GORDON and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - [2024] WASAT 37

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA)
CITATION:   GORDON and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] WASAT 37
MEMBER:   MS A KING, MEMBER
HEARD:   9 APRIL 2024
DELIVERED          :   30 APRIL 2024
FILE NO/S:   CC 320 of 2023
BETWEEN:   MATTHEW CHARLES GORDON
Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Respondent

Catchwords:

Firearms - Revocation of firearm licence - Genuine reason - Fit and proper person - Term of imprisonment - Length of time since period of offending

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 9A(7), s 10, s 11(1)(b), s 11(1)(c), s 11(2), s 11(2)(a), s 11(2)(b), s 11(2)(c), s 11(2)(d), s 11(2)(e), s 11(3), s 11(3)(a), s 11(3)(a)(iv), s 11A(1), s 11A(2), s 18(1), s 20(1)(a)(iii), s 22(2)
Firearms Amendment Act 1996 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(4), s 39(3), s 77(1)(6)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 13, s 17, s 22, s 27

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms S Cottage
Respondent	:	Mr T Andrews

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Andrews Legal
Respondent	:	N/A

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Blackman and Commissioner of Police [2018] WASAT 20
Clema and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 24
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Docherty and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASAT 96
Johnson v Vander Sanden [2021] WASCA 27
Knight and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASAT 104
McGee v Chitty [2011] WASCA 125
Tavelli v Johnson (Unreported, WASC Library No 960693, 25 November 1996)
Turner v Keegan [2001] WASCA 9
Wally and Commissioner of Police [2014] WASAT 98
Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

By application dated 9 March 2023, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review under s 22(2) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) (Firearms Act), of a decision made by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner or respondent) to revoke his firearms licence.

The applicant held a Firearms Licence No. 10014640 (firearms licence) without conditions as follows:
(a)Rifle (make: Tikka; serial number J56105; calibre 223REM);
(b)Rifle (make: Cogswell & Harrison; serial number: C321315; calibre: 22 LONG RIFLE);
(c)Rifle (make: CZ; serial number: F368087; calibre: 22WMR);
(d)Shotgun (make: Fabarm; serial number: 2035358; calibre: 12G); and
(e)Shotgun (make: Baikal; serial number: 9503633; calibre: 12G).[1]
[1] Respondent's bundle of documents, pages 7 – 8.
The licence was revoked by letter dated 28 February 2023 on the basis that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
The applicant has applied to this Tribunal seeking a review of the decision.

The factual background and matters not in dispute

Many key facts were not in dispute between the parties and the Tribunal makes the following findings of fact by agreement between the parties.
The applicant held the firearms licence for the use and possession of five firearms and has held a licence since about 2017 during which time he has not contravened the firearms legislation.
The respondent, on 8 March 2023, served the applicant with a letter dated 28 February 2023 notifying the applicant that his firearms licence has been revoked (revocation letter).
The revocation letter advised the applicant that the respondent had formed the view that he did not meet the legislative requirements under s 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act in that he was deemed to not be a fit and proper person pursuant to s 11(1)(c) of the Firearms Act.
On 14 February 2023 the Busselton Magistrates Court issued an interim Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) MCCIV/Bus/RO/38 2023.[2]
[2] The applicant's statement of issues, facts and contentions dated 20 December 2023 (SIFC).
The person protected by the FVRO is [Ms C] the applicant's former partner.[3]
[3] Ibid above.
In accordance with the FVRO the applicant must not be in possession of a firearm, a firearms licence or obtain a firearms licence.[4]
[4] Ibid above.
The interim FVRO became final on 26 February 2023 for a 6 month period and expired on 25 August 2023.[5]
[5] Ibid above.
The FVRO's was breached on three counts on 23, 26 and 27 May 2023 and the applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted for all three counts and paid a fine in the global sum of $1,400.[6]
[6] Ibid above.
The FVRO's was breached again on 30 July 2023 as the applicant made four phone calls and left one voicemail on [Ms C's] mobile phone. He appeared at the Bunbury Magistrates Court and the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven months imprisonment suspended for 12 months without conditions from 23 November 2023.
It is agreed between the parties that in regard to the convictions which resulted from the breaches of the FVRO (both of which were recorded after the applicant lodged this application for review), the relative recency of the convictions, and how, in general terms the convictions and in particular the suspended term of imprisonment which was ordered by the Bunbury Magistrate Court reflect on the character of the applicant in the circumstance, are relevant in the consideration of the application.
As of 5 February 2024, the applicant's licence expired.
The issue for determination by the Tribunal
The issue to be determined is, whether the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the applicant's firearms licence pursuant to s 20(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act.
This requires as a sub-issue to be decided as to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence within the meaning of s 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act.

