Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2024] NSWCATAD 62

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Camilleri v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 62

Hearing dates:

10 July 2023

Date of orders:

8 March 2024

Decision date:

08 March 2024

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

K Ransome, Principal Member

Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – criminal and other history – mental health concerns – attitude towards police - whether in the public interest for the applicant to hold a firearms licence

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657

Commissioner of Police v EMB [2021] NSWCATAP 63

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2011] NSWADT 50

Dale v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 134

Esterman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 70

Ford v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 87

Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218

Joseph v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31

Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117

Kopco v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 124

Laing v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 315

Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144

LY v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115

Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97

Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276

Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 206

Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107

Rial v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAP 162

Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116

Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28

Watkin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 393

Wilkinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 59

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Michael Joseph Camilleri (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant (self-represented)
Norton Rose Fulbright (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/00071676

Publication restriction:

Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to the material filed by the respondent on a confidential basis, to those paragraphs of these reasons identified as [Not for publication], to the evidence given in private before the Tribunal and to the record of that part of the proceedings conducted in private pursuant to s 49. That material is not to be released to either the applicant or to the public.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application by Michael Camilleri seeking review of a decision made by the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (the Commissioner) under the Firearms Act 1996 (the Firearms Act) to refuse his application for a category AB firearms licence. The decision to refuse the licence was made on 20 December 2022. Mr Camilleri made an application for internal review and the refusal decision was affirmed on 20 February 2023. He then made this application to the Tribunal for administrative review.

2. The position of the Commissioner is that it is not in the public interest for Mr Camilleri to hold a firearms licence. The Commissioner also submits that there is reasonable cause to believe Mr Camilleri may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of previous suicide attempts and adverse concerns about his mental health.

3. The Commissioner relies on the following matters in support of her decision to revoke Mr Camilleri’s firearms licence:

1. Criminal charges laid against Mr Camilleri.

2. Mr Camilleri’s history of altercations with others.

3. Concerns about Mr Camilleri’s mental health and risk of self-harm, including that on 7 January 2022 he was detained under the Mental Health Act 2007 following threats to kill himself.

4. Mr Camilleri’s behaviour towards police.

4. Mr Camilleri disputes much of the evidence provided by the Commissioner. He states that he has no mental health issues and has never tried to self-harm or threatened self-harm. He states that his interactions with the law have been in self-defence or people have made false complaints about him. Mr Camilleri states that he demonstrates an understanding of and attitude towards public safety and compliance, self-management and a need to stay within the law. He further states there is no risk to the public in him having a firearms licence.

The application for review

5. The Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision, or class of decisions, of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review: s 9(1) Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act). Section 75 of the Firearms Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review certain decisions including a decision to revoke a firearms licence.

6. In determining an application for administrative review, s 63 of the ADR Act provides that this Tribunal is to decide what “the correct and preferable decision” is having regard to “any relevant factual material, and any applicable written or unwritten law”. It is well established that the Tribunal is not restricted to consideration of the material that was before the Commissioner but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: see, e.g., Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116 at [25]. In determining an application for administrative review of a decision, the Tribunal may decide to affirm the decision, to vary the decision, to set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution, or remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator: ADR Act, s 63(3).

7. Under s 38(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, 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. The Tribunal is to properly consider all relevant materials and ignore all irrelevant matters: Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107 at [82]. However, the Tribunal is required to base its findings of fact on “logically probative material”: Meacham at [83] referring to Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 44 FLR 41 at 62, 68 and Sullivan v Civil Aviation Authority (2014) 22 FCR 555; [2014] FCAFC 93] at [5]-[8], [15]-[17]. There is no onus proof: Meacham at [75].Evidence before the Tribunal

8. The Commissioner relied on:

1. the documents lodged pursuant to s 58 of the ADR Act;

2. a statement of Senior Constable David Richards dated 12 June 2023.

