Bazouni & Ors v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

[2002] NSWADT 100

CITATION:	Bazouni & Ors -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 100
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	1. APPLICANT Tony Bazouni 2. APPLICANT TRB Security Services 3. APPLICANT Tony Bazouni on behalf of TRB Security Services 4. APPLICANT Tony Bazouni RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	003081; 003082; 003083; 013246
HEARING DATES:	14/06/2001, 15/10/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	10/15/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	06/14/2002
BEFORE:	Rice S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Firearms Act - firearms licence - issue of licence or permit - Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Firearms licence - issue of licence or permit - Firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Security Industry Act - security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence - Security industry licence - revocation or suspension of licence
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Security Industry Act 1997 Security Industry Regulation 1998
CASES CITED:	Australian Broadcasting Tribunal -v- Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Toleafoa (No 2) v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 48 Yaghi -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 91 Wilkinson -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 59
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANTS J Peluso, barrister RESPONDENT M Spartalis, barrister
ORDERS:	1. In matter 003081, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed; 2. In matter 003082, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.; 3. In matter 003083, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed; 4. In matter 013246, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed; 5. In all matters the application for costs is refused

DECISION
1 For the reasons I give below, in my view the correct and preferable decisions in these matters are that
· Mr Bazouni’s licences under the Firearms Act be revoked

· that TRB Security Services’ licence under the Firearms Act be revoked

· that Mr Bazouni on behalf of TRB Security Services not be issued with a permit under the Firearms Act to acquire a firearm

· that Mr Bazouni’s and TRB Security Services’ licences under the Security Industry Act be revoked.

2 This means that the applications of Mr Bazouni and TRB Security Services are unsuccessful.

REASONS
Applications
3 There are four decisions under review in these proceedings. Each decision is the subject of a separate application for review. All matters raise the same issues for consideration and decision, and by consent the evidence in one matter was evidence in all matters. My decision relates to all four matters.

4 In matter number 003081 Mr Bazouni applies for review of the Commissioner’s decision on 13 December 1999 to revoke Mr Bazouni’s Category ABH firearms licence, number 406714636. That decision was affirmed on an internal review on 23 February 2000 and again on 19 April 2001.

5 Mr Bazouni held a Category AB licence under s8 of the Firearms Act 1996 for the genuine reasons (within the meaning of s12 and its Table) of sport/target shooting, and recreational hunting/vermin control. He held a Category H licence under s8 of the Firearms Act for the genuine reason of sport/target shooting, and business or employment. Mr Bazouni’s business and employment was as a security guard.

6 In matter number 003083 Mr Bazouni on behalf of TRB Security Services applies for review of the Commissioner’s decision on 13 December 1999 to revoke TRB Security Services’ Category H firearms licence, number 407586891, for which Mr Bazouni was the nominated licence holder. That decision was affirmed on an internal review on 23 February 2000 and again on 7 June 2001.

7 Mr Bazouni was the holder, on behalf of TRB Security Services, of a Category H licence under s8 of the Firearms Act 1996 for the genuine reason of business or employment. The business of TRB Security Services was as the provision of security services.

8 In matter number 003082 TRB Security Services applies for review of the Commissioner’s decision to refuse it a permit to acquire a firearm, for which Mr Bazouni would have been the nominated licence holder. That decision was affirmed on an internal review on 24 February 2000.

9 In matter number 013246 Mr Bazouni applies for review of the Commissioner’s decision on 4 April 2001 to revoke both Mr Bazouni’s Class 1ABC security licence, and TRB Security Services’ Class ‘Master’ security licence. That decision was affirmed on an internal review on 20 August 2001.

10 Mr Bazouni was the holder of a licence under s11 of the Security Industry Act NSW 1997, and TRB Security Services was the holder of a licence under s10 of that Act.

Hearing
11 I heard evidence and argument on 14 June and 15 October 2001. I heard evidence from Mr Bazouni, Senior Constable Harvey, Constable Jamieson, and Ms Gilbert. I received into evidence 16 exhibits, being variously statements from Constables Harvey and Jamieson, statements from Mr Bazouni’s wife – Mrs Bazouni – and from Ms Maroon, police photographs, a transcript of proceedings at Parramatta Local Court, a character reference, and copies of various business records of the NSW Police.

