Currey v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

[2002] NSWADT 141

CITATION:	Currey v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 141
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Philip Charles Currey RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	023039
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/31/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	08/15/2002
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Firearms Act - firearms licence - issue of licence or permit - Firearms licence - issue of licence or permit
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal Matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Rural Lands Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED:	Dimity Pikul v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 113 Leslie Paul Osborne vThe Commissioner of Police [2000} NSWADT 10
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT D. Sweeney, solicitor RESPONDENT D. Patterson, solicitor
ORDERS:	The decision of the Commissioner to refuse to grant Mr Currey a category D firearms licence is affirmed.

1 This application was lodged by Mr Philip Charles Currey seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Police (“the Commissioner”). The decision was to refuse Mr Currey’s application for a Category D firearms licence. Mr Currey has previously held category D firearms licences. The latest of those licences expired on 20 July 2001. Mr Currey has a Category A, B, and C firearms licence, but says that a Category D licence is necessary for the control of vertebrate pests on his property. A Category D licence would allow him to use a self-loading centre fire weapon.

2 The original decision to refuse Mr Currey's application was taken by Mr Douglas Walsham, a delegate of the Commissioner. A copy of that decision was sent to Mr Currey on 9 October 2001. Mr Currey applied for an internal review of Mr Walsham's decision. The internal review was undertaken by Ms Marie Griffin on 9 January 2002. Mr. Currey lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 15 February 2002.

3 Under s.63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (“the ADT Act”) the Tribunal must decide whether the Commissioner's decision not to grant Mr Currey a Category D licence was the "correct and preferable" decision. Rather than have a hearing, the parties consented to the Tribunal determining this matter "on the papers" under s.76 of the ADT Act.

4 In his application for the licence, Mr Currey stated that his special need for this category of licence was to eradicate vertebrate pest animals that invade his property. He indicated that feral pigs, feral goats and other vermin are regularly in mobs of 15 to 30 and sometimes more. He stated that bolt action centre fire rifles don't fire fast enough. In contrast, category D self-loading centre fire rifles have sufficient stopping power and fire fast enough to kill the vertebrate pests before they can make it back into the scrub.

5 For the past 28 years Mr Currey has been the owner of a rural property which adjoins the Pilliga State Forest and Namoi River marshland. He is constantly troubled by the presence of feral pigs, feral goats and other vermin which enter his property from the scrub. The presence of these pests causes damage to his land and has the potential to carry diseases to his stock.

6 He states that it is not feasible to engage a professional contract shooter for financial reasons. He cannot afford to pay money to someone that would only be doing the job that he has been doing for the last 33 years.

7 Mr Currey also relies on a certificate issued by the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board. That certificate provides:

“this is to certify that Philip Charles Currey is authorised under the Rural Lands Protection Act to fully and continuously suppress and destroy the following vertebrate pest animals:
Feral pigs, feral goats & rabbits
Other pests requiring control : feral cats & foxes

Comment on location: property adjoins Namoi River marshlands & Pilliga State Forest which harbour large numbers of feral pigs

Type applied for : Category D. Term 1 year:

9 November 2001 to 9 November 2002”

8 In Dimiti Pikul v The Commissioner of Police NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 113, the Tribunal’s Deputy President stated that the starting point for considering the requirements of a Category D firearms licence is section 15 of the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”). That section provides:

“15 Category D licences restrictions on issue

The commissioner must not issue a category D licence to any person unless:

(a) the genuine reason established by the person for being issued with the licence is that of vertebrate pest animal control, and

(b) in addition to establishing any such genuine reason, the person produces evidence to the Commissioner's satisfaction that there is a special need for the person to possess or use a firearm to which a licence category D applies, and

(c) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (c) of the genuine reason of vertebrate pest animal control, the person produces evidence to the Commissioner's satisfaction that any such special need cannot be met by any other means (including by the authority conferred by a category A, category B or category C licence, or by engaging the services of a professional contract shooter).

9 In order for an applicant to satisfy the requirements of the Act in regard to the genuine reason of vertebrate pest animal control, he or she must meet the requirements in relation to that reason as set out in section 12 of the Act. So far as it is relevant to this case, that section states that:

“12 Genuine reasons for having a licence

(1) The Commissioner must not issue a licence that authorises the possession and use of a firearm unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.