Procedure before the Tribunal

The Tribunal made numerous case management orders in preparation for the hearing.
A final hearing of the application was held on 9 April 2024 (Hearing).
At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence and was crossexamined by Ms Kottage on behalf of the respondent. The applicant called Dr Phil Watts to give evidence and his legal representative made submissions as did Ms Kottage.
No other persons gave evidence.
Each of the parties filed various documents which, after there being no objections, were compiled into a Hearing Book prepared by the Tribunal and taken into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1.
No further additional documents were accepted into evidence at the hearing.

The applicant's main contentions

The applicant's main contentions may be summarised as follows:
(1)The interim FVRO was made without scrutiny and confirmed as the applicant did not object to it.
(2)The FVRO was relatively short and the length of the FVRO is shorter than what is usually imposed by the court.
(3)The breaches of the FVRO occurred by electronic means.
(4)None of the offending conduct involved physical violence or stalking behaviour.
(5)There has been a passage of time since his last offending and there has been no application to extend the FVRO which has now lapsed.
(6)The applicant has demonstrated remorse insight by his guilty pleas and by him undergoing counselling and psychological treatment.
(7)The suspended term of imprisonment imposed should not be a bar to the applicant being granted a firearms licence.

The respondent's main contentions

The respondent's main contentions may be summarised as follows:
(1)the applicant has four convictions for breaching an FVRO;
(2)the applicant's most recent conviction is objectively serious gauged by the suspended term of imprisonments imposed;
(3)there has been insufficient time to objectively assess the likelihood of reoffending; and
(4)the applicant has shown a lack of insight and genuine remorse for his conduct demonstrated by his behaviour in repeatedly breaching a comparatively short FVRO of a sixmonth period.[7]
[7] Respondent's SIFC dated 8 December 2023, para 22.
Accordingly, he is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the respondent's decision to revoke it.

Statutory Framework

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)

In making the application to the Tribunal, the applicant has exercised his statutory right to seek review of a reviewable decision pursuant to s 22 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). The application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction by reason of s 13 and s 17 of the SAT Act.
In exercising the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is to review the decision by way of a hearing de novo for the purposes of making the correct and preferable decision based on the information and the evidence before the Tribunal at the time of review.[8]
[8] SAT Act, s 27.
All the functions and discretions conferred on the original decision‑maker are conferred on the Tribunal, in addition to the powers conferred on the Tribunal by the SAT Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Commissioner to make the correct or preferable decision.
The power exercised by the Tribunal is not a judicial power, but rather a statutory administrative power, exercisable for the purpose of the control and licensing of firearms.
On review, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision and, in the latter case, may substitute its own decision to arrive at the correct and preferable decision.
In accordance with s 9 of the SAT Act in conducting the proceeding, the Tribunal is to review decisions fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case.