Grounds for revocation
12 The decisions under review are said by the Commissioner to be the correct and preferable decisions on the grounds that Mr Bazouni has been convicted of offences under the Firearms Act, that he is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, and that it is contrary to the public interest that he hold a firearms licence.

13 The power to revoke a firearms licence is in s24 of Firearms Act 1996 (FA). The grounds for revocation cross-refer in part to s11 of the Act, and to the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 (FR).

14 In deciding what the correct and preferable decision is in relation to the revocation of his licence, Mr Bazouni’s circumstances raise three questions under the Firearms Act:

i. should he continue to hold a licence in circumstances where he would, if he were to apply for a licence, be refused? (s24(2)(a) FA with 11(5)(b) FA and cl.5(a)(i) FR )

ii. is he “no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence”? (s24(2)(c) FA; and s24(2)(a) FA with s11(3)(a) FA).

iii. is it “not in the public interest” for him to continue to hold a licence? (s24(2)(d) FA with cl.17 FR).

15 The power to refuse a permit to acquire a firearm is in s31(3) FA . Among other requirements,
the Commissioner must not issue a permit authorising a person to acquire a firearm:
(a) unless the person is the holder of a licence or permit authorising the person to use or possess the firearm concerned
16 Thus whether a permit can be issued is a mandatory not discretionary matter, which will follow from whether Mr Bazouni is the holder of a licence under the Firearms Act .

17 The power to revoke a security industry licence is in s26 of Security Industry Act 1997 (SIA). The grounds for revocation cross-refer in part to sections 15 and 16 of the Act, and to the Security Industry Regulation 1998 (SIR).

18 In deciding what the correct and preferable decision is in relation to the revocation of his licence, Mr Bazouni’s circumstances raise the same three questions under the Security Industry Act that are raised under the Firearms Act:

i should he continue to hold a licence in circumstances where he would, if he were to apply for a licence, be refused? (s26(1)(a) SIA with s15 SIA , and with s16(1)(a) SIA and cl.11(a)(i) SIR )

ii is he “no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence”? (s26(1)(c) SIA; and s26(1)(a) SIA with s15(1)(a) SIA).

iii is it “not in the public interest” for him to continue to hold a licence? (s26(1)(a) SIA with s15(3) SIA; and s26(1)(d) SIA with cl.18 SIR).

19 Mr Bazouni engaged legal counsel for the hearing, and the greater part of the evidence and submissions was directed to the question of whether Mr Bazouni continues to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Accordingly, I address this ground first.

Fit and proper
20 In considering whether Mr Bazouni continues to be a fit and proper person to hold firearms and security licences I make a value judgement, having regard to the nature of the activities which the licences would allow him to undertake, and to a range of factors which include: the purpose for which Mr Bazouni is licensed; the circumstances in which he has access to and uses firearms; any convictions for conduct relating to his use of firearms; the circumstances which give rise to concern as to whether he continues to be a fit and proper person; his attitude to those circumstances and to the concern as to whether he is a fit and proper person (see generally Australian Broadcasting Tribunal -v- Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ at paras 36 and 63.

21 Mr Bazouni has been convicted of possessing an unauthorised firearm, and of not keeping a firearm safely. A conviction in itself will not ordinarily be enough for the Tribunal make an adverse finding on fitness and propriety (eg Toleafoa (No 2) v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 48 and cases cited there). Recent decisions in this Tribunal demonstrate this: see for example Yaghi -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 91 and Wilkinson -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 59. It is the person’s conduct, not the fact of a conviction, which is to be considered.

22 In this matter the facts which gave rise to Mr Bazouni’s convictions do raise a serious issue as to his being a fit and proper person to hold firearms and security licences.

Circumstances of firearms convictions
23 On 15 November 2000 Mr Bazouni was convicted of three offences under the Firearms Act. The convictions on two charges were upheld on appeal on 26 March 2001, and Mr Bazouni was required to enter a recognisance under s558 of the Crimes Act to be of good behaviour for 12 months. The conviction on the third charge was set aside on appeal. Thus Mr Bazouni has been convicted of two offences under the Firearms Act.

24 The first of the convictions was for possessing a firearm without being authorised to do so by a licence or a permit, contrary to s7(1) FA. The firearm in question was a rifle. In his evidence Mr Bazouni said that he had been given the rifle by his uncle. He said that it was an “antique” rifle, with no cartridge. He described it as “a piece of wood”. Within six to eight weeks before the rifle being seized by police on 8 May 1999, Mr Bazouni had commenced but had not completed steps to obtain a licence in respect of the rifle.

