was that he "did nothing other than sit in the background and retreat from the threat" and that "[we were not trying to be provocative or to deliberately inflame the situation" Alec continued to approach Ken screaming, "[y]ou are trespassing, you damaged the property, that is to keep us safe". Keith and Ken then engaged in a heated exchange with Alec regarding the shared road. The COPS Event records that Keith initially told Police that Alec hit him across the back of the head, but then he said he was pushed over and, subsequently, that he was shoulder-barged; he alleged he was assaulted. When Police spoke with Ken, he said that Alec had barged into Keith and wrestled the tools off him. It was Ken’s evidence was that Alec's alleged attack on Keith was "unprovoked" and that Alec "struck Keith to the head and shoulder from behind", and that as Keith "was getting up Alec attacked Keith again and grabbed a battery drill out of Keith's hands". Alec was in a rage at this moment and threatened to throw the socket into the paddock. Alec then laid down on the speedhump where Keith was removing bolts. Keith then packed up his tools and moved to the second speedhump. Alec drove to the second speedhump and drove his vehicle forward and backwards a few times in front of Keith. When Terry arrived at the location, both Keith and Ken left as soon as possible as they did not feel safe. 

37. Terry told Police that Ken and Keith removed the speed humps installed on the shared road; no damage was caused to the roadway as the removal involved only undoing bolts and removing the devices off the roadway.

38. Police spoke with Keith the next day. He said that he removed the speedbumps at Owen's request, and that Owen had received legal advice that the road was a shared road and that Owen had a legal right to remove the speedhumps. Terry was upsetting Owen, Ken said in his evidence. Keith further reported incidents to Police of intimidation by other family members including "driving tractors, parking excavators on the road, and the way they stare at each other”. Later that day, Police contacted Terry and Janet and explained that Police had formed the view that it was a civil matter. Terry and Janet “became belligerent” towards Police and alleged that Police never did anything when contacted about the ongoing issues with shared road.

39. After the incident, Alec was issued with an interim AVO for the protection of Keith, but it was subsequently dismissed. 

40. 10 September 2024 —Incident involving Ken and Alec  On 10 September 2024, Ken assisted Owen replace directions signs to Owen and Olive’s along the shared road. The signs had been erected, Ken said, because Terry “accosted” people using the shared road. As he was doing so, he was approached by Alec, who allegedly started "yelling and trying to intimidate" him. 

41. 26 September 2024 — Incident at the Conveyancers’ Office  On 26 September 2024, Ken accompanied his parents to the Conveyancers’ Office to sign documents. After Ken had dropped off his parents, they were approached by Janelle, Terry's ex-wife (and Alec’s mother) who called them "horrible people". Ken then approached Janelle and asked her to leave. The interaction left Olive and Owen feeling intimidated.

42. 28 September 2024 — Incident involving Ken and Terry  On 28 September 2024, Terry contacted Police to report that Ken had placed surveillance cameras on Terry's property, and in doing so, had trespassed onto Terry's property. The CCTV footage provided by Terry to Police was reviewed and did not capture Ken trespassing onto Terry's property at all, however, it captured Ken's vehicle parked outside the boundary of Terry's property. Terry also provided Police with photographs of trail cameras in the trees near the entrance. When Police attended the Property and spoke with Ken, he explained that the trail cameras were to record who had damaged the directions sign to his parents’ home; he subsequently retrieved the cameras. Police advised Ken that attending the location in a similar manner could be considered possible harassment; he did not return to the location to install any more trail cameras.

43. 10-12 January 2025 - Dispute concerning Ken, Helen, Keith, Alec and Terry  On 10 January 2025, Zac noticed two extra cattle that he did not own on his property; Zac spoke with neighbours who all said that they were not theirs. At around 8.30pm on 11 January 2025, Ken received a call from Owen that there were two people riding motor bikes in a field on the Property where cows belonging to Zac were kept. Ken and Helen went to the Property and observed Terry and Alec riding in the field trying to round up the cows. Helen told Police that Terry and Alec had alleged that Zac stole the cattle and that Terry and Alec cut a fence and were moving all of Zac's cattle into a field. Ken alleged Alec and Terry immediately surrounded them and began abusing them. Ken also alleged that Alec grabbed their mobile phones and threw them into the field. Ken then walked to Owen's house and returned with Owen's phone to continue recording the interaction. Ken alleged that shortly after, he was pushed over, causing him to fall to the ground. When Ken got back to his feet, he went back to his vehicle which was parked across the fence area preventing the cows from leaving. Ken alleged that, as he entered his car, he was hit in the back of his head which he surmised, was by Terry, as when he turned around, Terry was the only person there. Helen stated that, in response, she got out of the vehicle, and poked Terry in the chest or stomach area with her walking stick. Terry and Alec grabbed her walking stick, and she grabbed it back and returned to the vehicle. Ken and Helen locked themselves in their vehicle "cowering inside" while Terry and Alec allegedly threw rocks at the vehicle. They contacted Keith who, in turn, contacted Police.