The Firearms Act 1973 (WA)

The matter of Blackman[9] referred to the purpose of the Act:
[9] Blackman and Commissioner of Police [2018] WASAT 20 at [22].
… is expressed to be to make provision for the control and regulation of firearms and ammunition, the licensing of persons processing, using, dealing with or manufacturing firearms and ammunition and for incidental and other purposes[.]
The history and the purposes of the amendments made to the Firearms Act by the Firearms Amendment Act 1996 (WA) (Amendment Act) are referred to in Turner v Keegan [2001] WASCA 9 and McGee v Chitty [2011] WASCA 125 (McGee).
The broad purpose of the Firearms Act, as amended, is to protect the public. One of the means adopted by the legislature to protect the public from the misuse of firearms is to provide a system of control over the ownership and use of firearms by a system of licences, permits and approvals: McGee per Mazza JA at [31].
There are a number of provisions which prohibit or restrict the grant of a firearms licence under the Firearms Act. Having regard to those provisions, the prerequisites for the issue of a firearms licence to an applicant are:
(a)the applicant must be aged 18 years or over.[10]
[10] Firearms Act, s 10.
(b)the Commissioner cannot grant a firearm licence if the Commissioner is of the opinion that to do so is not desirable in the interests of public safety;[11] and
[11] Firearms Act, s 11(1)(b).
(c)the applicant must be a fit and proper person to hold the firearms licence.[12]
[12] Firearms Act, s 11(1)(c).
Section 11(3) of the Firearms Act relevantly provides that the Commissioner has a sufficient ground for forming an opinion that a person is not a fit and proper person to hold an approval, permit or licence under this Act if the Commissioner:
(a)is satisfied that at any time within the period of 5 years before the person applies for the approval, permit or licence —
…
(iv)a violence restraining order was made against the person[.]
Under s 11A(1) of the Firearms Act, the applicant must have a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing the firearm or ammunition.
In the present circumstances the decision made by the respondent referring to s 11(3)(a)(iv) of the Firearms Act was that the respondent has sufficient ground for forming an opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold an approval, permit or licence under the Firearms Act. If satisfied that at any time within the period of 5 years before the person applies for the approval, permit or licence a violence restraining order was made against the person whether in this state or in any other place.
Accordingly, the firearms licence is revoked.
It is this decision that is under review.

The evidence on behalf of the applicant

The applicant told the Tribunal under Oath that he worked as a roller technician but is a plumber by trade.
[Ms C] and he were in a relationship for about 3 years from 2019 until 2022 when the relationship ended. It was difficult time, and the circumstances of his offending involved the consumption of alcohol.
Thereafter he ran into her at a concert and a verbal altercation occurred which culminated in him grabbing her phone and throwing it across the road damaging it. He contacted her the next day in order to replace it.
[Ms C] then applied for the FVRO.
The applicant was gifted two guns from his late father hence these are of special significance to him.
The applicant admitted he last consumed alcohol at a celebration in late November 2023.
The applicant lodged a report dated 19 December 2023 of Evolve Psychology Group demonstrating that the applicant attended three sessions for counselling on 4 August 2023, 27 September 2023 and 17 October 2023.[13]
[13] Hearing Book, Exhibit 1 (Exhibit 1), page 34.
In addition, a report dated 1 November 2023 by diversion officer Andrea Hodgson of Southwest Community Alcohol and Drug Service noting the applicant attended five sessions in total for counselling with the service and engaged well as part of the court's mandatory diversion programme.[14]
[14] Exhibit 1, pages 35 and 36.
A medical report of Dr Phil Watts dated 21 December 2023 was accepted into evidence and he gave evidence at the hearing.
Evidence of Dr Watts
Dr Watts conducted a detailed clinical interview, reviewed the offence history, and conducted five different psychological tests. He formed the view that the applicant did not show any major psychological pathology and was reasonably easy to interview.[15]
[15] Dr Phil Watts, medical report dated 21 December 2023, para 7.
The report noted that the test results demonstrate that the applicant has a history of a mild alcohol disorder.[16]
[16] Ibid, para 11.
The applicant self-reported that his second relationship was with [Ms C] and, in the break-up process, [Ms C] took out a violence restraining order. She successfully got the order on the strength of an argument they had, where the applicant threw her phone and, subsequently, there were three breaches of the FVRO.
Dr Watts observed in his report:
There are no particular markers in this assessment which increase his risk of violence. Similarly, I find no evidence of suicidal or homicidal ideation. I note that on the PAI, Dominance was higher than Warmth. Such a combination means he is likely to be quite confident and, at times, dominant, and the Aggression scales were slightly above-average which would indicate a tendency to be quite assertive. This combination may cause him to be argumentative but there is nothing to indicate a violence risk potential.
In summary, he found [the applicant] had been involved with guns for quite some time. Two of the weapons have sentimental value, given they were passed-on from his father who died of cancer four years ago, the others involved in shooting targets. In conducting this assessment, there were no markers to indicate any unusual aspects of his functioning likely to cause risk. In particular, while his drinking is negligible the risk will remain low. I note that other circumstances in life can vary risk, but at this time I see nothing which would indicate problematic use of firearms and there were no markers to indicate that he should not have access to a firearms licence.[17]
In sum Dr Watts told the Tribunal that the level of risk if Mr Gordon continues to abstain from alcohol is negligible and with alcohol use there is a degree of risk. From a family violence perspective, the test results show him to be of low risk.
Dr Watts added that to a degree Mr Gordon had appropriate insight. He should be understood as someone that is 'light on insight but not devoid of insight. He is aware the alcohol allows him to do things which he regrets when he is sober'.