3. a statement of Constable Braydon Letford dated 12 June 2023;

4. a confidential statement of Detective Inspector Darryn Gunn dated 5 May 2023; and

5. documents in relation to which orders were made under s 59 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997.

9. Mr Camilleri relied upon:

1. A submission and annexures provided in response to the s 59 application lodged by the Commissioner;

2. A submission with annexures received by the Tribunal on 5 and 7 July 2023; and

3. Further documents and a CD received on the day of the hearing.

10. Senior Constable Richards and Constable Letford gave evidence at the hearing.

Background and evidence

11. Mr Camilleri held a firearms licence from 2004. The licence was suspended on 7 January 2022. On 16 September 2022 Mr Camilleri re-applied for his firearms licence which was due to expire on 29 September 2022. His renewal application was refused on 20 September 2022. He had held the licence for the genuine reasons of recreational hunting/vermin control and animal welfare. The Commissioner acknowledges that Mr Camilleri does not have any adverse police history directly concerning his firearms licence.

Criminal charges

12. The Commissioner refers to an incident in 2005 when Mr Camilleri was charged with “Maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm – T1” arising from an assault at a club in St Marys. The charge was dismissed.

13. In March 2012 Mr Camilleri was charged with assault following an altercation with another male at a hotel in Penrith on 3 February 2012. Mr Camilleri was alleged to have punched the other man and put him in a choke hold. Mr Camilleri was found guilty and was entered into a bond to be of good behaviour for two years. No conviction was recorded. On appeal the order was varied to a bond for 6 months.

14. Mr Camilleri was also charged with behave in an offensive manner in relation to this incident. On 9 August 2012 Penrith Local Court ruled that the offence was not laid.

15. Charges in relation to possessing prohibited weapons were laid against Mr Camilleri in January 2022 but were quashed on appeal in January 2023.

16. Mr Camilleri states that the charges against him were either dismissed, resulted in no conviction or that he was acting in self-defence.

Altercations with others

17. In March 2012 a report was made to police by Mr Camilleri’s former partner complaining of unwanted text messages from him. At the time Mr Camilleri told police that he was not aware that his former partner no longer wanted him to contact her.

18. On 1 April 2018 Mr Camilleri was involved in an altercation with another man at a club in Penrith. It is alleged that the two men had a verbal disagreement and Mr Camilleri later approached the other man offering to settle things away from the cameras. The other man then punched Mr Camilleri. On 1 December 2019 Mr Camilleri was again involved in an altercation at the same club. According to the police report he was not the aggressor and no violence occurred.

19. In September 2019 Mr Camilleri made a report to police about an incident at another club in Penrith in which he claimed to have been assaulted. The police report of CCTV footage of the incident does not accord completely with Mr Camilleri’s description of the incident. Mr Camilleri emailed police a few days later about a discussion he had had with a security guard from the club and sought further information from the police in relation to the CCTV footage. He also complained police had not written down exactly what he had said at the time of the incident.

Mental health

20. On 7 January 2022 police received a 000 telephone call from a supervisor at a call centre for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The supervisor stated that one of his staff had reported that during a call Mr Camilleri had threatened self-harm because of a superannuation debt. He was reported to have also stated that he had attempted suicide previously when trying to complete the relevant form. When police visited Mr Camilleri’s home on the NSW mid-north coast to conduct a welfare check he advised them that he had COVID-19. A discussion then took place in an open area. Senior Constable David Richards, who attended with Constable Andrew Dalton and two other officers, states that Mr Camilleri confirmed he had contacted the ATO about superannuation payments but stated that he made no threats to self-harm during the phone call. Senior Constable Richards states that Mr Camilleri informed him that he had threatened to hurt himself in the past in a call to the ATO.

21. Police described Mr Camilleri’s behaviour as “erratic” and Senior Constable Richards states that Mr Camilleri made allegations of corruption about the police. Police seized three of Mr Camilleri’s firearms and ammunition and later that day suspended his firearms licence. Police also located two butterfly knives (a prohibited weapon) in the gun safe and also found a bow and arrow and metal bar near the door of the unit. Mr Camilleri advised that two of his firearms were stored at his parents’ home but refused to provide police with information about how to unlock his gun safe at his parents’ home.