(4) Subject to this Act, an applicant for a licence has a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant:

(a) states that he or she intends to possess or use the firearm for any one or more of the reasons set out in the Table to this section, and

(b) is able to produce evidence to the Commissioner that he or she satisfies the requirements specified in respect of any such reason.

Table

Reason: vertebrate pest animal control

The applicant must be:

(a) a professional contract shooter engaged or employed in controlling vertebrate pest animals on rural land, or

(b) a person employed by or in, or authorised by, a government agency prescribed by the regulations that has functions relating to the control or suppression of vertebrate pest animals, or

(c) a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, or who is the owner, lessee or manager of land used for primary production, and who is participating in an authorised campaign conducted by or on behalf of a government agency or public authority to eradicate large feral animals or animals that are affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis.”

10 Clause 29 of The Firearms (General) Regulations 1997 prescribes a list of government agencies for the purpose of the genuine reason of vertebrate pest animal control as referred to in section 12 of the Act. The list includes a Rural Lands Protection Board.

The Commissioner’s Reasons for Refusal

11 Mr Walsham accepted that Mr Currey is a primary producer for the purposes of section 12(4)(c) of the Act. He proceeded to determine the application under sub-section 12(4)(c). In his reasons for his decision Mr Walsham stated:

“Your application was marked, genuine reason of Vertebrate Pest Animal Control.

However, you did not provide any evidence to support that genuine reason i.e. you are:

· a professional contract shooter engaged or employed in controlling vertebrate pest animals on rural land, or employed by or authorised to control vertebrate pest animals by the:

Department of Agriculture, or

National Parks and Wildlife Service, or

Rural Lands Protection Board, or

Wild Dog Destruction Board, or

Forestry Commission

· a person whose occupation is the business of primary production or who is the owner, lessee or manager of land used for primary production, and who is participating in an authorised campaign conducted on behalf of a government agency or public authority to eradicate large feral animals or animals affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis.”

12 As noted above Mr Currey applied for an internal review of Mr Walsham's decision. The internal review was undertaken by Ms Marie Griffin on 9 January 2002. In her reasons for confirming Mr Walsham's decision Ms Griffin stated:

“D. REASONING PROCESS:

The Firearms Act 1996 (Act) sets up a scheme for licensing people to possess and use firearms. There are several provisions, which allow the Commissioner to refuse a licence. I have formed the view that the legislative provisions listed above are relevant to your particular case. Further, I have noted the abovementioned issues raised by you in support of your application.

After fully and independently considering all relevant matters I make the following fresh determination.

In 1996, the government enacted "tough new gun laws". One of the underlying principles of that law is to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the position ending use of firearms.

In addition, the Registry's adjudication guidelines for this category of firearm have been strengthened to better reflect the legislative requirements. These guidelines stipulate that you must provide documented proof that you are participating in an authorised campaign.

In considering your case I have taken into account the issues raised, particularly regarding the possibility of the spread of disease from feral animals and in particular feral pigs. I have also taken into account the fact that you hold your firearms licence for the genuine reason of primary production, and that this allows you to maintain your livelihood. I note also that you are currently the holder of a Category A, B and C firearms licence.

However, the legislation is clear in its intent regarding restrictions on issuing Category D licences, in that it specifies that this category of firearm is only available, in the case of primary producers, if the applicant is “participating in an authorised campaign conducted by or on behalf of a government agency or public authority to eradicate large feral animals or animals affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis". Once this genuine reason has been met, 'special need', must then be established - this being the type of vertebrate pest to be controlled and the reasons why another category of firearm would be insufficient to meet the requirements, or why the engagement of a professional contract shooter is not viable.

The letter dated 9 November 2001 provided by the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board (NRLPB) advises that you, as a landowner, are authorised under the Rural Lands Protection Act to fully and continuously suppress and destroy feral pigs, feral goats and rabbits on your property. This letter, although supporting your application for a category D firearms licence, does not state that you are participating in an authorised campaign.