25 Mr Bazouni was cross-examined aggressively in relation to the rifle. It was put to him that he was lying as to how he acquired it, that he was making up his evidence ‘to save his bacon’. Mr Bazouni consistently denied that he was lying. He remained firm in his account of how he came to be in possession of the rifle, and of how it was an inoperable firearm. No evidence was led to counter Mr Bazouni’s evidence, or to establish a basis for the attack in cross-examination.

26 Mr Bazouni was in possession of the rifle without a licence for it. A rifle incapable of being fired is a firearm for purposes of the Act (s4(2)), and Mr Bazouni was clearly in breach of the Firearms Act, hence his conviction. His account of how he came by the rifle, and of its state of repair, is the only one that has been given to me and it is plausible. He had commenced steps to obtain a licence for the rifle. I do not place great weight on the circumstances of this conviction in assessing whether Mr Bazouni continues to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Firearms Act.

27 The second of the convictions was for Mr Bazouni’s failure to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safe storage of firearms, as required by s39 FA.

28 The arrangement Mr Bazouni had in place was that a rifle and ammunition were stored together in a cupboard, which could be locked, in a locked garage at his home. Three pistols were stored in a safe, and at least two of them were loaded. Ammunition was also stored in the safe. The facts of this offence were disputed before me only as to whether the cupboard was locked.

29 Mr Bazouni has offered no evidence to mitigate the seriousness of this breach. He does not suggest, for example, that the arrangements were temporary, that he was in the process of changing arrangements, or that there had been any unusual or intervening event.

30 Section 40 of the Firearms Act requires that a rifle be stored in an approved locked hard wood or steel receptacle which is not easily penetrable, fixed in order to prevent its easy removal if it weighs less than 150 kilograms when empty, with approved solid metal locks, and that ammunition be stored separately in a locked container. Section 41 of the Firearms Act requires that pistols be stored in a locked steel safe bolted to the structure of the premises, and that ammunition be stored separately in a locked container.

31 The underlying principles of Firearms Act include confirmation of firearm possession and use as a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and improvement of public safety (s3(1)). One of the objects of the Act is to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner (s3(2)(e)).

32 Mr Bazouni was asked in evidence whether he understood it to be a privilege to hold a firearms licence. He replied by saying only that he needed it for his work. The question was repeated and he said no, he couldn’t see why that was so.

33 Mr Bazouni stored a firearm and ammunition in a cupboard in the family garage to which his wife also had a key. He stored loaded pistols in a safe to which his wife also had a key. He appealed against his conviction for unsafe storage, had the conviction upheld on appeal, but it is apparent from his evidence that he continues to be unaware of the seriousness of his breach of the Firearms Act and of its principles and objects.

34 The circumstances of Mr Bazouni’s failing to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safe storage of firearms is a significant factor in my assessment that he is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Firearms Act. As I set out below, in my view the circumstances of the second conviction would in their own right warrant the revocation of Mr Bazouni’s firearms licence.

Incident on 8 May 1999
35 I am satisfied, on balance, on all the evidence before me, that on 8 May 1999 Mr Bazouni struck his wife, Mrs Bazouni, with a garden hose about 10 times, causing physical injury. In coming to this view I have taken account of the following.

36 Mrs Bazouni made a signed statement to police on 8 May 1999. The statement was witnessed by Constable Johnson who gave evidence before me. It was not suggested to the Constable that Mrs Bazouni’s statement had not been freely given, or that there were circumstances at the time which would raise doubts about its reliability. Constable Jamieson’s unchallenged evidence is that when he attended Mr Bazouni’s home on 8 May Mrs Bazouni gave to him a spontaneous account of an assault by Mr Bazouni in terms consistent with her statement later that day, and that she showed him welts on her legs.

37 Mr Bazouni denies ever having hit his wife.

38 Mr Bazouni was charged with ‘assault occasioning actual bodily harm’ but the charges were dismissed for want of prosecution when Mr Bazouni’s wife did not attend to give evidence.

