Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service - [2003] NSWADT 254

No judgment structure available for this case.

CITATION: Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Colin Wesley Barlow
RESPONDENT
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

FILE NUMBER: 033210

HEARING DATES: 03/11/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/03/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
12/02/2003

BEFORE: Higgins S - Judicial Member

APPLICATION: Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Firearms (General) Regulation 1997
Firearms Act 1996
Mental Health Act 1990

CASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990)
Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2002]

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
D Paterson, solicitor

ORDERS: The Tribunal orders that the Commissioner's decision to refuse Mr Barlow's application for a firearms licence be set aside and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Commissioner in accordance with the directions and recommendations of the Tribunal.

1 On 30 July 2003, Mr Barlow made an application to the Tribunal seeking review of the decision by the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service (“Commissioner of Police”) to refuse his application for a Category A firearms licence. The grounds on which the Commissioner originally refused that licence were that:

(b) the Commissioner had reasonable cause to believe that Mr Barlow possessed intemperate habits or was of unsound mind.

2 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Mr Barlow’s application by virtue of s.75(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 and s.38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. The background to Mr Barlow’s application for review is as follows:

(ii) have you been referred or treated, within the last 12 months for alcoholism, drug dependence or mental or nervous disorder?

(c) Mr Barlow had been issued with a Category A firearms licence on 12 November 1997. This licence was revoked on 27 November 2001. The revocation occurred following a complaint by a community nurse, on 15 November 2001 to the NSW Police. The community nurse had been attending Mr Barlow at his home to bandage his foot. She informed the police that Mr Barlow had become more and more depressed and aggressive and that when she had attended that day Mr Barlow had become extremely agitated and violent towards himself and that he had put a number of holes in the interior walls by head butting the walls. As a result of this information the police went to Mr Barlow’s home and took him to Richmond Clinic where he was assessed and held overnight. While at his home the police asked Mr Barlow’s mother where Mr Barlow kept his firearms. These were located in a locked safe that complied with the provisions of the Firearms Act 1996. The police opened the safe and confiscated the firearms. Subsequently, the Commissioner revoked his Category A firearms licence on the grounds that Mr Barlow had “intemperate habits” and was of unsound mind and had threatened self-harm.

(d) In his information sheet, which accompanied his May 2002 application for a licence, Mr Barlow stated that he had voluntarily surrendered his licence on 27 November 2002 when he handed his licence to police. He stated that he had never been charged with alcohol or drug offences and he had never undergone any treatment for drug or alcohol abuse. He also stated that the allegations by the community nurse were untrue. He acknowledged that he had been aggressive towards her because she had refused to stop coming to his home to treat his foot. He also stated that the community nurse herself had become aggressive towards him.

(e) On 28 August 2002, almost four months after he had made his application, the Commissioner determined to refuse Mr Barlow’s application for a licence on the grounds mentioned above.

(f) On 27 September 2002, Mr Barlow made an application for internal review. In his application for internal review, Mr Barlow explained his version of events when police came to his home. He stated that he was uncooperative because the police did not give him any reason as to why they were there. He also stated that he said he wanted to die following harsh treatment by the police. Mr Barlow explained that he had been diagnosed as a diabetic at the age of 8 months and that he had been totally dependent on insulin since then. Due to the side effects of the long term use of insulin he had had undergone a full frontal amputation of his right foot followed by a below knee leg amputation in February 2002.

(g) In support of his request for an internal review, Mr Barlow provided a letter, dated 23 September 2003, from his mother and a letter from Dr Rodney F Wilson, dated 10 September 2003. In her letter Mr Barlow’s mother states as follows:

When the police arrived at our home, Colin was in his room sitting at his desk drinking a cup of tea in all innocence, having done nothing to warrant their presence. This has been a most horrible occurrence and one which we will find it very hard to wipe from our memory, if ever, especially for Colin as right from the very beginning, the awful wonderment of what on earth is going on, what is all this about, I have not done anything but be in my home and all this has taken place and he was not offered any explanation whatsoever as to the reason for their presence; the rough treatment and no answer to any questions asked.”

