GZX v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales

[2025] NSWCATAD 110

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

GZX v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales [2025] NSWCATAD 110

Hearing dates:

30 April 2025

Date of orders:

19 May 2025

Decision date:

19 May 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

EA MacIntyre, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) The administratively reviewable decision of the Respondent under review is affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked NOT FOR PUBLICATION are not to be published or disclosed to the Applicant or the public.

(3) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or broadcast of the names or addresses of the Applicant and his wife contained in evidence is prohibited.

(4) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or broadcast of the content of any document provided to the Tribunal in confidence is prohibited.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — reviewable decision — correct and preferable decision — Civil and Administrative Tribunal — merits review

LICENCING — firearms — licence - fit and proper person — public interest — public safety - mental health — breaches of legislation — domestic violence

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Allsop v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 160

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

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

Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107

Saxby v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 275

Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

GZX (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant (self-represented)
McCullough Robertson (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00448667

Publication restriction:

Pursuant to ss 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked NOT FOR PUBLICATION are not to be published or disclosed to the Applicant or the public.

Pursuant to ss 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or broadcast of the names or addresses of the Applicant and his wife contained in evidence is prohibited.

Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or broadcast of the content of any document provided to the Tribunal in confidence is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force, the respondent in these proceedings (the Respondent), to refuse to issue a firearms licence to GZX (the Applicant). The Applicant contests that refusal.

Background

2. The Applicant held various firearms licences under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (Firearms Act) from 2001.

3. The Applicant had a residence in NSW and also in Tasmania. He went to his Tasmanian residence from time to time.

4. On 10 January 2023, the Applicant travelled to Tasmania by ferry with his wife. He took with him certain firearms. The Applicant previously stored these firearms in NSW.

5. The Applicant and his wife went to their residence in Tasmania to carry out renovations. They intended to return to NSW on 16 April 2023.

6. On 26 March 2023, they were travelling to Launceston in Tasmania. They stopped at a restroom on the way. The Applicant said to his wife, according to her recollection of events, words to the effect of: “if you don't stop poisoning me, I'm going to bash you”. His wife responded that she was not poisoning him and loved him. She says that he laughed and changed the conversation.

7. His wife says that later that day, the Applicant made further threats of violence against her. The exact words of the threats were not in evidence.

8. After shopping in Launceston, the Applicant and his wife were in a car park to pack the things they had bought in the car they were using. The wife says she felt a kick to her backside. She turned around and said she saw the Applicant's leg going back down to his other leg. The wife's evidence is that she said: “you kicked me” and that the Applicant laughed and said words to the effect of denying that he kicked her.

9. The Applicant and his wife subsequently drove to Burnie in Tasmania and arrived after dark. They had a disagreement on where to park the vehicle. The Applicant is alleged to have said: “don't pull off there; we’ll get bogged”. The wife said he then grabbed her hair on the top of her head, pulled her up and then let her go very quickly.

10. The Applicant’s wife attended counselling on 30 March 2023 at Launceston. Her evidence is that afterwards, she called the Applicant and informed him that he needed to go back to NSW and that she would stay in Tasmania. She also says that she informed the Applicant that she had seen a counsellor, and she thought that it was too dangerous for her to live with him. She said that she would return to the house in Tasmania and would now be living there. She also said that she would seek an apprehended violence order if he did not leave quickly enough.

11. The Applicant remained in Tasmania. He began renovating the bathroom at the residence in Tasmania on 1 April 2023. The parties then had a disagreement. The wife says that the Applicant became upset and started yelling at her. She said she felt unsafe, went to the toilet, closed and locked the door and rang Tasmania Police.

12. Tasmania Police then attended the property and arrested the Applicant. They asked him if he had any firearms. He stated that he did. The police then located a gun safe in which they found certain firearms. In addition, on top of the gun safe, they found unsecured and unlocked ammunition, two cardboard boxes of ammunition and a case for a pistol with a round of ammunition inside it. They found in the lounge room also unsecured, 40 rounds of 9mm ammunition and 163 rounds of rifle ammunition.

13. Tasmania Police left the premises and returned later that day. In the Applicant's bedroom, they located a rifle magazine containing rounds of ammunition on a shelf, a bolt to a rifle on a shelf and a black taser on a bedside table.

14. The Applicant participated in a recorded interview with Tasmania Police. In that interview, he denied kicking his wife, he denied pulling her hair and denied threatening to “bash” her. He informed Tasmania Police that in the past he made comments accusing her of poisoning him.