22. Mr Camilleri declined to make any comment about the knives and denied threatening to kill himself in any conversation with the ATO. Mr Camilleri was detained under the Mental Health Act 2007 and taken to Port Macquarie Hospital for assessment. Mr Camilleri was transferred to Coffs Harbour Base Hospital and released on 11 January 2022. At the time of his discharge Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Michael Paton, stated that Mr Camilleri did not have thoughts of self-harm and was not considered to be a mentally ill person at the time of his discharge.

23. Mr Camilleri maintains that police should have had a warrant to enter his home and to detain him under the Mental Health Act. The police report at the time states that Mr Camilleri gave his consent to the police to enter and seize his firearms and that he gave the police the keys to his gun safe. The body worn video records Mr Camilleri giving police his keys to the unit and there is discussion off camera about where the key to the gun safe is located. Mr Camilleri states he did not tell Senior Constable Richards where the gun safe key was and that another person told Senior Constable Richards where the key was. He states that there was no reason to seize his firearms as he could have been taken to hospital first and it would have become apparent there was no reason to suspend his licence. He states that he should have been served with the suspension notice prior to his guns being seized. He was in fact served at the hospital.

24. Following the visit by police Mr Camilleri was charged with offences under the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. Mr Camilleri was originally fined for the offence but all charges were quashed on appeal in January 2023.

25. Mr Camilleri maintains that the call from the ATO was a hoax and that he has never made threats to harm himself. He notes that the caller was not the person to whom he had spoken at the ATO and his report is hearsay. He also states that the call was made through a VoIP “Spoof” number and is a scam. Mr Camilleri refers to a police warning about calls made from a number with the same initial digits as the call made to the 000 number. Mr Camilleri has provided audio of recorded conversations he had with an officer from the ATO. The officer advised he could not find a record of any incident of self-harm and the applicant on 7 January 2022. He has also provided a letter from the ATO which confirms that his ATO records do not mention any indication of concern pertaining to himself, his mental health or self-harm. Mr Camilleri also has provided a recording of a telephone call he had with an ATO officer on an unknown date where the officer advises that as at 7 January 2022 neither Mr Camilleri nor his company had a tax debt.

26. Mr Camilleri refers to the body worn camera footage of the police attendance at his home on 7 January 2022 to demonstrate that at no time did he tell police he had tried to self-harm in the past.

27. Mr Camilleri accuses police of attending his home because they knew he was in possession of the butterfly knives as they were being surrendered under an amnesty. Mr Camilleri claims he had taken the knives from some neighbouring children and had called police to hand them in. He states they used the self-harm claim as an excuse to attend so they could search for the knives.

Behaviour reported to police

28. The Commissioner refers to several incidents or reports concerning Mr Camilleri. Confidentiality orders have been made in relation to some of this material.

29. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

30. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

31. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

32. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

33. On 12 May 2022 police received reports that Mr Camilleri had an argument with his neighbour, Mr Tyson. Mr Tyson reported that Mr Camilleri hit him in the face with a closed fist and took his doorbell. Mr Camilleri provided a different version of events to police alleging that Mr Tyson had swung at him when he asked Mr Tyson to remove his doorbell camera. He stated that he had not touched Mr Tyson. Constable Brayden Letford states that he watched video footage of the incident taken by the doorbell camera. He observed Mr Camilleri swing a closed fist towards Mr Tyson’s face. Mr Tyson took no further action in relation to the issue.

34. Mr Camilleri provided a copy of a text message in which the writer states: “If you or BLANK come to my door again, I’ll smack you in the face again.” Mr Camilleri states that the message proves that Mr Tyson was the aggressor. The message does not contain any identifiers. Mr Camilleri also questions whether there was anything that happened that was not visible to Constable Letford when he viewed the footage.