“During the five years that I have treated him [Mr Barlow] he has made no attempt at self harm or contemplated doing so that I am aware.”

(j) In late June 2003, Mr Barlow again wrote to the Firearms Registry stating that Dr Pearson had informed him that he would not be proceeding any further in providing a report as it was his understanding that the firearms regulations were currently under review and that he would make a report when the new regulations were in place. Mr Barlow also explained that he had not previously followed up on Dr Pearson’s report as he had been pre-occupied with his health problems.

(k) On 2 July 2003, the Commissioner’s delegate completed an internal review of the earlier decision of another delegate of the Commissioner. The determination of the internal review was to confirm the decision to refuse Mr Barlow’s application for a Category A firearms licence. However the grounds relied on for such a refusal were those set out in s.11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 in that the Commissioner was not satisfied that Mr Barlow was “a fit and proper person to be issued with a licence and could be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.” In the reasons for the decision the delegate of the Commissioner stated the following:

“In considering any individual’s right to be granted a licence under the Act I have formed the view that any decision should be made on the basis that the legislation imposes a duty upon the Commissioner not to issue a licence unless he is satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to possess and use firearms.

Therefore, despite your submissions, I found that without the provision of a detailed assessment regarding your current state of mind I cannot satisfy myself that you can be trusted to have possession of firearms at this time”.

3 The Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”) sets up a scheme for licensing people to possess and use firearms. The principles and objectives of the Act are set out in s.3 of the Act. That section provides as follows in respect of the underlying principles of the Act:

(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 S.11 of the Act prescribes certain general restrictions on the Commissioner when deciding to issue a licence. Subsection 11(3) sets out the circumstances in which the Commissioner is not to issue a licence. So far as is relevant to this application that section provides as follows:

(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.”

5 Subsection 11(4) of the Act sets out further grounds on which a licence must be refused. This subsection provides as follows:

(b) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury, or

(c) the applicant’s intemperate habits or being of an unsound

mind.”

6 Ms Paterson, on behalf of the Commissioner relied on the material contained in the brief of evidence filed and served by the Commissioner on 28 August 2003. That material included the documents referred to under the abovementioned heading ‘Background’. It also included a copy of the COPS entry in respect of the incident that occurred on 15 November 2001. So far as is relevant, that incident report states the following:

Police attended the scene a short time later and spoke to the community nurse. She introduced police to BARLOW’s mother who was outside the residence.

Police attempted to talk to BARLOW through the front door, but he became very abusive and slammed the door. He kept yelling “leave me alone I just want to die, I’ve had enough”. Police managed to coax BARLOW out of the house and he was placed under arrest and put in the police truck.

Police searched BARLOW’s room for a key which opened the gun safe in the garage. Police seized two firearms and these were secured in the rear of the police vehicle.

Police had a conversation with BARLOW’s mother explaining that police were concerned for her welfare and wished to take out an AVO to restrict her son from being at her residence. She refused and stated that she wanted her son back at the house, he would be fine once he is on some sort of medication to help him.

Police obtained a signed statement stating that she did not want an AVO, she held no fears for her safety and was happy for her son to return to the house after he had seen the psychiatric doctor. …

Police then took BARLOW to Richmond Clinic where he will be assessed and held overnight.”

7 Ms Paterson, indicated that she did not wish to rely on any of the material which had been produced pursuant to summonses issued by the Tribunal, at the request of the Commissioner, to the Northern Rivers Area Health Service Dr Wilson and Dr G N Pearson.