44. Keith states that at 12.50am on 12 January 2025, Terry, Alec and Reuben Hararp approached Keith and Wendy who were parked on Owen's property as they had "decided to stay there to protect [Owen's] property and stop cattle being stolen". Keith says that Alec said that Reuben that he is "probably the last bloke you want to get offside", he being ex-military. Keith said that Terry, Alec and Reuben harassed and intimidated him and Wendy, and that when he told Wendy to call the Police, Alec had sworn at him. The attending Police observed that Keith "was very argumentative and in a heightened emotional state" and that he "continued to argue and was belligerent towards Police".

45. As a result of this incident Terry and Alec were issued with interim AVOs for the protection of Helen and Ken. Those IAVOs remain in force and are to be heard on 13 November 2025. Terry and Alec were also charged with "common assault domestic violence related" contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Those charges are also listed to be heard on the same date.

46. Helen was issued with an interim AVO for the protection of Terry. The interim AVO remains in force and is being heard on 27 November 2025. Helen was also charged with "common assault domestic violence related" for poking Terry with her walking stick. It was common ground that Police are not proceeding with this charge. 

47. When Police served the AVO and charges on Terry, Jenelle and another unknown male told Police that Keith was trespassing as he was in his vehicle near Owen's house. Police explained that they did not have any concerns with Keith being at the Property as he was not involved in the incident on 11 January 2025 and was entitled to use the shared driveway.  Police subsequently attended Keith's residence and spoke with him and Wendy. They alleged that they were threatened by Terry and Alec and had recorded an interaction with them. Police reviewed the recording and did not consider there to have been any threatening behaviour.

48. Consistent with the conflicting accounts, Police formed a view that the parties in the Baldwin family dispute "are vexatious towards each other and will continue to try and manipulate any incident to try and portray themselves as the victim".

49. On 24 January 2025, Keith attended Port Macquarie Police Station and made a statement in relation to the incident on 11 January 2025. He raised safety concerns, including that:  "I am extremely concerned about Ken because they have already assaulted him".

50. 30 April 2025 —Incident involving Alec and Ken  On 30 April 2025, Ken attended the Property via the shared road which had been damaged due to recent flooding.  Ken had a load of gravel being delivered to fix the road and was recording his movements for his protection due to recent incidents in the family. Alec contacted Police as he did not want to contact Ken as a result of the AVO being in place at the time. Alec stated he was working at his house and Ken was parked on the main road, and he believed Ken was filming him. Alec could not confirm whether the recording device was in Ken's hand or his vehicle. The supplier complained to Ken that Terry would not let him through.

51. Ken said there had been no further interactions with Terry and Alec since then.

Incidents involving Zac

57. In his evidence Zac said he had worked for Terry for about 3 years at his dairy. Then, abruptly on 29 November 2024 he was terminated, without notice, apparently as a result of the tensions between the family. Terry told him he was “not welcome” and “not wanted”. Zac said he was shocked, and in giving his evidence, was clearly distressed by what had occurred. Zac said he was obliged to commence unfair dismissal proceedings to obtain his entitlements. While Terry ultimately settled the matter, Zac was awarded costs of $85. Alec told Police that Zac had sought $80 in compensation, which he considered "was purely just to be a pain in the ass". Only a couple of months ago, when Zac had to get out of his vehicle to open gates Alec had yelled at him about the “$80”.  

58. 27 September 2024 — incident between Zac and Alec  On 27 September 2024, Alec approached Zac and made "masturbation (wanking) hand gestures". Zac did not respond and kept driving. He regarded Alec's behaviour as "intimidating and harassing". 

Is there reasonable cause to believe that Ken and Zac may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of their domestic circumstances, or that their access to firearms endangers public safety? 