35. Mr Camilleri has provided copies of messages sent to him by Mr Tyson which are provocative and unfriendly.

Attitudes towards NSW Police

36. In October 2012 Mr Camilleri sent several emails to then Constable Nathan Blatch, the officer in charge of the March 2012 charges. The emails made threats against Constable Blatch’s future career. On 4 April 2017 Mr Camilleri lodged a complaint with the Police Integrity Commission (now the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission) alleging corruption on the part of Sergeant Blatch. The complaint was declined. Mr Camilleri made a further complaint to the then Attorney-General in April 2020. That complaint was also declined. He made further complaints about Sergeant Blatch to the Penrith Police Command in January 2023 alleging that Sergeant Blatch committed perjury and laid false charges against him.

37. On 28 November 2022, following Mr Camilleri’s court appearance in relation to the two butterfly knives seized on 7 January 2022, Mr Camilleri sent an email to Senior Constable Richards alleging that Constable Dalton was corrupt and that Senior Constable Richards and Constable Dalton had instituted proceedings against him for malicious vengeful reasons. (The two officers had attended Mr Camilleri’s home on 7 January 2022 in response to the call from the ATO officer.) Senior Constable Richards provides copies of several other emails from Mr Camilleri alleging corruption.

38. Between 22 December 2022 and 23 January 2023 Mr Camilleri made several phone calls to the Firearms Registry about the internal review which was then being conducted of the decision to revoke his firearms licence. An internal note records that Mr Camilleri was .”very argumentative and has a lot to say about Police corruption and [being] treated unfairly”. In a call on 13 March 2023 Mr Camilleri alleged that the judge who presided over his case discriminated against him. Mr Camilleri states that, as he was unlawfully detained under the Mental Health Act, he has a reason to distrust the police and has been affected, including financially, by these proceedings.

39. In his submissions Mr Camilleri accuses police of lying and providing partial and misleading material.

Other matters

40. Mr Camilleri refers to his unblemished record as a licence holder and states he has only ever used a firearm in accordance with the law. Mr Camilleri is a printer and one of his clients is a company that is a defence contractor. Mr Camilleri states he needs his firearms licence to be able to go on to a firing range and take photographs of firearms. He states he has lost income because of the revocation of his licence. He also needs the licence to help his father with animal management.

41. Mr Camilleri has provided a reference from a work colleague. She refers to Mr Camilleri as being a trustworthy, decent, kind and noble man and well respected in the community. She also states that that he is a law abiding citizen and there are no concerns about his mental health.

The relevant law

42. Section 3 of the Firearms Act emphasises that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Thus, it is the community’s interests which take precedence over the private interests of an individual”: Rial v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAP 162 at [30]; Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144 at [94].

42. The Commissioner is given a broad power to refuse licences, including if it is not in the public interest for the person to hold the licence: s11(7) Firearms Act. The Tribunal, in determining applications such as this matter is required to exercise its discretion in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2011] NSWADT 50 at [23].

43. The Firearms Act prohibits the Commissioner from granting a licence where there is “reasonable cause to believe” that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of any previous attempt to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury or because of the applicant’s intemperate habits or being of unsound mind: s11(4) Firearms Act.

44. It has been said that in considering matters under the Firearms Act public safety is to be given paramount consideration: Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218; Dale v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 134 at [46]. The interest of an applicant in obtaining or retaining a firearms licence is subordinate to that consideration: Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276.

The public interest

46. What is meant by the term “the public interest” has been discussed in many cases. In Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657, the Industrial Relations Court stated at 681:

“The purpose of the reference to 'public interest' is to ensure that private interests are not the only matters taken into account: to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the Commissioner's consideration. The effect of the reference is to amplify the 'scope and purpose' of the legislation.”

47. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 at [25], the Appeal Panel considered that the “public interest” is an inherently broad concept providing the decision maker with the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in exercising the discretion to refuse or revoke a firearms licence. In Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16 at [33] the Appeal Panel said that:

“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.”

