Fb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

[2003] NSWADT 28

CITATION:	FB -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 28
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT FB RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
FILE NUMBER:	023158
HEARING DATES:	28/01/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	01/28/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	02/13/2003
BEFORE:	Montgomery S - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996
CASES CITED:	Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT C Capper, advocate
ORDERS:	The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr FB's ABG firearms licence is affirmed.

Background
1 These proceedings relate to a decision by the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (“the Commissioner”) to revoke the firearms licence held by Mr. FB.

2 Mr. FB was issued with a Category ABG firearms licence on 27 January 1998. The licence was due to expire on 17 March 2003; however, it was revoked on 17 May 2002. On 27 May 2002 Mr. FB applied for an internal review of the decision to revoke the licence. The Internal review was undertaken by a delegate of the Commissioner and was finalised on 10 July 2002. The decision was taken that the Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr. FB’s category ABG firearms licence is to stand. The Commissioner's delegate gave detailed reasons for the decision and Mr. FB was notified of the outcome of the review and those reasons.

Reviewable decision
3 The reviewable decision is that of the Commissioner to revoke Mr. FB’s firearms licence. On 25 July 2002 Mr. FB applied to this Tribunal for review of the Commissioner's decision. The matter was listed before the Tribunal’s Deputy President on 20 August 2002 at which time she made directions for the filing of documents and the matter was listed for hearing on 8 October 2002. The matter did not proceed on that day but was re-listed for hearing on 28 January 2003.

Nature of proceedings
4 The Tribunal undertakes a review of the merits of the original decision, with the obligation to reconsider all the material first considered, together with any further relevant material, so as to either confirm the original decision, vary it, or set it aside and substitute another. “The duty of the Tribunal is to satisfy itself whether a decision in respect of which an application for review is duly instituted is a decision which in its view was objectively the right one to be made.” (Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 at 77).

5 These are not adversarial proceedings in which Mr. FB carries an onus of proof. Mr. FB, by making the application, triggers a process of merits review by the Tribunal. Mr. FB does not take on the responsibility of having to prove a case, nor does he cause the Commissioner to have to prove a case. Mr. FB and the Commissioner are before the Tribunal as parties by virtue of section 67(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (“the ADT Act”).

6 Section 63(1) of the ADT Act provides that in determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law. It makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner's, and “there is no presumption that the decision of the [Commissioner] is correct” (McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357).

7 When there is a fact in issue as to the existence of which the Tribunal must be satisfied, it must be satisfied to the civil standard of proof, that is, on the balance of probabilities (McDonald at 357).

Applicable Legislation
8 The relevant provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 are found in sections 11 and 24 of that Act. Clause 17 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 is also applicable. As so far as they are relevant to these proceedings those sections and clause provide:


11 General restrictions on issue of licences
(1) The Commissioner may issue a licence in respect of an application, or refuse any such application.
(2) A licence must not be issued until after the end of the period of 28 days following the day on which the application is made.
(3) A licence must not be issued unless:
(a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace, and
…
(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3) (a), a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of:
(a) the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances, or
(b) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury, or
(c) the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.
(7) The Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.”

24 Revocation of licence
(1) A licence that authorises a person to possess or use a firearm is automatically revoked if the licensee becomes subject to a firearms prohibition order or an apprehended violence order.
(2) A licence may be revoked:

(a) for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind, or
(b) if the licensee:
(ii) contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations, whether or not the licensee has been convicted of an offence for the contravention, or
(iii) contravenes any condition of the licence, or
(c) if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or
(d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations.
9 Clause 17 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 provides:

17 Revocation of licence - additional reasons
In accordance with section 24 (2) (d) of the Act, a licence may be revoked if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for the person to whom it is issued to continue to hold it.”