When considering the meaning of 'authorised campaign' I have referred to Section 180 of the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998. That section states that:

(1) A board may conduct (or participate in the conduct of) campaigns for the eradication of pests and may make any necessary arrangements and take all necessary steps for carrying out such campaigns.

(2) Arrangements under this section may be made with other boards, with the occupiers or owners of land or persons within the board's district or with the government of this or any other State, the Commonwealth or a Territory.

Further, in reply to a request from the Firearms Registry on 14 December 2001, NRLPB advises that although they may conduct a campaign early next year in which you may become involved, they are not conducting any authorised campaigns under Section 180 at this time. A further letter on 8 January 2002 reiterates that they are not conducting any campaigns in your area. As such, I am satisfied that you are not part of an 'authorised campaign' being conducted by the RLPB for the purpose of eradicating large feral animals or animals affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis.

The letter provided by Western Namoi Veterinary Services Pty Ltd is concerned with the spread of diseases such as leptospirosis, tuberculosis and brucellosis by the feral pig population in your area. The letter, however, is dated 3 June 1996 and as such, the information it contains cannot, in my opinion, still be relied upon. Moreover, the Registry has recently been advised by the chief veterinary officer from NSW Agriculture that "the diseases Brucellosis and Tuberculosis have essentially been eradicated in NSW (and Australia) and are no longer an issue with regard to firearms licensing”.

Not withstanding the issues you have raised and the documents provided, the legislation is clear and specific in relation to the criteria that must be met to enable issue of a category D licence.

In these circumstances, I am satisfied that you do not meet the requirements provided for in section 12(c) of the Act.”

13 As previously noted, this matter has been determined without a formal hearing. Each party relied on the material which had been available to the Commissioner and Mr Currey also relied on a statement by Mr Shaun Slattery, District Veterinarian with the Narrabri Rural lands Protection Board. Mr Slattery’s statement relates to the potential risks associated with the presence of feral pigs. Each of the parties provided written submissions in support of their case. No other evidence was presented.

14 In summary, the documents upon which Mr Currey relies suggest that:

· Mr Currey has a continuing problem with feral animals coming onto his property from the surrounding scrub;

· these feral animals come onto his property in groups, cause damage to the property and present risks to his livestock;

· Mr Currey has previously lawfully possessed and used Category D firearms to control and suppress feral animals coming on to his property;

· Mr Currey prefers to use Category D firearms as he finds these to be the most effective to control groups of feral animals as this category of firearm is self loading enabling him to destroy the majority of the group at one time;

· Feral pigs can significantly reduce sheep flock fertility by predation on lambs and feral pigs are vectors for the spread of the cattle infertility disease leptospirosis. In the event of an exotic disease outbreak feral pigs could be significant vectors;

· Mr Currey has not used professional shooters as his level of income can not support this form of eradication and control.

15 Mr Currey also challenges the Commissioner's decision on the basis that the decision was reached by considering only the fact that Mr Currey is in business as a primary producer and the Commissioner failed to take proper account of the authorisation issued by the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board.

Mr Currey’s Submissions

16 The Applicant presses his application pursuant to sub-section 12(4)(b) of the Act. Mr Sweeney, on behalf of Mr. Currey, submitted that the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board authorisation is relevant because of that sub-section. His submission in relation to section 12 of the Act, and specifically with respect to the category of genuine reason, "vertebrate pest control" and the three sub-paragraphs contained within that category as set out above is:

“It is clear that the section is rendered devoid of the application intended by the legislature if the word "or" is given a conjunctive meaning. The applicant presents as someone who qualifies under sub paragraph (b), this is to say someone authorised by a government agency to suppress vertebrate pests. It is respectfully submitted that an absurdity would flow if the requirement was for, "or" to be treated as a conjunctive. It would be unlikely, for example, that many professional contract shooters would be primary producers. Yet if the "or" is to be treated as a conjunctive those who were not in fact primary producers would be prevented from carrying out the legitimate business of contract shooting.”