Evidence on behalf of the respondent

[17] Ibid, para 21.

The respondent did not call any witnesses and relied on the documents lodged with the Tribunal.[18]
[18] Exhibit 1.
The applicant is currently subject to a suspended term of imprisonment until 23 November 2024.
A fundamental principle of sentencing law that applies in Western Australia is clearly expressed in the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) (Sentencing Act), is that imprisonment, and in particular immediate imprisonment, is a punishment of last resort.[19]
[19] Johnson v Vander Sanden [2021] WASCA 27 [4].
In particular, s 6(4) of the Sentencing Act states:
A court must not impose a sentence of imprisonment on an offender unless it decides that —
(a)the seriousness of the offence is such that only imprisonment can be justified; or
(b)the protection of the community requires it.
Section 77(1)(6) of the Sentencing Act relevantly provides:
For the purposes of a law other than this Part and Parts 12 and 13, a sentence of suspended imprisonment is to be taken as being a sentence of imprisonment.
The Respondent submits that it would be contrary to the purpose and the intent of the Firearms Act for the applicant to be found to be a 'fit and proper' person to hold a firearms licence in circumstances where he is currently subject to a sentence of imprisonment.
Despite the applicant having taken some positive steps since his last offending, only a short period of time has passed since his last offence and he received the suspended imprisonment order.
The Respondent submits that there has been insufficient time to assess whether there has been a change in the applicant or his behaviour coinciding with him making the decision to be abstinent from alcohol.[20]
[20] Exhibit 1 page 141, para 10.

Consideration by the Tribunal

The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether, the correct and preferable decision was to revoke the applicant's firearms licence pursuant to s 20(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act.
This requires as a sub-issue for the Tribunal to decide whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence within the meaning of s 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act.
Whilst the fit and proper person test is the central issue, because the Tribunal undertakes a review hearing de novo, it must, in reaching its decision, be satisfied of the applicant's eligibility and suitability to hold a firearm licence, taking account of all relevant criteria under the Firearms Act, in respect of which the applicant bears a 'practical onus'.[21]
[21] See Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [279] – [285].
In circumstances where the Tribunal varies the decision or sets it aside and substitutes a new decision, then it remains that the applicant's licence has expired.
The Tribunal notes that in accordance with s 9A(7) of the Firearms Act, a licence cannot be renewed under this section more than 12 months after its expiry, but the person who held it, is not prevented from making an application for a licence under s 18(1).
The applicant was born on 25 April 1999, and I find that he meets the criterion that he must be over 18 years old.
In accordance with s 11A(2):
(2)a person has a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition if and only if —
(a)it is for use by the person as a member of an approved shooting club and the person is an active and financial member of the club; or
(b)it is for use by the person as a member of an organisation approved under this paragraph; or
(c)it is for use in hunting or shooting of a recreational nature on land the owner of which has given written permission for that hunting or shooting; or
(d)it is required by the person in the course of the person's occupation; or
(da)in the case of a prescribed paintball gun, it is required by the person to conduct or engage in paintball in accordance with this Act; or
(e)it is to form part of a genuine firearm collection or genuine ammunition collection; or
(f)it is for another approved purpose.