Mr. FB's case
10 Mr. FB presented evidence on his own behalf. Ms FB also appeared and gave evidence on Mr. FB’s behalf. Mr. FB also relied on a statement by his neighbour and reports by Dr. F. R. Spruce, Consultant Psychiatrist and Mr. Roger F. Peters Consultant Psychologist. Mr. FB’s case is essentially based on the argument that the Commissioner's decision was not the correct and preferable decision because it failed to take sufficient account of the circumstances which lead to his suicide attempts and the confiscation of his weapons and the existing circumstances which have removed any risk that similar events would arise in the future.

11 Mr. FB’s evidence is that on 3 November 2001 he received serious head injuries in an assault and suffers vertigo and loss of hearing as a result. He was seeing Dr Frank Spruce regarding chronic headaches he had been getting since a mining accident several years earlier and these had worsened. On 14 January 2002 Dr Spruce put him on a new drug called Avanza. After a few days he started becoming very nervous and agitated. He went back to DR Spruce on Friday 8 February 2002 and Dr Spruce told him that the Avanza was making him feel that way because the dosage was not right. Dr Spruce doubled the dosage but Mr. FB’s condition worsened. He became irritable, violent and confused. Following a dispute with his wife, Mr. FB took an overdose of drugs.

12 Mr. FB visited Dr. Spruce the next day told him what he had done. Dr. Spruce told him to double up the dosage of the Avanza again and also double the dosage of other drugs that Mr. FB was taking (Celabrex and Oxi Contin). On Saturday 16 February 2002 Mr. FB’s wife rang him and told him that she was in a refuge. He was worried his wife would tell the refuge staff that he was a gun owner and that he might lose his guns as a result. He asked a friend to take them to take care of them. Mr. FB was frightened of losing the guns as they had belonged to his father and grandfather and they were of significant personal and sentimental value.

13 On the night of 16 February 2002 the police called to Mr. FB’s house, woke him up and demanded that he open the door. They pushed their way into Mr. FB’s house and asked him for his firearms. Mr. FB told them that the firearms were not there and invited them to search the house. Mr. FB had forgotten about a slug gun that was stored in a cupboard in the house but the police did not search and did not find it. The police then made Mr. FB get dressed and took him to Maitland hospital. He was taken home again after he had been assessed.

14 The next day Mr. FB learned that the police had removed the firearms from his friend’s house. Mr. FB then went to the police station and the police told him he would never get the firearms back. In anger Mr. FB said he might as well “top himself” as he had lost everything that meant anything to him.

15 On 8 March 2002, after being released from Maitland hospital, Mr. FB visited Dr Spruce and Dr Spruce apologised to him and his wife for not observing the affect that Avanza was having on him.

16 Over the following weeks Mr. FB repeatedly became agitated and nervous at times. He felt ashamed, embarrassed and hurt about the way he was treated by his doctors and the police and about losing his father’s guns and his reputation. He had a dispute with his wife about the fact that he just sat around and would not leave the house. His wife left and that night he again attempted suicide.

17 Mr. FB asserts that at the time of this incident he was no longer taking the drugs that had caused the initial problems, however the remnants of those drugs were still in his body and affecting his behaviour.

18 Following an incident on Sunday 21 April 2002 Mr. FB was left badly injured. He had a bad gash above his eye which needed several stitches, one on his head, a large cut on his back and bruising to his chest, hip, legs and under his arms.

19 Mr. FB again saw Dr Spruce on 16 July 2002. Dr Spruce had put him on another drug called Epalin to stabilise his nerves, but he developed a bad rash as a result. Mr. FB again went to see his GP who told Mr. FB to stop taking the Epalin, as he was having a bad reaction to it. Mr. FB has not visited Dr Spruce since then as he has lost confidence in him. Mr. FB has stopped taking that kind of medication, he has lost his irritability, aggression and irrationality and has never felt better.