17 Mr Sweeney, further submitted in relation to the issue of whether or not Mr Currey is participating in an authorised campaign:

"the point is made that the Registry's adjudication guidelines have been strengthened to now require documented evidence that the applicant is participating in an authorised campaign. However this only goes to the evidence which the Commissioner might reasonably require if subparagraph (c) is the relevant section. Section 12(4) clearly states in its opening sub paragraph (a) that genuine reasons are those set out in the Table at the end of that section. The issue relating to the authorised campaign is isolated to the subparagraph (c) of the vertebrate pest control category of genuine reason.”

18 Section 15 of the Act requires evidence of special need which can not be met by any other means. With respect to that issue, Mr Sweeney submitted:

“However we do draw attention to the matters which support the applicant's contention that he satisfies section 15:-

a) The applicant's letter requesting an internal review is to point. Under the heading "special needs" the applicant cites the reasons that the cost of a professional contract shooter would be prohibitive and that category A, B, and C firearms do not fire quickly enough to stop mobs of pigs.

b) That the applicant is a primary producer whose income will be affected if the pigs are not eradicated.

c) Whilst Ms Griffin has said in her reasons that the letter from Veterinary Services Pty Ltd dated 3.6.1996 can no longer be relied upon because of its date and because of subsequent information that tuberculosis and brucellosis have been effectively eradicated from New South Wales, the fact is that leptospirosis has not been eradicated and it remains an ongoing problem in the wild pig population. The disease is infectious to humans and cattle alike and it causes infertility in cattle. The applicant has a history of leptospirosis in his stock.”

19 Mr Sweeney further submitted in relation to the issue:

“It is contended that the Applicant has established special need for the purposes of this application. The facts of the Applicant’s occupation, the history of disease, his financial restrictions in conjunction with the fact he is the holder of an authority furnished by the Rural Lands Protection Board constitute in my view the "special need". The Board's expertise to advise, however impliedly, on the issue of special need must, I respectfully submit, be conceded. It is recognised as having special status in the legislation itself. It can instigate authorised campaigns for the eradication of vertebrate pests and it can issue the authorities contemplated by section 12(4)(b). When it is not undertaking the campaigns contemplated by section 12(4)(c) it clearly relies on those whom it authorises. It would be wrong if the Act was interpreted in such a way so as to undermine the express provisions of the Act and the express powers and authority conferred upon the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board.

The Board could require the applicant to adopt alternative measures such as poisoning, or vaccination. It could form the view that such measures of this nature which the Applicant already has in place may be sufficient to meet the Applicant’s needs. However it has not elected to take either of these courses. It has instead opted to issue the authority. The Board’s charter is to protect the rural environment. It knows of the pig problem on the Applicant's property and it is constituted by the legislature and charged by government with the responsibility of dealing with the issue.”

20 The Commissioner concedes that Mr Currey has demonstrated 'genuine reason', as it is accepted that the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board requires a continuous suppression and destruction of vertebrate pest animals. The Commissioner agreed that Mr Currey has an obligation to 'continuously suppress and destroy' 'feral pests' on his property. He also agreed that a Rural Lands Protection Board is an 'authorised body' and that Mr Currey is a person, of the purposes of the Act. Ms Paterson for the Commissioner submitted that the Board can only 'authorise' relevant people to control pests. The choice of that control is up to the individual. What is in contention is the assertion that this is sufficient for the licence to be granted, and finally that the finding of authorisation is sufficient reason for this category of licence.

21 Ms Paterson argued that the issue for consideration is:

“whether the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board in authorising the applicant under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 to fully and continuously suppress and destroy the following VERTEBRATE PEST ANIMALS: Feral pigs, feral goats, rabbits, as well as foxes and feral cats, authorises the applicant to successfully apply for a Category of gun licence.”

22 With respect to the approach to be taken in relation to determining whether Mr Currey has satisfied the particular genuine reason requirements for the purposes of sub-section 12(4)(b) of the Act, the Commissioner’s position is that he can not grant the application for a Category D licence if mere genuine reason is satisfied. Ms Paterson argued that Mr Sweeney’s assertion that the linking of the categories by the word 'or' means that satisfying one of the categories is sufficient to qualify for the grant of the licence is incorrect.