39 No objection was taken to the admission into evidence of Mrs Bazouni’s statement. Mrs Bazouni did not give evidence before me and no explanation was offered for her absence. Both Mr Bazouni and the Commissioner submitted to me that it was the other party who relied on her evidence, and that her absence favoured their own case. For Mr Bazouni it was said that Mrs Bazouni’s absence meant that his evidence that he has never struck her should be accepted. For the Commissioner it was said that Mrs Bazouni’s absence meant that her statement should be accepted as uncontested.

40 The Commissioner relies on Mrs Bazouni’s statement, and her absence raises an issue as to the reliability of that statement. But her absence does not enable Mr Bazouni to say that his evidence should necessarily be preferred to hers.

41 Mrs Bazouni’s statement is first hand hearsay evidence of facts of which she has personal knowledge. Mr Bazouni does not contest that Mrs Bazouni made the statement, and he does not suggest any reason why she might have fabricated or elaborated on the facts in that statement. I am unaware of any effort Mr Bazouni made to have her available for cross-examination. There is no material before me on which I can make an inference that her statement should be treated as less than reliable. Mrs Bazouni’s failure to attend court in relation to the criminal proceedings is an agreed fact, but there is no evidence before me which explains that fact, or on which I can make any inference as to the unreliability of Mrs Bazouni’s statement. In my view Mrs Bazouni’s statement is admissible as evidence of the facts set out in it, and is reliable evidence of those facts.

42 On the same day Constable Jamieson witnessed “welts” on the body of Mrs Bazouni. NSW Police photographs were in evidence before me. They show red marks on the skin of a woman’s upper body, and on a person’s buttocks. Constable Jamieson’s evidence is that the photographs are of Mrs Bazouni, taken on the same day that she made her statement.

43 In relation to the photographs Mr Bazouni says only that he doesn’t know if it is true that the police took them, and that he doesn’t know that the photographs are of his wife.

44 The photos are first hand hearsay evidence of the injuries seen by the police and experienced by Mrs Bazouni. Mr Bazouni does not deny that the photos are of his wife, and he does not suggest any circumstances by which the police might be mistaken or false in their evidence. In my view the photographs are reliable evidence of the injuries inflicted in the circumstances described by Mrs Bazouni in her statement. The statement and the photographs together are sufficiently reliable evidence to satisfy me that Mrs Bazouni’s allegations are, on balance, true.

45 In her statement Mrs Bazouni says that Mr Bazouni “pushed me in the chest with both his hands. I slipped down in front of him near the rubbish bin. He then hit me about ten times with the garden hose. The hits connected with the rear of my head, my back and the back of my thighs”. Mrs Bazouni describes in details the surrounding events and conversations, including Mr Bazouni’s aggression towards her and their children. The photographs show red marks on Mrs Bazouni’s shoulders, back and buttocks.

46 It was not put to him in cross-examination that that was not the case. It was put to Constable Jamieson in cross-examination that he did not have the expertise to say that the marks were caused by a hose, to which he said only that in his view the marks are consistent with having been caused by a hose. Constable Johnson had the advantage of seeing the marks first hand; I am satisfied on seeing only the photographs that some of the marks, by reason of their shape, are consistent with having been caused by a hose.

Incident on 2 April 2000
47 Senior Constable Harvey made a statement in which she gives an account of attending Mr Bazouni’s home. She gives an account of allegations made by Mrs Bazouni.

48 The Senior Constable was not challenged on the accuracy of her account of what was said by Mrs Bazouni, and I accept it as a reliable account.

49 In the Senior Constable’s statement she also says:

Yasmine Bazouni was so upset and scared that she continually ran to the window in fear that he may return in his car and see the police . . .

I had previously been to the Bazouni’s residence . . . relating to domestic violence offences where Yasmine Bazouni was in such fear that she did not wish for us to be there . . .

I have been a member of the New South Wales Police Service for five years and I have attended many hundreds of violent domestic situations. I have not seen such fear in a victim of domestic violence as Yasmine Bazouni . . .

50 The Senior Constable was not challenged on her experience and ability to assess the demeanour of people in domestic violence situations, and I accept her assessment of the fear apparent in Yasmine Bazouni at the time.

51 But the Senior Constable’s evidence is second hand hearsay evidence of what was said to her by Mrs Bazouni about facts of which Mrs Bazouni had personal knowledge. In these circumstances it would have been helpful to me if some explanation were offered for Mrs Bazouni’s failure to give her own evidence of this incident. A clearly possible explanation follows from the Senior Constable’s evidence as to Mrs Bazouni’s fear of Mr Bazouni, but there was no evidence or submission to that effect and I cannot be satisfied that she was unavailable for that reason.