8 Mr Barlow explained that he relied on the material that he had previously forwarded to the Firearms Registry and which was contained in the Commissioner’s brief of evidence. He stated that his elderly mother had intended to give evidence but was not well enough to attend on the day of hearing. He also relied on a letter from Dr F B Wagner, dated 17 October 2003. In that letter Dr Wagner stated that he had been requested by Mr Barlow to present a statement to the Tribunal. He went on to state that all the information that he had on Mr Barlow had been forwarded to his local medical officer who could provide any relevant information. He stated that he did not have the time to comply with Mr Barlow’s request because of his other commitments.

9 As Mr Barlow had not seen documents that had been produced pursuant to summonses, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing for a short period of time to enable him to examine them. Following his consideration of the documents, Mr Barlow flagged several documents in the bundle of documents produced by Dr Pearson. These documents included a request for the admission of Mr Barlow by the police pursuant to s.24 of the Mental Health Act1990. In that request the police officer stated that it appeared to him that Mr Barlow: “Is mentally disturbed, and further that I have reason to believe when apprehended he has recently attempted to kill himself or that it is probable he will attempt to kill himself or attempt to cause serious bodily harm to himself.”

10 Also included in the documents produced by Dr Pearson were the clinical notes relating to Mr Barlow’s admission on 15 November 2001 to the Richmond Clinic. These notes state that Mr Barlow was “…loud, abusive, threatening, verbally and physically. Un-cooperative with all aspects of care and required to be sedated. Refused food/fluid and a physical examination”. They also state that Mr Barlow stated “why am I here, I have not hurt anyone, I have done nothing wrong – I am sick of daily dressings. I want everyone to leave me alone” and that he denied being depressed and suicidal and self-harming. The clinical notes for 16 November 2001, at 13.15pm state “…remained irritable and angry. Insisted to attend to his own insulin regime. Assessed by Dr. Not mentally ill. For discharge. No follow-up necessary DS faxed to CHT Ballina (Paul). Colin was picked up by his mother at 12.00 h/s.”

11 The documents produced by Dr Pearson also contain a letter from Dr Wilson to Dr Pearson, dated 7 November 2002, and a reply to that letter by Dr Pearson dated, 3 December 2002. In his letter, Dr Wilson requested that Mr Barlow be assessed to ascertain whether he was fit to hold a firearms licence. In that letter he stated:

“For what it’s worth I think Colin is usually quite stable. He gets a little grizzly at times but I think he is fairly harmless. He has never expressed any suicidal ideation to me.”

12 In his letter in reply, Dr Pearson stated:

“I can find no evidence of psychotic disorder or mood disorder. I think Mr Barlow has a rather paranoid personality so this would not act as a contra-indication to him having a firearm licence. I will obtain the relevant information from the Richmond Clinic and Community Mental Health before making a recommendation to the police. I will send you a copy of the report once it is done.”

13 The hearing of the matter proceeded by Mr Barlow giving his account of events, followed by Ms Paterson asking him questions in respect thereto. In respect of the sequence of events Mr Barlow added the following:

(b) During this time he took a high level of antibiotics, either intravenously or orally. He was hospitalised on several occasions and the antibiotics had a drastic effect on his mood. He also took sedatives to counteract the depressive consequences of the antibiotics.

(c) It was during this period, in particular November 2001, that he had an ongoing appointment with the Wound Clinic at the Ballina Hospital. For various reasons, around the time of 15 November 2001, he had decided not to attend the clinic even though his wounds on his left foot required continual attention. His mother arranged for the community nurse to come and do the dressing at his home. He had told the community nurse that he did not want her to visit him at home, that he would again attend the hospital. However, on the day in question (15/11/2001) she again came to the house. He acknowledged that he was in an angry mood on this day and that he hit the wall with frustration. However, he only hit it once. His anger was as a result of frustration with the ongoing infections in his right foot and the commencement of infections in his left foot.