20 Ms FB gave evidence that On Monday 18 February 2002 she personally rang Dr. Spruce and told him that she thought it was the drug Avanza that was causing Mr. FB’s problems as the problems had started shortly after Mr. FB commenced taking the drug and had then worsened. Mr. FB refused to go to Dr. Spruce’s surgery and so Dr. Spruce arranged for him to be taken to hospital. When Mr. FB got to the hospital he was assessed and taken off the drug Avanza. He was kept at the hospital until he was reasonably calm.

21 Mr. FB relied on the reports of both Dr. Spruce and Mr Peters. In Dr. Spruce’s report dated 12 March 2002 he states:

“When seen on 15th February 2002 he complained of worsening pain, hopeless feelings and told me he had taken an overdose the previous night. He told me his wife had left him and was hiding in a refuge. I doubled his Avanza, his Oxycontin and his Celebrex, and in the following 24 hours his behaviour deteriorated. He became agitated and irrational, acting in ways that had not been previously evident.
Following hospitalisation the medications were all ceased and he lost his irritability, aggression and irrationality, but he continues to experience severe pain.
He has a history of one similar episode of irrational behaviour in response to Midazolam some years ago.
In my opinion, it is highly probably that his behaviour that has brought him to the attention of the police is a chemically induced reaction to changes in medication. This change has since resolved and he has returned to his former self. It is unlikely that it will happen again, but I cannot guarantee that.
I am aware that Mr FB places much sentimental value on the guns that belonged to his father and grandfather, who are both deceased. As far as I am aware he has not used the guns recently and has kept them secure.
All of these factors need to be considered in his application for review of his Gun Licence. It there are doubts over his current capacity and its relationship to the recent events a longer period of say six months could be initiated before a final decision. If the decision were not to renew the Licence then an alternative would be for a family member to take out a Licence and maintain the weapons in their possession.”
22 Mr. FB agrees with the views expressed by Dr. Spruce in that he considers that his behaviour was a chemically induced reaction to changes in medication and that having ceased his medication he has lost his irritability, aggression and irrationality.

23 In Mr Peters’ report dated 15 October 2002 he states:

“Conclusion and Prognosis
Prior to this incident Mr FB had held a firearms licence for 10 years without serious infringement, despite suffering symptoms of chronic pain and depression. In my opinion the combination of injuries resulting from the assault in November 2001, an adverse reaction to the combination of medications and their interaction with alcohol has resulted in this apparently isolated period of transgression.
I further note, despite attempting suicide twice throughout this period of instability, both times after his wife left him, Mr FB has not attempted to use his weapons on himself or others, even after being viciously assaulted. Despite the irrational nature of his behaviour Mr FB's main concern with relation to these weapons seems to have been to ensure they were stored as safely as possible.
As Dr Spruce has noted, Mr FB lost his irrationality, aggression and irritability once his medications were ceased. He appears to have been quite stable for the past five months, especially since the introduction of Epilim and a reduction in his alcohol intake. Thus, as the basis for the revocation of his licence seems to have been resolved, I would consider in the light of Dr Spruce's report, he should be accorded some consideration for a shooter's permit.”
24 Mr. FB generally agrees with the views expressed by Mr Peters but denies that he has ever had a problem with excessive alcohol consumption. He notes however that he has significantly reduced his level of alcohol consumption so it is unlikely to be of any significance in the future. He argues that he is no threat to the public or to himself and therefore there is no reason why he should not have his licence returned.

The Commissioner's case
25 The Police Service’s file was put in evidence and the Commissioner relied on the documents contained within that file. The Commissioner’s case is essentially that outlined in the reasons provided following the internal review. With the exception of the particular circumstances of the case, there is no general suggestion that Mr. FB is not a person of good character. However, the Commissioner considers that there is a public interest issue to be considered and that the interest of public safety must outweigh any personal interests that Mr. FB might have in possessing his firearms.