59. While each case brings its own unique factual circumstances, the Respondent submitted that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Applicants may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms as a result of their domestic circumstances. The Respondent’s submission relied on the “escalating” dispute involving the Applicants and other family members. The Respondent relied on my decision in Pemberton v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 288 (Pemberton) where I said at [52]:

There is a real concern in the community about firearms in premises and the potential for domestic violence incidents to involve firearms. In Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124 (Grenfell) , the Tribunal accepted that, in the context of the scheme under the Act, domestic violence incidents are a serious cause for concern, even where the alleged perpetrator is not convicted of an offence or where, as here, there is no alleged misuse of a firearm; see [103]. The Tribunal concluded, at [104] that it was not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence in circumstances where the Applicant was subject to a provisional AVO that was, as here, later withdrawn: per Joseph. I accept that there may have been occasions when the Applicant was not the sole perpetrator in relation to the domestic violence issues. However, in Tolley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 149 at [31] the Tribunal observed that given the breadth of the discretion and the overriding object of public safety, there is no basis for differentiating, in the context of a firearms licence, between conduct of an applicant themselves and conduct of another person which may impact on public safety. I observe that the last reported alleged altercation between the Applicant and his ex-wife was as recent as mid-2020. Only last year there was some unpleasant interaction between the Applicant and his ex-wife or one of her family members when he received a threatening letter in his mailbox which he believed was an attempt to intimidate him into ending the Family Court proceedings. The acrimony of the Applicant towards his ex-wife he expressed in his evidence has boiled over into hostile exchanges requiring Police intervention on a number of occasions. It is reasonable to consider that there may also have been instances of hostile exchanges between the Applicant and his ex-wife and possibly members of her family which continue to take place of which Police are unaware, and that these are likely to continue until the Family Court proceedings are determined, if this is the catalyst which the Applicant described.

60. There were some features of Pemberton though which significantly differ from the present case. There the applicant had a lengthy criminal and traffic record including offences involving fraud, drugs, goods in custody, driving, stealing, indecent language, trespass, discharge firearm, and malicious damage. He had a history of domestic violence and aggression. He also had a history of being argumentative with Police, suggesting a disregard for authority.

61. In Tolley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 149 (Tolley)  at [31], to which I referred, the Tribunal observed that given the breadth of the discretion and the overriding object of public safety, there is no basis for differentiating between conduct of the Applicant themselves and conduct of another which may impact on public safety in the context of a firearms licence. Counsel for the Applicants observed that Tolley, which had been relied on in the internal review was also very different to the present matter. There the applicant's son had been convicted and charged with serious drug offences, including commercial supply, which were conducted from the applicant’s premises, and Police had found rifles on the premises and a number of prohibited and unregistered firearms at the premises of his alleged co-accused.

62. In LY v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115 at [41] - [43], the Tribunal held that the Commissioner, and hence the Tribunal on review, must objectively be satisfied, from established facts, of the matters set out in s 11(4)(a) of the Act, that is, whether an applicant’s domestic circumstances are such that he may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over his firearms. See also Meggit v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 353, at [27]. “Reasonable cause to believe” involves more than “mere suspicion or conjecture”, as SM Montgomery put it in Conway v Commissioner of Police [2023] NSWCATAD 183 at [27].

63. There have been multiple Police attendances at the Property, the last of which, on the available evidence, was in April this year when Alec alleged that Ken was filming him – a complaint which was dismissed by Police. On 17 July 2024, and as a result of the ongoing incidents referred to above, the Applicants and Terry were each served with a Notice of Suspension. I observe that all the incidents upon which the Respondent relied (with the exception of the exchange outside the conveyancers) took place at the Property, and none were at the Applicants’ home, where their firearms are stored. I also note that there was no evidence that either Applicant had threatened violence towards other family members.

64. There was evidence of Ken’s strong contributions to, and leadership within, his local community. I accept that Ken has held a firearms licence, without incident, since 2017 and that he was said to have “been around” firearms since he was a teenager. In the internal review it was noted that there is no evidence to suggest that either Ken or Zac was not of good character. There was no dispute that neither Ken nor Zac has any criminal history, nor is either the subject of an AVO.

60. The AVO against Ken's partner, Helen for allegedly poking her walking stick into Terry's stomach, in circumstances where Terry "did not experience any physical pain or sustain any lasting injuries" and "wasn't very threatening", does not support a finding that Ken’s access to firearms might endanger public safety. The only evidence of physical contact is that in relation to Helen, referred to above. There is also an, as yet untested allegation that Terry or Alec may have assaulted Keith.

61. I agree with the COPS report of the incident of 6 June 2024 that, "it is evident that there is significant internal conflict between the family over the use of the property and its sub division and leases. This has resulted in petty acts by all parties to annoy the other such as blocking roads with tractors claiming they are working on the road to driving empty cattle trailers through the biosecurity areas of the farm".