(d) When the police arrived at his home they were accompanied community health workers from the hospital. He acknowledged that he remained in his room and stated that he did so because he could not think of any reason why the police were there and any concerns that they had they could resolve with his mother. When he finally came out one of the police officers grabbed him from behind and pushed him to the ground. He recollects that one of the community health workers requested the police to be less violent. The police officers took him in the back of a police van where he was taken to Ballina Police Station. From Ballina Police Station he was taken to Richmond Clinic at Lismore. He stated that he was extremely frustrated and annoyed by the treatment of the police, who gave him no opportunity to gather his medication. Nor did they inform him that his mother had given the medication to them.

(e) Once at the Richmond Clinic, he found that the Registrar was very aggressive towards him and accused him of attacking the community nurse. While at the clinic his sugar levels were tested and they were identified as being very high. Instead of giving him his prescribed insulin they forced him to take another form of insulin, which he knew from experience was “no good” for him. This only frustrated him even more.

(f) On 27 November 2001, at the request of the police, he handed over his firearms licence to the Ballina police.

(g) He did not challenge the decision to revoke his licence as he had continuing problems with his right foot and was also experiencing problems with his left foot. It was not until these problems had been resolved that he re-applied for his licence (i.e. 9 May 2002).

(h) He no longer takes any antibiotic medication and his health, so far as it is possible, has again been stabilised.

(i) He stated that he now recognises that his behaviour on 15 November 2001 did not help the situation and that he would react differently in future.

(j) He stated that at no time has he been suicidal, inflicted self-harm or inflicted harm on others. He obtained his firearms licence in 1997 so that he could eradicate the vermin that came on to his property which he had purchased about that time. This property was about 3½ hours away from his home. He visits the property very seldom as he does not have a car. Since his licence was revoked he has visited the property once. As a invalid pensioner, he is not in a financial position to organise someone else to eradicate the vermin from the property but he remains concerned that his failure to meet his obligations may result in the confiscation of his property.

14 Mr Barlow submitted that there was no evidence that he was a danger to himself or others. The circumstances which gave rise to his admission to the Richmond Clinic was a gross over reaction by the police, who had behaved aggressively towards him and that his behaviour should be viewed in context. He further submitted that there was no evidence that he was mentally ill or that he was or ever had been suicidal or self harming. The incident did not involve the use of his firearms and there is no evidence that he has used them inappropriately or in such a manner that he created a danger to public safety.

15 Ms Patterson submitted that Mr Barlow’s behaviour on 15 November 2001, which warranted the police to attend his home, was such that the Commissioner could not be satisfied that Mr Barlow could be trusted to have possession of a firearm without danger to public safety or to the peace. Mr Barlow had not challenged the evidence that his behaviour was aggressive and that he had said he wanted to die. Furthermore, she submitted that Mr Barlow had not given evidence that such an incident would not re-occur and failed to provide a report from a psychiatrist as to his current mental state. Ms Paterson further contended that s. 11(3)(a) of the Act required the Commissioner to be satisfied that there is absolutely no risk to the public.

REASONS AND DECISION

16 The Tribunal’s task is to determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is the correct and preferred decision having regard to the relevant facts and the applicable law (see s.63 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997).

17 The Tribunal has had regard to all the material, including the material produced pursuant to the summonses issued at the request of the Commissioner as they are clearly relevant to the matters in issue. This is particularly so in respect of the documents relating to Mr Barlow’s admission to the Richmond Clinic on 15 November 2001.

18 The underlying facts in this matter are not disputed and where a dispute arises the Tribunal accepts the account given by Mr Barlow whom the Tribunal found to be a truthful witness. Mr Barlow is by no means a man of considerable stature and the Tribunal accepts his explanation that his behaviour on 15 November 2001 was as a result of his extreme frustration with his health at that particular time. The Tribunal has made no findings in respect of the conduct of the police officers other than a finding that they attended Mr Barlow’s home on 15 November 2001 on the basis that they had received information that Mr Barlow had threatened to do himself harm.

19 However, the question for determination is whether Mr Barlow’s conduct/behaviour was such that the Commissioner, and now the Tribunal, cannot be satisfied that he is a “fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to the public or to the peace.”