Dr Watts in his report notes that:
[The applicant] indicated to him that he has been an avid shooter since beginning shooting with his father. When his father passed away, he inherited 2 guns from his father which hold sentimental value. [The applicant] indicated that he shoots targets for fun and then, through his boss at work, got involved with shooting clay targets by using a shotgun. He said that he occasionally has shot vermin animals for pet meat. He indicated that he is currently a lapsed member of a gun club. He has not renewed his membership for fear of paying money and then not having his guns returned to him.[22]
[22] Report of Dr Watts dated 21 December 2023, para 19 citing Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6(4), s 39(3); Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321 (Dinsdale) 328 [14] (Gleeson CJ & Hayne J).
I find that the applicant is not a financial member of a shooting club.[23]
[23] Ibid.
The Tribunal is satisfied if he was a financial member, the applicant is then likely to satisfy s 11A(2)(a) of the Firearms Act as having a genuine reason for possessing a firearm as he would then be an active member of an approved shooting club.
On the evidence I am satisfied that he is not a financial member of a shooting club and I accordingly I find that presently the applicant does not fall within the meaning of s 11(2)(a) of the Firearms Act.
I am satisfied and so find that the applicant is not a member of an organisation or is seeking a firearms licence for use in hunting or shooting of a recreational nature on land the owner of which has given written permission for that hunting or shooting. I find that presently the applicant does not fall within the meaning of s 11(2)(b) and (c) of the Firearms Act.
I am satisfied and so find that the applicant presently does not require a gun licence for occupational purposes in accordance with s 11(2)(d) of the Firearms Act.
There was no evidence put that s 11(2)(e) of the Firearms Act applies, to support a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm.
The applicant is seeking a gun licence for sentimental reasons as he would like to keep his father's gun, but no evidence was put that he has a genuine firearm collection. I accept the evidence of the respondent that appropriate steps could be taken to facilitate the applicant keeping his fathers' guns without a firearms licence.
I am not satisfied that in the present circumstances the applicant has a genuine reason in accordance with s 11(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may be able to become an active member of an approved shooting club in order to pursue shooting for sport.