23 She submitted that the Commissioner did not apply subparagraph 'b' in isolation. The Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board issued Mr Currey with a certificate in respect of pest control. Therefore, bearing in mind the restrictive nature of this category, the more relevant section to this category of licence was relied upon, being sub-section 'c'. She further submitted that there is no 'correct' sub-section within this particular genuine reason. There is no test that states what the Commissioner must or should choose.

24 The essence of the Commissioner’s case is set out in the following submission:

“The respondent submits that in case of Category D applications, 'genuine reason' is not enough to enable the Commissioner to grant a licence. One of the issues in this case is whether the Commissioner needs to look any further than 'genuine reason', specifically, if one of the subsections in a genuine reason is satisfied.

In this case, it is asserted by the applicant that the Commissioner need look no further than s.12(4)(b).

Aside from establishing that the Commissioner is unable to grant a category D licence on genuine reason alone, it is a question to be decided for this category of licence which sub-section should the decision maker rely on.

Previously, as seen in Nixon, Pikul and Skennar, it has been accepted that the genuine reason subsection was subsection 'c'.

It is submitted that reliance upon this is the correct one due to the formulation of s15 (b):

in addition to establishing any such genuine reason, the person produces evidence to the Commissioner's satisfaction that there is a special need for the person to possess or use a firearm to which a licence category D applies, and in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (c) of the genuine reason of vertebrate pest animal control, the person produces evidence to the Commissioner's satisfaction that any such special need cannot be met by any other means (including by the authority conferred by a category A, category B or category C licence, or by engaging the services of a professional contract shooter).
Section 15 seeks to limit the availability of a specific type of licence. In the Appeal Panel matter of Leslie Paul Osborne v The Commissioner of Police [2000] NSW ADT 10 the Tribunal made general comments in relation to the scope and intention of the Firearms Act 1996 and the proliferation of firearms in the community generally:
"The narrower view should, we consider, be preferred. The purpose of the legislation (Firearms Act) is to reduce the use and possession of firearms in the community. If a broader view were to be taken not only would that lead to a greater number of firearms circulating in the community, but it would tend to mean that the types of business where a real choice existed as to how they were conducted would be more able to make a claim for a hand pistol the less safely it was conducted. Such an interpretation would defeat the objects of the legislation."

A special need must be demonstrated, that cannot be met by any other means available to the applicant.

The applicant has asserted that the range of options available in the control of pest animals are too expensive, and that Category A, B or C do not fire quickly enough. The applicant further appears to assert that his income may be affected. It is submitted that the letter dated 3/6/1996 from Namoi Veterinary Services can not be relied upon because of its antiquity, and that the Firearms registry can not rely on leptospirosis as sufficient grounds for granting this category of weapon.

The respondent submits that 'leptospirosis' has not been contemplated by the legislation as an 'eradicable disease'. While the applicant may have a history of leptospirosis in his stock, it can be seen that the applicant also has a 'vaccination' program in place against leptospirosis.

The respondent submits that the applicant has not satisfied the decision maker in relation to s15(c) of the Act.

The respondent submits that while economic considerations may be taken into account in the decision making process, this should be done within the context of the objects of the Act. Previous Tribunal decisions suggest that economic considerations should not be given high priority when interpreting terms such as 'genuine reason' and 'special need' in the context of the Act.

The question of whether Category D is 'more effective' than other categories is not one, it is submitted, that the decision maker has to contemplate. Section 15 outlines whether there are other options available to the applicant, in this case, there are.”

25 I agree with the Commissioner's argument that the Act is to be interpreted narrowly. I accept that the statement by the Appeal Panel in the matter of Leslie Paul Osborne v The Commissioner of Police is authority for such an approach. Notwithstanding that view, I also accept Mr Sweeney's submission that the provisions set out in subparagraph 12(4) in relation to the genuine reason of vertebrate pest animal control are to be read disjunctively.

26 In my opinion, the wording of that provision is clear. An applicant may satisfy the requirements of that provision, if the applicant is either:

"(a) a professional contract shooter , or

(b) a person employed by or in, or authorised by, a government agency , or

(c) a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, and who is participating in an authorised campaign ”

27 I do not accept that an applicant who is a primary producer but who is not participating in an authorised campaign as prescribed could not nevertheless satisfy the requirements if that person was authorised by an appropriate agency.