48. The expression is to be considered in context, informed by the underlying principles and objectives of the Firearms Act, and having regard to the interests of the whole community: Commissioner of Police v EMB [2021] NSWCATAP 63 at [60].

49. As noted above, s 3 of the Act emphasises that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. In Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28 at [27-28] Deputy President Hennessy said that in terms of public safety:

“27…The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that Mr Ward would not pose a risk to public safety if he had access to firearms.

28 The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any 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.”

50. That case dealt with whether the applicant was a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence, but the comments have been held to apply to the public interest test as well: Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 206, at [130] – [134].

51. The question of risk is not, however, to be approached in an absolute or mechanistic way, but in a nuanced way, taking account of 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]; Laing v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 315 at [62]-[64]. The question is whether there is in all the circumstances a real and appreciable risk to the public: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117 at [74]; Kopco vCommissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 124 at [58].

Consideration

52. The Commissioner submits that concerns in relation to self-harm and Mr Camilleri’s mental health are sufficient to give the Tribunal “reasonable cause to believe” that Mr Camilleri may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms in accordance with s 11(4) of the Firearms Act. In this context she refers to the call from the ATO reporting that Mr Camilleri had spoken of self-harm and the fact that he was detained for several days under the Mental Health Act.

53. The term “reasonable cause to believe” requires more than mere suspicion or conjecture. However, it is not necessary to establish even a prima facie case. It is necessary, however, to show objectively that there is reasonable cause for the relevant belief. The Tribunal must objectively be satisfied, because of any previous attempt to commit suicide or self-harm or due to mental health concerns, that Mr Camilleri may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over his firearms: see Watkin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 393 at [35]; LY v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115 at [41]-[44].

54. The Tribunal is required to predict an applicant’s future conduct as regards personally exercising continuous and responsible control over firearms, in light of any previous attempt at self-harm: Watkin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 393. The only evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Camilleri has previously attempted or threatened self-harm is contained in the telephone call from the supervisor at the ATO. I don’t accept Mr Camilleri’s submissions that the call was a hoax. His suggestion that the call came from a number involved in a scam is fanciful. The scam he refers to bears no relation to what happened on this occasion. There is no reasonable motive for the call and his suggestion of a scam begs the question of how the caller knew he had just been on the phone to the ATO. It is regrettable that the ATO officer did not make a note of the call.

55. I accept Mr Camilleri’s evidence that he did not tell Senior Constable Richards that he had previously attempted self-harm in relation to his dealings with the ATO. The body-worn camera shows he said something to the effect that he had yelled at the ATO in the past. As Mr Camilleri points out, the supervisor who made the call to 000 was not party to the conversation he had with the officer in the call centre. The information relayed by the supervisor may not be entirely accurate. Mr Camilleri strongly denies he made any threats about self-harm. While there was clearly some issue which led the officer at the ATO to make a report to his supervisor who in turn called 000, there is no evidence that, even if Mr Camilleri threatened self-harm, he intended to carry out any such threat or had done so in the past.

56. In relation to mental health concerns, Mr Camilleri has much to say about the alleged reason for his detention and the way he was detained under the Mental Health Act. The body-worn camera shows the police dealing with Mr Camilleri in a very patient way. Based on the information received from the ATO there were sufficient concerns about Mr Camilleri’s mental state. The body-worn camera also shows him to be argumentative and uncooperative. He was therefore detained under the Mental Health Act and taken to Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I note that, despite Mr Camilleri’s assertions, a warrant was not required. In any event, the issue before me is not whether he was detained but whether there is reasonable cause to believe that Mr Camilleri may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because he is of “unsound mind”.

57. To be of “unsound mind” a person’s mental condition must at least have the potential to put public safety at risk if that person has the possession or use of a firearm: Wilkinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 59 at [31]-[32].