Fit and proper person

I have considered the circumstances of the making of the FVRO and the transcript of the applicant's proceedings in the Magistrates Court and note the Magistrate made findings that the applicant committed family violence against [Ms C][24] even low-level domestic violence by any means in the community is causing significant amount of damage to people's lives.[25]
[24] Exhibit 1 page 133.
[25] Ibid.
The court at Bunbury made a finding that the applicant was in a third strike position having commented that 'people don't take restraining orders seriously'[26] and considered whether in the circumstances it would be unjust to impose a term of imprisonment.
[26] Exhibit 1 page 137.
The applicant at the time admitted to having a problem with alcohol and drugs.[27]
[27] Ibid.
The applicant was given credit for the positive steps he has taken since the offending. The order that was made was a suspended term of imprisonment for 12 months.[28] That order has not yet expired.
[28] Ibid page 138.
The respondent submits that it would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the legislation for the applicant to be found a 'fit and proper' person to hold a firearm licence in circumstances where he is currently subject to a sentence of imprisonment.
The Firearms legislation is described as:[29]
An Act to make provision for the control and regulation of firearms and ammunition, the licensing of persons possessing, using, dealing with, or manufacturing firearms and ammunition, the repeal of the Firearms and Guns Act 1931 (WA) and for incidental and other purposes.
[29] Preamble of Firearms Act.
In the matter of Clema[30] at [36], the Tribunal affirmed the view that the Firearms Act 'evinces a purpose to closely regulate firearms in the public interest, and that this was achieved by establishing a licensing system for firearms'.
[30] Clema and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 24 at [36].
Public protection and safety from the misuse of firearms is central to an understanding of the regulatory scheme provided for by the Firearms Act which 'controls the possession, carriage and use of firearms by a system of licences, permits and approvals'. McGee at [31] per Mazza JA.
The discretion of the Tribunal must be exercised within the regulatory scheme of the provisions of the Firearms Act. The question as to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm's licence must therefore be determined within the framework and objectives of the enabling Act.
It must be borne in mind that the licensing regime under the Firearms Act is not intended as a form of punishment but, rather, an assessment whether a person is fit and proper to hold a firearm.[31]
[31] Docherty and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASAT 96 at [44].
In the matter of Tavelli[32] Justice Wheeler in relation to the expression 'fit and proper' stated at [7]:
It must be stressed … that there can be no inflexible rules and no policy but that the discretion falls to be exercised anew in the circumstances of each application in the light of the statutory framework.
[32] Tavelli v Johnson (Unreported, WASC Library No 960693, 25 November 1996).
The Tribunal is therefore entitled to take all circumstances and relevant evidence into consideration.
Referring to Tavelli the Tribunal in the matter of Wally[33] referred to factors observed that in accordance with Tavelli may indicate that a person remains a fit and proper person to hold a licence, notwithstanding prior convictions. Those factors were described as:
1)Where the person convicted demonstrates genuine remorse and contrition, true insight and understanding of the earlier turpitudes … the understanding demonstrated will generally carry more weight if it can be shown that it is demonstrated by the person's actions as well as by their words;
2)If the offences were committed a substantial time ago;
3)Any change in the person's circumstances from the time of the commission of the offences which indicates that the factors giving rise to the offences have been eliminated; and
4)A person's character generally since his commission of the offences including his lack of offending, age, family support, paid and voluntary work and character references. As to the character references, I would caution that they will often be of more value if it appears from their terms that they were made in full knowledge of the fact of the commission of the offences.
[33] Wally and Commissioner of Police [2014] WASAT 98 at [42].
The Tribunal accepts the evidence put forward by the applicant in relation to the circumstances leading up to the making of the FVRO and the subsequent breaches of the FVRO. He has taken steps towards addressing those by 'learning not to let things bottle up' and 'distracting himself' and has taken steps to abstain from drinking alcohol.
The Tribunal notes that his last alcohol consumption was about 5 months ago. I accept that the consumption of alcohol has been a factor in his offending. In answer to the question as to whether he was having trouble abstaining from alcohol the applicant answered, 'not really'.
The report of Dr Watts noted that the applicant's 'alcohol scale on the PAI assessment was elevated'.[34] Dr Watts goes on to state that the applicant 'does report a history of heavy drinking which constituted the level of a mild alcohol use disorder'.[35] I accept that evidence which was not challenged. Having accepted that evidence I have some doubt that the applicant is not really having any difficulty abstaining from alcohol.
[34] Report of Dr Phil Watts dated 21 December 2023, para 15.
[35] Report of Dr Phil Watts dated 21 December 2023, para 20.
The respondent submits that only a short period of seven months has passed since his last offence and only three months since the suspended sentencing order was made (as at the date of the respondent's written submissions).[36] Thus, there has been insufficient time to assess with any certainty whether there has been a marked change in the applicant or his behaviour coinciding with his decision to be abstinent from alcohol.
[36] Exhibit 1 page 141.
The Tribunal accepts those submissions.
Having taken all the available evidence into consideration I am not persuaded that the applicant is presently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
Finally, the Tribunal notes the decision in Knight and Commissioner of Police[37] at [17] where the Tribunal held that 'the licence to acquire a firearm, or to continue to hold a firearm, is not a right, but a privilege; hence the regulatory regime imposed by Parliament'.
[37] Knight and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASAT 104.
The objective of the Tribunal is to arrive at the best and preferable decision. The Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Commissioner.

Conclusion

It is for the reasons announced that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the respondent's decision and to dismiss the application.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal makes the following orders.

Orders

The Tribunal orders:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The decision made by the Commissioner of Police on 28 February 2023 is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS A King, MEMBER
30 APRIL 2024