26 In so far as they are relevant to these proceedings, the reasons given following the internal review and upon which the Commissioner relies provided:

“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 revoke a licence. I have formed the view that the legislative provisions listed above are relevant to your particular case. Further, I have noted the above mentioned issues raised by you in support of your application.
After fully and independently considering all relevant matters I make the following fresh determination.
Previous attempt to commit suicide
I note that you told police that you tried to kill yourself with an overdose of sleeping tablets and that you blamed your wife for saving you. Again, on 16 February 2002 an anonymous female telephoned the police stating that you had threatened to shoot yourself.
Further, when questioned by police on 16 February 2002 you stated that you were going to kill yourself as you had had enough, and on 17 February 2002 you stated to police that if you didn't have your rifles that " life was over " and “ I’ll top myself”.
I note that on 1 April 2002 when police attended your home they found you slumped on the front seat of a Ford Zephyr with the engine running and the car window open. The garage was locked and engulfed with carbon monoxide fumes. You were dragged from the car and as a result of your rescue, a Senior Constable was also treated for breathing difficulties due to the inhalation of carbon monoxide fumes.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that you have attempted suicide and I therefore refer to Section 24(2)(a) of the Firearms Act, 1996, which provides that a firearms licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind and Section 1l(4)(b) of the Firearms Act, 1996, which states that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant's previous attempt to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury.
Not in public interest
I note that on 14 February 2002 you tried to kill yourself with an overdose of sleeping tablets and that you blamed your wife for saving you. Again, on 16 February 2002 an anonymous female telephoned the police stating that you had threatened to shoot yourself.
Further, when questioned by police on 16 February 2002 regarding the firearm you had not surrendered, you stated that you were going to kill yourself as you had had enough, and on 17 February 2002 you stated to police that if you didn't have your rifles that " life was over " and “ I'II top myself ".
I note that on 1 April 2002 you had been drinking heavily and allegedly assaulted your wife by punching her to the rear of the head. Later that day, when police attended your home with the intention of arresting you regarding that assault allegation, they found you slumped on the front seat of a Ford Zephyr with the engine running and the car window open. The garage was locked and engulfed with carbon monoxide fumes.
I note that your psychiatrist, Dr Spruce, stated on 12 March 2002 that, in his opinion, the behaviour that brought you to the attention of the police was a chemically induced reaction to changes in medication. Dr Spruce also stated that this change has since resolved and you have returned to your former self. I note that Dr Spruce further stated his opinion that it is unlikely that these incidents will happen again, but that he cannot guarantee that.
I note that you were prescribed a drug, Avanza, to which you were allergic, that caused a chemical change in your brain. However, your use of this drug ceased on 18 February 2002 and therefore it is unlikely that it contributed to your alleged assault on your wife on 1 April 2002. I also note Dr Spruce's most recent medical opinion expressed on 25 June 2002 that, although it is unlikely your disturbed behaviour could be directly attributable to Avanza medication, it is probable that the combinations of medication and the coexisting alcohol abuse contributed significantly to your irrational/aggressive behaviour.