58. Other than Mr Camilleri’s detention under the Mental Health Act, there is no evidence before me – psychiatric or otherwise – that Mr Camilleri has a mental health condition. There are no medical records to suggest that he has been diagnosed or treated for any such condition in the past. The discharge notes from the hospital do not record significant issues with Mr Camilleri’s presentation or mental health after his detention, other than that soon after admission he was pacing around the room and his speech was pressured. Dr Paton states that at the time of discharge Mr Camilleri did not have thoughts of self-harm and was not considered to be a mentally ill person.

59. I note that no concerns have been raised in the past about Mr Camilleri’s use of firearms. Overall, I cannot be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that Mr Camilleri may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because he is of unsound mind. I have concerns about what appears to be a fixation on allegations of corruption on the part of police officers involved with Mr Camilleri, but this is dealt with below.

60. The Commissioner also submits that it is not in the public interest for Mr Camilleri to hold a firearms licence due to his history of criminal charges, altercations with others and interactions with police. The details of the matters relied upon are set out above. As also noted above, Mr Camilleri states that the charges against him were either dismissed, resulted in no conviction or that in other circumstances he was acting self-defence.

61. It is true that the 2005 charge of maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm was dismissed. I note that, while the 2012 charge of assault resulted in no conviction, Mr Camilleri was in fact found guilty, although the penalty was reduced on appeal.

62. In considering whether it is in the public interest for Mr Camilleri to hold a firearms licence, it is the conduct, rather than the conviction that is of concern: Esterman v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 70 at [30]. The Tribunal is required to look at Mr Camilleri’s conduct as a whole, including potential future conduct. In that regard, past conduct is a significant guide in assessing likely future conduct: Ford v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 87 at [59].

63. The Tribunal may into account matters indicating criminal conduct on an applicant’s part and can do so after applying a lesser standard of proof than the criminal standard: Joseph v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31 at [62]-[63].

64. From the open evidence set out above, it clear that Mr Camilleri has come to the attention of police in relation to violence on several occasions. While he may not have been convicted, the incidents were serious enough for criminal charges to have been laid. Mr Camilleri was also involved in incidents in 2018 and 2019 in which he was not necessarily the aggressor. He was also involved in a violent incident with his neighbour in May 2022. Mr Camilleri states that Mr Tyson was the aggressor on this occasion but I have no reason to doubt what Constable Letford saw on the footage of the incident. The text message provided by Mr Camilleri does not assist as it does not reveal the sender.

65. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

66. Mr Camilleri has been involved in violent incidents or altercations with others on a number of occasions. This is not behaviour that would be expected of a licence holder. Even when he has not been the aggressor, Mr Camilleri appears to have put himself in a situation where there is a potential for violence. His tendency to blame others is also a matter of concern and indicates that he does not wish to take responsibility for his actions.

67. Mr Camilleri’s attitude towards police is also a matter of concern. He appears to have developed a fixation on certain officers and routinely makes allegations of corruption and issues threats towards officers. To date his complaints have been found to be unfounded. His conduct, including his argumentative stance with officers on 7 January 2022, indicates that when things do not go in his favour, he lashes out at others. He also clearly did not wish to co-operate with police about his firearms on 7 January 2022. I have serious concerns about his level of co-operation with police and therefore his ongoing ability to comply with regulatory regimes, including in relation to firearms.

68. I accept that holding a firearms licence is of assistance to Mr Camilleri in his work and that he has no adverse firearms history. However, his past and present conduct towards others and police leads me to conclude that there is some risk to public safety in Mr Camilleri holding a firearms licence that is not merely theoretical or fanciful.

69. I cannot be satisfied that after considering all relevant matters permitting Mr Camilleri to have a firearms licence would be consistent with a need to reduce any risks to public safety to a minimum. For this reason I find that it is not in the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence.

70. It follows that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Commissioner to refuse Mr Camilleri’s firearms licence.

Order

1. The decision under review is affirmed.

**********

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: 08 March 2024