52 I must have reservations about the reliability of the Senior Constable’s evidence as evidence of the facts recounted by Mrs Bazouni, and I am unable to admit the Senior Constable’s evidence for that purpose.

Domestic violence
53 I accept the unchallenged affidavit evidence of Acting Sergeant Capper that a police officer will apply for an interim apprehended order, under s562H Crimes Act, on behalf of a person when the officer has “good reason to believe that unless an order is made immediately, the person protected by the order might suffer personal injury.” Indeed this is apparent from a reading of the provision. I accept further the Acting Sergeant’s evidence that it is not enough for a police officer to have this “good reason to believe”, but that the officer “must satisfy [a] justice that a domestic violence incident has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur and that the order is necessary to ensure the safety of the person who would be protected by the order”. Again this is apparent from a reading of the provision.

54 Whatever actually happened on 2 April 2000, Senior Constable Harvey believed, based on her assessment of what Mrs Bazouni said to her and on her own observations, that the circumstances warranted her applying for an interim apprehended violence order. There is no dispute that the order was issued, and I must conclude from this that a justice acted in accordance with the requirements of the Crimes Act, and that he or she was satisfied that a domestic violence incident had occurred or was likely to occur, and that the order was necessary to ensure the safety of Ms Bazouni.

55 Similarly Mr Bazouni does not dispute Acting Sergeant Capper’s evidence that he, Mr Bazouni, “has been subject to eleven (11) separate interim apprehended violence orders”. Copies of those orders are annexed to the Acting Sergeant’s affidavit, and I note that four of them are for the protection of Mrs Bazouni, and one is extended to include their children. As I did above I must conclude in relation to each of those orders that a justice acted in accordance with the requirements of the Crimes Act, and that he or she was satisfied that a domestic violence incident had occurred or was likely to occur, and that the order was necessary to ensure the safety of Ms Bazouni and, in relation to one of them, the children.

56 In relation to one of those orders, Mr Bazouni relies on the transcript of proceedings before Parramatta Local Court in which an application was made for an interim order to be made final. That application was dismissed, and the Magistrate found that the complainant was not a credible witness. That complainant was not Mrs Bazouni. I place no weight at all on that interim order which was found by the Magistrate to be unfounded.

57 The other interim orders have not been subjected to the same scrutiny. Clearly there is room for error on the part of a justice who relies solely on representations made by police in deciding whether a domestic violence incident has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur and that the order is necessary to ensure the safety of the person. Seven of the interim apprehended violence orders were made on the complaint of the complainant whose credibility has been impugned, and I place no weight on them.

58 In relation to the remaining four, all were made on Mr Bazouni’s complaint. Representations made by police in circumstances of attending domestic violence incidents are not inherently unreliable and may, as I have found in this matter, be reliable evidence of the facts asserted. As well, no error has been demonstrated in relation to these interim orders, and there was no context before me as to the circumstances set out in the material relating to the orders, except Mr Bazouni’s general denial.

59 An interim apprehended violence order will not preclude a person from being licensed under the Firearms Act unless it is made a final order (s11(5)(b) and s4). It is in relation however to the question of ‘fit and proper’ that I take account of the making of four interim apprehended violence orders against Mr Bazouni in relation to his wife and children.

60 Mr Bazouni’s denials, in his evidence before me, that he ever assaulted or threatened his wife, are not plausible in the face of reliable evidence that I have accepted in relation to his conduct on 8 May 1999, and of the history of interim apprehended violence orders I rely on. In refusing to acknowledge that the photographs are of his wife, while not denying them to be so, Mr Bazouni deliberately evades making an admission which could only be damaging to an assessment of being a fit and proper person.

Finding: firearms licences
61 Having regard to the purpose for which Mr Bazouni is licensed to use firearms, the circumstances in which he has access to and uses firearms, his convictions for conduct relating to his use of firearms, the circumstances of domestic violence, and his attitude to those circumstances, I find that Mr Bazouni is no longer a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence under the Firearms Act. Accordingly his licences should be revoked, and that is the correct and preferable decision.

Finding: security licences
62 For the same reasons as I have set out in relation to his firearms licences, I find that Mr Bazouni is no longer a fit and proper person to be the holder of a security licence under the Security Industry Act. Accordingly his security licence class 1ABC, and the security licence class ‘master’ held by Mr Bazouni in the name of TRB Security Services, should be revoked. That is the correct and preferable decision.