20 It is well established that the term “fit and proper person” standing alone carries no precise meaning and that it must take its meaning from its context and the activities a person is to be licenced to perform. In assessing whether a person is a “fit and proper person” the Tribunal has followed the following statement of Toohey and Gaudron JJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380; 94 ALR 11 at 65:

“The expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of a person who will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not a fit and proper person to undertake the activities in question.

21 In that case the question was whether the holder of a commercial broadcasting licence under the Broadcasting Act 1942 (Cth) continued to be a “fit and proper person” to be the holder of such a licence. Toohey and Gaudron JJ, at 382, went on to consider the role of commercial broadcasting and the obligations of a licensee. These obligations their Honours stated included an obligation to the community that the licensee would not abuse its potential for powerful influence. Mason CJ stated that the concept “fit and proper person” should not be construed narrowly and he went on to state at 348 and 349 the following:

“Some indication of the breadth of the content of the concept may also be gathered from the fact that it is a purpose of the Act to ensure that commercial broadcasting is conducted in the interest of the public. A commercial broadcasting licence is a valuable privilege which confers on the licensee a capacity to influence public opinion and public values. For this reason, if for no other, a licensee has a responsibility to exercise the power conferred by the licence with due regard to proper standards of conduct and a responsibility not to abuse the privilege it enjoys.”

22 In my opinion, the term “fit and proper person” in s. 11(3)(a) of the Act should also be given a wide meaning. As stated by Mason CJ the breadth and content of the concept must be derived from the Act and the purposes of the Act. In this case, Parliament has expressly stated what the underlying principles of the Act are. This includes the principle that the possession of a firearm is a privilege and that it is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety (see s. 3(1)(a)). Accordingly, the fitness and propriety of a person under the Act must be considered in the context of at all times ensuring public safety. In my opinion Parliament has made this clear with the additional words in s. 11(3)(a) of “… and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety and the peace.” That is, s. 11(3)(a) of the Act requires the Commissioner to determine the fitness and propriety of an applicant for a licence by having regard to the applicant’s conduct and whether that conduct is such that he can be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.

23 In Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Police Service [2002] NSWADT [28] and [27] the Deputy President stated the following in respect of what is required under s. 11(3)(a):

“27. … The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that Mr Ward would pose no risk to public safety if he had access to firearms.”

24 I agree with the statement of the Deputy President who went on to state the following:

“28. The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would pose no risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk.”

25 In the majority of cases the fitness and propriety of an applicant for a firearms licence arises as a result of the applicant having been convicted or found guilty of a criminal offence, which is not an offence for which a licence must automatically be refused (see s. 11(5)(b) of the Act). However, even in these cases the Tribunal has clearly stated that in determining whether a person is a “fit and proper” person to be issued with a licence, what is relevant is the conduct of the person and not the fact that the person has been charged or convicted in respect thereof (see Bazouni & Ors v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 100 at [21]).

26 Accordingly, the Commissioner and the Tribunal can have regard to any improper conduct of an applicant in determining that person’s fitness and propriety to be the holder of a firearms licence. Furthermore, in my opinion it includes any irrational conduct of an applicant, even where that conduct is as a result of a current or previous health condition of the applicant. I note that s.11(4) of the Act provides for the refusal of a licence where the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of previous attempts to commit suicide or self harm, or the applicant’s intemperate habits, or being of unsound mind. While this ground of refusal would appear to cover irrational behaviour of an applicant, Parliament has expressly provided that this ground of refusal does not limit the generality of s. 11(3)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, in my opinion, irrational conduct such as self harm is conduct that the Commissioner can have regard to when determining the fitness and propriety of an applicant to be issued with a firearms licence.