28 For the purposes of these proceedings it is therefore necessary to determine whether Mr Currey is able to satisfy the statutory requirements to enable him to qualify for the issue of a category D licence.

29 I agree with the statement by the Deputy President in Dimiti Pikul v The Commissioner of Police that section 15 of the Act is the starting point for considering the requirements to be satisfied before a Category D firearms licence is granted. The Commissioner has conceded, and I agree, that Mr Currey has satisfied the requirements of subsection 15(a) that the genuine reason is that of vertebrate pest animal control.

30 Mr Currey has submitted that for various reasons he has satisfied the requirements of special need for the purposes of sub-section 15(c) of the Act. However, Mr Sweeney submitted that if the Tribunal does not concur with that view then natural justice requires that the Mr Currey be given the chance to address the matter. In contrast, the Commissioner has submitted that the requirements of special need for the purposes of section 15(c) have not been satisfied. For reasons that will become apparent, it is not necessary that I determine this issue.

31 I accept Ms Paterson's submission that the issue for consideration is:

“whether the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board in authorising the applicant under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 to fully and continuously suppress and destroy the following VERTEBRATE PEST ANIMALS: Feral pigs, feral goats, rabbits, as well as foxes and feral cats, authorises the applicant to successfully apply for a Category D gun licence.”

32 In my opinion, an applicant who has satisfactorily met the requirements of section 15 of the Act would satisfy the requirements for the issue of a category D gun licence if they are a person employed by or in, or authorised by, a government agency prescribed by the regulations that has functions relating to the control or suppression of vertebrate pest animals. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Currey is employed by or in a government agency prescribed by the regulations. The issue then is whether or not he has been “authorised” by such a body.

33 The term “authorised” is not defined in the Act. The Macquarie Dictionary, second revised edition, defines "authorise" to mean “to give authority or legal power to; empower (to do something)” or "to give authority for; formally sanction (an act or proceeding)". The Concise Oxford Dictionary, ninth edition, defines "authorise" to mean “give authority” or “commission (a person or body)”. Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition, defines authorise to mean "to empower; to give a right or authority to act. To endow with authority or effective legal power, warrant or right".

34 The common thread to these definitions is that to authorise is to empower or endow with authority. In my view, this requires that the government agency which is prescribed by the regulations endows the recipient of the authority with some power which resides in the agency but not in the recipient. It follows, in my view, that a certificate which is issued by a government agency prescribed by the regulations that purports to endow the recipient with a power already possessed by the recipient cannot be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of sub-section (b) within this particular genuine reason for the purposes of subparagraph 12(4)(b) of the Act.

35 I note that the Rural Lands Protection Board places an obligation on all landowners to suppress and destroy noxious animals by lawful means of suppression and destruction. Accordingly, not only is Mr Currey already empowered with a right or authority to act to fully and continuously suppress and destroy vertebrate pest animals, he has an obligation to do so. Therefore, the certificate issued by the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board does not endow Mr Currey with any new right or authority or power which resides with the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board but not with Mr Currey.

36 The certificate issued by the Narrabri Rural Lands Protection Board merely confirms Mr Currey’s existing obligations. Given the narrow approach which is to be taken in relation to the interpretation of the Act, such a certificate cannot be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of sub-section 12(4) of the Act.

37 In my opinion, Mr Currey is not a person employed by or in, or authorised by, a government agency prescribed by the regulations that has functions relating to the control or suppression of vertebrate pest animals. Nor is Mr Currey a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, who is participating in an authorised campaign conducted by or on behalf of a government agency or public authority to eradicate large feral animals or animals that are affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis. It follows that Mr Currey has not satisfied the requirements of section 12 of the Act and therefore he is not entitled to a category D firearms licence.

38 In my opinion the Commissioner's decision to refuse Mr Currey's licence application was the correct and preferable decision.

Decision

39 In accordance with s. 63(3)(a) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, the decision of the Commissioner of Police to refuse Mr Currey's application for a Category D licence is affirmed.