Convictions
63 If Mr Bazouni were to apply now for a firearms licence he would be refused. That is the effect of sections 24(2)(a) and 11(5)(b) of the Firearms Act, and cl.5(a)(i) of the Firearms (General) Regulation, which together provide that a person who applies for a licence, and who has within 10 years before the application been convicted of an offence relating to the possession or use of a firearm, must be refused a licence. Mr Bazouni has been so convicted.

64 But revocation of a licence is not mandatory when a person is convicted of a prescribed offence. The circumstances may or may not indicate that revocation is the correct and preferable decision.

65 Mr Bazouni has been convicted of two offences under the Firearms Act. As to the second of these – failure to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safe storage of firearms – the circumstances and considerations I have set out in paragraphs 28-34 above would be sufficient in my view, quite apart from any consideration of Mr Bazouni’s being a fit and proper person, to warrant revocation of his licences under both the Firearms Act and the Security Industry Act.

Finding: permit
66 It follows from my finding that Mr Bazouni’s firearms licences should be revoked that he is ineligible, on his own or on behalf of TRB Security Services, for a permit to acquire a firearms, and that is the correct and preferable decision.

Other matters
67 On the question of Mr Bazouni’s being a fit and proper person the Commissioner relied on other material, relating to Mr Bazouni’s alleged conduct towards other people and to whether Mr Bazouni had failed to surrender a firearm. Further, the Commissioner raised the question of whether it is in the public interest for Mr Bazouni to be licensed the Firearms Act and the Security IndustryAct. In light of my findings it is not necessary for me to consider these further matters.

68 On the question of the revocation of the class ‘master’ licence under the Security IndustryAct the Commissioner in his original decision had relied on Mr Bazouni’s alleged breaches of the NSW Security Industry Code of Practice, and on Mr Bazouni’s alleged failure to maintain membership of an approved security industry organisation. The only material before me on these matters is in the Statement of Reasons for an internal review, which were filed with the Tribunal on 11 October 2001 and which Mr Bazouni did not have the opportunity of addressing. In light of my findings it is not necessary for me to consider these further matters.

Costs
69 At the hearing on 14 June 2001 only the three applications in relation to the firearms licences had been made. At the conclusion of oral evidence on 14 June 2001 Mr Bazouni sought an adjournment to enable him to obtain a transcript from Local Court proceedings which would enable him to meet allegations concerning his conduct towards a person. The three firearms applications were adjourned to 2 August 2001.

70 In the meantime, Mr Bazouni’s security industry licences were revoked on 20 June 2001, and Mr Bazouni was advised by letter dated 28 August 2001 of the result of his application for internal review of that decision. Mr Bazouni applied to this Tribunal on 11 October 2001 for review of that decision.

71 At the Tribunal on 2 August the transcript of the Local Court proceedings was unavailable, and the three firearms applications were further adjourned to 15 October 2001. But also on 2 August Mr Bazouni advised the Tribunal that he expected to be applying to the Tribunal for review of the security licence decision.

72 On 2 August I made orders with the effect of joining with the firearms licence matters the anticipated application for review of the security licence decision. The proceedings were adjourned to 15 October 2001, by which time the security industry licence application has been made. On 15 October 2001 the transcript was admitted into evidence, and the parties made final submissions.

73 The Commissioner has applied for costs for the half day of 2 August 2001, saying that Mr Bazouni and his legal advisers knew before the day that the transcript was unavailable, and that they should have vacated the date. It would seem that that was the case, and if they were the only circumstances I would be satisfied that they warranted an award of costs for the half day.

74 However the time was not wasted, and orders were made which advanced the progress of the matter, in light of the developments in relation to Mr Bazouni’s security industry licences. It does not matter that the need for procedural steps to be taken arose only after the adjournment to 2 August had been ordered on 14 June. Although the original reason for the adjournment had not eventuated, this intervening need for further procedural steps effectively saved the day and made the time spent in the Tribunal on 2 August worthwhile for both parties and the Tribunal.

75 In the circumstances I decline to make the costs order sought.

ORDERS

1 In matter 003081, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.

2 In matter 003082, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.

3 In matter 003083, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.

4 In matter 013246, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.

5. In all matters the application for costs is refused.