27 In this case, the essence of the Commissioner’s concern is the fact that Mr Barlow has previously behaved in a manner, which indicated that he was at risk of harming himself. In my opinion the Commissioner’s concern is a justified one when having regard to the incident that occurred on 15 November 2001. There is no dispute that Mr Barlow behaved in an angry and frustrated manner. He hit his head on the wall and he stated to the community nurse and the police that he wanted to die. As mentioned above, the reason for his behaviour was his then state of health. He had been battling with ongoing infections in his feet and had been on a heavy dose of antibiotics, which made him depressed. While the Tribunal can understand Mr Barlow’s sense of frustration and anger, it also understands the Commissioner’s concern that the fact that Mr Barlow had ready access to firearms when he was in such a condition meant that he posed a risk to public safety. While there is no evidence that Mr Barlow used or threatened to use his firearms at that particular time to harm himself or any other person, in my opinion, his behaviour (particularly his statement of intending self harm), at that time was such that his possession of a firearm posed a risk to public safety, which included himself. The Tribunal notes that Mr Barlow did not dispute such a finding when the Commissioner revoked his licence.

28 These events occurred two years ago and Mr Barlow has given evidence that his health is now back on track. He no longer takes any antibiotics and he acknowledges that should similar circumstances arise he would behave differently. The clinical records referred to above indicate that the relevant treating doctor at the Richmond Clinic did not regard Mr Barlow as having any mental condition as at November 2001. The letter from Dr Pearson to Mr Barlow’s general practitioner also suggests that Mr Barlow does not have a mental condition. And the letter from Mr Barlow’s general practitioner, Dr Wilson, states that Mr Barlow can be “grizzly” but had not previously expressed to him any intentions to commit suicide.

29 However, this does not fully answer the question of whether Mr Barlow poses virtually no risk to the public if a licence were to be issued. Before such a question can be answered there must be some medical evidence of Mr Barlow’s current state of health and that he is unlikely to behave as he had behaved in November 2001. As it is not contended that Mr Barlow has a mental condition, it is not necessary for that evidence to be evidence of a psychiatrist. But it must be evidence of a medical practitioner who has knowledge of Mr Barlow’s current and past state of health and whether his current health and/or medication is such that they have an effect on Mr Barlow’s emotional and cognitive behaviour and if they do what the particular effects are.

30 In light of the material produced on summons and the fact that the Commissioner is no longer concerned about Mr Barlow having a mental condition, the Tribunal is of the opinion that Mr Barlow should be given an opportunity to obtain the requisite medical evidence. To date the Commissioner has only requested evidence from a psychiatrist and the Commissioner had requested that the psychiatrist respond to particular questions, which related to Mr Barlow’s mental condition. The reasons given by Mr Barlow as to why Dr Pearson had not provided a report are difficult to understand. However, for the reasons stated above the Tribunal is of the opinion that a report from a psychiatrist is not necessary. Once Mr Barlow has been given the opportunity to obtain the necessary medical report the Commissioner can consider the contents of that report along with all the other findings of the Tribunal and again determine, in accordance with s. 11(3)(a) of the Act, whether Mr Barlow is a fit and proper person to be issued with a firearms licence.

31 The Tribunal orders that the Commissioner’s decision to refuse Mr Barlow’s application for a firearms licence be set aside and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Commissioner in accordance with the directions and recommendations of the Tribunal.

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254

Most Recent Citation

Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110

Cases Citing This Decision

103

Curtis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 269

Wilson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 177

Tighe v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 145

Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

4

Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58

Bazouni & Ors v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 100

CITATION:	Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Colin Wesley Barlow RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	033210
HEARING DATES:	03/11/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	11/03/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	12/02/2003
BEFORE:	Higgins S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Mental Health Act 1990
CASES CITED:	Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2002]
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT D Paterson, solicitor
ORDERS:	The Tribunal orders that the Commissioner's decision to refuse Mr Barlow's application for a firearms licence be set aside and remits the matter for reconsideration by the Commissioner in accordance with the directions and recommendations of the Tribunal.