Notwithstanding your recent change of medication, I am not satisfied that a sufficient period has elapsed to satisfy community concerns that your current medication has effectively rectified the previous situation.
I further note Dr Spruce's advice of your intermittent but longstanding abuse of alcohol. His opinion that it is probable that the combinations of medication and the coexisting alcohol abuse contributed significantly to your irrational/aggressive behaviour raises concerns that if your current balanced behaviour has been effected by medication, this balance may be compromised when the medication is combined with the intake of alcohol.
In light of these concerns and their implied risk to public safety, I refer to Clause 17 of the Firearms Regulation, 1997, which provides that a licence may be revoked if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for the person to whom it is issued to continue to hold it.
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 possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms. ...
I note that on 16 February 2002 you rang your neighbour, and asked him to come to your house and get your firearms or you would shoot yourself. Thereafter you gave six of your seven firearms to your neighbour who is not a NSW firearms licence holder. Your neighbour placed them in a solo bin until a lady staying at his house called police a couple of hours later and asked them to come and get the firearms.
I further note that, later that day, in your irrational state you lied to police regarding the whereabouts of one of your firearms. This resulted in your continued possession of that firearm for a further week after police had seized your other firearms.
As a firearms licence holder you are aware of the responsibilities regarding safe storage of firearms. Taking your firearms from their safe storage to give to an unlicensed person and allowing them to be placed unsecured in a solo bin was in direct contravention of the conditions of your licence which state:
The licence holder must:
- Comply with the relevant safe keeping and storage requirements under Section 40 of the Firearms Act, 1996, and
- Not permit any other person to possess or use the firearm in the licensee's possession if that other person is not authorised to possess or use the firearm.
Notwithstanding the fact that your agitated condition may have been induced by a combination of alcohol and incorrect medication, responsibilities extended to licence holders are of a serious nature and licence holders must not only understand and comprehend the guidelines and laws that govern them they also must act in accordance to the same. Your actions, in my view, were contrary to the principles and objectives of the Act in relation to the strict control of firearms in the interests of public safety.”
27 The report of Mr. Peters, Consultant Psychologist, is dated 15 October 2002. Clearly it was not available at the time of the internal review. Mr. Capper for the Commissioner argued that Mr. Peters’ report does not alter the Commissioner’s position. He argued that while Mr. FB has maintained a period of stability since his suicide attempts, insufficient time has passed since those incidents for the public to be comfortable with his holding a firearms licence. Mr. Capper asked the Tribunal to note that Dr Spruce had stated in his March 12 2002 report that it is unlikely that Mr. FB’s conduct will be repeated, but that he cannot guarantee it.

28 Further, in his 25 June 2002 report Dr Spruce stated that:


“In retrospect, it is unlikely that the disturbed behaviour could be directly attributable to Avanza medication, though in my opinion, it is probable that the combinations of meditation and the co-existing alcohol abuse contributed significantly to the irrational/aggressive behaviour. …
The depth of disturbance of these episodes of irrational behaviour has been moderate to severe. The alcohol abuse has been intermittent, but longstanding. He will continue to experience chronic neck pain, but his current level of functioning is vastly improved. It remains difficult to say whether that can be maintained for the future.”

29 Mr. Capper also asked the Tribunal to take into consideration the fact that Mr. FB breached a condition of his licence in allowing the firearms to be held by his unlicensed friend and allowing them to be stored in circumstances that did not comply with the applicable legislation. This of itself is sufficient to warrant cancellation of the licence. There is an obligation on a licence holder to ensure that all conditions of the licence are satisfied.

30 Mr. Capper argued that there must be virtually no risk to public safety before Mr. FB is given a firearms licence. He submitted that the Tribunal could not be satisfied to that standard and therefore the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.

Findings
31 In this application, I have considered all of the evidence and the oral argument presented before the Tribunal. In particular I have had regard to the following issues:

- Mr. FB is 57 years of age and up until 16 February 2002 he had never been in trouble or come to the notice of police in any way;
- Mr. FB has been a responsible firearms owner and obeyed all the firearm laws since 1960;
- the firearms Mr. FB owns belonged to his father and grandfather, who are both deceased, and his father-in-law;
- Mr. FB suffers from and receives treatment for chronic headaches;
- on 3 November 2001 Mr. FB were viciously assaulted. He has been left with Vertigo and has lost about 60% hearing in his right ear, which will require a hearing aid;
- as he suffered from massive headaches, had hardly eaten and was not sleeping, on 14 January 2002 Mr. FB saw a psychiatrist, Dr Spruce, who prescribed a drug called Avanza. Over the following two weeks Mr. FB became very nervous and agitated and continued to get worse as time went on;
- on 15 February 2002 Dr Spruce doubled Mr. FB’s dosage of Avanza, Celabrex and Oxycontin and this increased dosage made Mr. FB significantly worse. Mr. FB was allergic to the Avanza which caused a chemical change in his brain;
- on 16 February 2002 Mr. FB gave six of his seven firearms to an unlicensed neighbour who placed them in a solo bin until later seized by police. He forgot to tell them about the slug gun stored in the house, and, he later surrender that to the police;
- on 16 February 2002 Mr. FB told police that he had recently tried to kill himself with an overdose of sleeping tablets. Mr. FB told police that he had got rid of his firearms and invited them to search the house;
- on 17 February 2002 Mr. FB attended Cessnock police station and demanded that his rifles be returned to him. He stated to police that if he didn't have his rifles that "life was over" and “I'll top myself”;
- on 18 February 2002 Mr. FB was admitted to the Maitland Health Unit at which time his dosage of Avanza and Morphine was ceased but his dosage of Zoloft was continued at the direction of Dr Spruce;
- on 1 April 2002 Mr. FB had been drinking heavily and assaulted his wife by punching her to the rear of the head. At that time Mr. FB remained free of Avanza but continued with Panadeine Forte and Zoloft. When police attended Mr. FB’s home with the intention of arresting him for that assault, they found Mr. FB slumped on the front seat of a Ford Zephyr with the engine running and the car window open. The garage was locked and engulfed with carbon monoxide fumes;
- on 5 April 2002 Dr Spruce prescribed for Mr. FB Epilim medication (a mood stabiliser used in Manic Depressive Disorders);
- it is Dr Spruce 's medical opinion that it is unlikely that Mr. FB’s disturbed behaviour could be directly attributable to Avanza medication;
- it is Dr Spruce' s medical opinion that it is probable that the combinations of medication and the coexisting alcohol abuse contributed significantly to Mr. FB’s irrational/aggressive behaviour;
- Dr Spruce has advised that Mr. FB’s "alcohol abuse has been intermittent, but longstanding ".
- Mr Peters is of the opinion that the combination of injuries resulting from the assault in November 2001, an adverse reaction to the combination of medications and their interaction with alcohol has resulted in this apparently isolated period of transgression by Mr. FB. Mr. FB lost his irrationality, aggression and irritability once his medications were ceased.
- Mr Peters has advised that Mr. FB is not currently suffering from a recognisable psychiatric disorder and the basis for the revocation of his licence seems to have been resolved.
32 I acknowledge that Mr. FB has disputed certain of the opinions recorded in the police incident log and his evidence that he has been significantly affected by the way he has been treated by the police. However, I do not believe that these issues are relevant to these proceedings and they are therefore disregarded.

33 The principal issue that I have to decide is whether there is a risk to the safety of either the public or Mr. FB if he is granted a licence. If the conduct he exhibited in early 2002 returned, there is a grave risk that someone could suffer harm as a consequence. Ready access to firearms could aggravate the situation.

34 I note that the reports upon which Mr. FB relies suggest that there is little likelihood of those incidents re-occurring. However, I must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk of that being the case.

35 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. In my view, the reasons for decision following the internal review which I have quoted above provide an accurate statement of the law and, with the exceptions referred to by Mr. FB, provide a reasonable assessment of the factors to be considered.

36 Taking account of the competing considerations, I cannot be satisfied that Mr. FB poses virtually no risk to public safety. While almost a year has passed since the initial incidents occurred and there have been no further incidents since April 2002, without further evidence I cannot be satisfied that sufficient time has passed since those incidents for the public to be comfortable with Mr. FB holding a firearms licence. It follows in my view that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke his firearms licence. Accordingly I affirm the Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr. FB’s firearms licence.

37 Mr. FB has sought some indication of what would be a reasonable amount of time that should pass before he would be eligible to recover his licence. I am unable to give that indication. I note however that I have formed this view on the evidence before me. The most recent psychological report is some three months old. It is possible that Mr. FB could obtain another psychiatric report giving clear evidence of his psychological stability and could satisfy the Commissioner that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and that he poses virtually no risk to public safety. If that is the case and if Mr. FB were to reapply for firearms licences, the Commissioner may well reach a different conclusion.

Orders
The Commissioner’s decision to revoke Mr. FB’s Category ABG firearms licence is affirmed.