62. By contrast with Pemberton and Tolley, here the only allegations are of childish and petty behaviour, probably intended to annoy other members of the family: the COPS report of the incident of 6 June 2024. The evidence is that that Police decided everyone in the Baldwin family should have their licences suspended without considering the individual circumstances of each person. When Police attended to serve the suspension notices, in my view, all the family had been “painted with the same brush” as “everyone” in the family was served with firearms licence suspension notice, without differentiating between the behaviour of each family member.

63. I consider that the evidence supports a finding that Ken has conducted himself with restraint in the face of provocation and intimidation from others, notably, Terry and Alec, and that he has been protective of his aged parents, Owen and Olive. I cannot infer that Ken will not exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his domestic circumstances. I accept that his behaviour indicates that he does not pose a risk to the safety because of his domestic circumstances. 

64. In respect of Zac there was no dispute that he had not been charged in respect of any of the above incidents or at all. In fact, Zac is even further removed from the overall family dispute. Video footage of Police attending the Property to suspend the family members' gun licences captures Police at the outset asking Zac about this "stuff" with his uncle (Terry), to which Zac spontaneously replied "vaguely" and that he is trying to stay out of" the family dispute. Further, Zac said in his evidence that he goes to see his grandparents about twice a month, and actually tries to avoid it; he never goes alone. He only ever sees Terry and Alec from a distance. This contemporaneous evidence weighs against characterising Zac as 'involved' in the family dispute.

65. In these circumstances, I consider there is simply no evidence that Zac poses any danger to the public or is not a fit or proper person to hold a firearms licence and responsibly exercise continuous control over firearms.

66. For these reasons I am comfortably satisfied that the evidence does not provide reasonable cause to believe that Ken and Zac may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of their domestic circumstances, or that their access to firearms endangers public safety. 

Public interest  

72. The Respondent also contended that it is not in the public interest for the Applicants to continue to hold firearms licences: cl 20 of the Regulation. The term is not expressly defined in the Act or Regulation. It is well-settled though that “the public interest” is considered relative to the objects of the Act and the firearms licensing system, with public safety being give paramount consideration: see, for example, Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 at [23] and Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 at [24]. 

73. The Tribunal exercises the discretion in in accordance with the Act’s objects and underlying principles as set out in s 3 of the Act.  The Tribunal’s decision is to reflect the risk that an applicant will misuse a firearm in a way that impacts the public interest.  The Tribunal has repeatedly said that an applicant is not required to discharge an almost impossible burden of proving a near absolute negative, but, rather, the Tribunal must take into account all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 at [64]–[66]. Further, when assessing the public interest, only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account; minimal, fanciful or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration: Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 at [32]. It is clear though that the overriding concern of the public interest in this context is the maintenance of public safety. Any real and appreciable risk to public safety cannot be outweighed by the Applicant’s interest in holding a firearms licence. 

74. Ken said in his evidence that he has feral animals stray onto his property particularly a herd of about 20 feral deer. His past practice, when he had firearms licence was to shoot 1-2 and that would serve to scare the others off for 1-2 months before returning. Zac said in his evidence that, after he was terminated by Terry, he obtained other employment, and very shortly after he commenced, was called upon to use his firearm to put down an injured animal. However, by that time his firearms licence had been suspended or revoked, and a professional shooter had to be engaged; it would have been “advantageous” for him to have had his firearms licence. There was no evidence though that his job was conditional upon his having a firearms licence. Zac said in his evidence that feral deer graze on their properties, thereby limiting the number of cattle that the paddocks can support. He said he had planted rye, but the deer had eaten it before it could be harvested. There are also rabbits and wild dogs, and he would use his firearms weekly or more often.

75. While I accept it would be advantageous for the Applicants to hold firearms licences, that is not determinative of the consideration.

76. In Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107 the Appeal Panel said at [26]:

Referring to those principles and objects the overriding consideration of the maintenance of public safety is to be clearly noted. In the words of the Tribunal in Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28, the decision maker must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk to the public. In Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16 at [33] it was said:

"The 'public interest' allows, we consider, for issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system".

77. More recently, in Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Arnold [2023] NSWCATAP 264, the Appeal Panel said at [74]:

The question is whether there is in all the circumstances a real and appreciable risk to the public if the person has access to firearms: see Webb v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2004] NSWADT 110 at [32]; Rial at [32]. These considerations have been held to apply to the assessment of both a person's status as a fit and proper person and the public interest: see Masterson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206 at [130] —[134].

78. In all the circumstances, for the reasons given above, I am reasonably satisfied that there is not a real and appreciable risk to public safety and therefore, I am reasonably satisfied, based on public interest grounds, that there is no reason for the Applicants not to continue to hold a firearms licence. 

Order 

79. The decisions under review are set aside.  

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 25 September 2025