15. On 1 April 2023, the Applicant was issued with a police family violence order for the protection of his wife. On that day, he was also charged with two counts of common assault in relation to the allegations of the Applicant kicking his wife and pulling her hair. He was also charged on the same day with three counts of possessing a firearm when not the holder of a firearms licence of the appropriate category, possession of ammunition when not the holder of the appropriate firearms licence and possession of a firearm to which a firearms licence may not be issued. These charges were laid under the Firearms Act 1996 (Tas).

16. On 10 April 2023, Tasmania Police informed NSW Police that the Applicant had been served with a family violence order. The Applicant’s firearms and ammunition stored at his premises in NSW were then seized by NSW Police.

17. The Applicant’s firearms licence under the Firearms Act was revoked on 11 April 2023. He subsequently made a new application for a firearms licence.

18. The Applicant and his wife decided between April and June 2023 to separate.

19. On 19 June 2023, they had a verbal argument in their car while driving in NSW. The Applicant requested his wife take a drug test as he said he believed she was taking illicit substances. His wife refused. The Applicant then drove to a police station to report the matter and ask the police to obtain a statement from his wife confirming that the Applicant had never threatened her during the car trip. NSW Police confirmed that no threats had been made by either party and the Applicant and his wife drove away.

20. On 21 June 2023, the Applicant’s wife was contacted by support services to check on her welfare. The Applicant overheard the conversation. It was reported that he became “enraged” because he himself was not receiving any support. The Applicant then rang the support worker back and said words to the effect of: “I am holding a knife to her neck”. The support worker subsequently contacted NSW Police.

21. NSW Police then attended the Applicant's residential premises and spoke with him. The conversations were recorded on body worn video footage. When the wife was asked whether the Applicant had held a knife to her neck, the wife responded “no”. She said that this was a “sarcastic remark”. She said she believed that the Applicant's mental health issues were affecting him. In particular, she said that the Applicant had a “delusional mental health illness”.

22. On 18 October 2023, the wife lodged an application to revoke the family violence order made with the Burnie Magistrates Court in Tasmania. She reported improvements in her relationship with the Applicant and harmony between them for some months. She also reported that the Applicant had visited his doctor, a general practitioner, and been referred to and attended a psychologist. She also reported that he had “drastically cut down his work hours and alcohol consumption”.

23. On 26 March 2024, the assault charges against the Applicant were dismissed by the Launceston Magistrates Court and the family violence order was revoked.

24. On 30 November 2024, the Applicant pleaded guilty to offences concerning firearms described at [15] above. He was sentenced without conviction to a 12 month undertaking to be of good behaviour. The charge in respect of possession of a taser was dismissed.

25. On 14 May 2000, the Applicant had been admitted to hospital with a bullet wound to his right ankle. However, no proceedings resulted.

26. On 4 April 2016, the Applicant had carried his unbolted and unloaded rifle contained in a rifle bag into a hospital where he worked. He was working there that night. On entering the hospital, he said that he went to his office where he attempted to secure a scope onto his rifle but it did not fit. Staff at the hospital subsequently contacted NSW Police. They arrived at the hospital and spoke with the Applicant. The Applicant was apologetic and explained that he was not aware that he breached any firearms legislation. He said that the rifle did not have a bolt. The Applicant was asked where the firearm was located. The Applicant took the police to his vehicle. The rifle was located in a bag. It was lying unsecured in the back seat and not concealed from public view. The Applicant was given an informal caution and informed that the rifle would be confiscated for 30 days.

27. The Applicant had at various times raised concerns about being poisoned. He had also alleged that a religious organisation had been attempting to poison him in the past. He said this was due to his girlfriend at the time belonging to that religious organisation. He continued to believe that he was being poisoned in some way by the elders of a religious congregation to which he had belonged. Medical records of 2 March 2023 evidence the Applicant’s belief that he was being poisoned in some way.

28. He said that his belief was based on various symptoms he was suffering including headaches, stomach problems, loss of eyesight and tingling in his fingers. The Applicant’s doctors were unable to diagnose his conditions that he attributed to poisoning and attributed the relevant symptoms to his age.

29. During the investigation of the domestic incidents referred to above, the Applicant's wife had made a statutory declaration dated 1 April 2023. In that statutory declaration, she said that the Applicant told her that he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia before they met and had spent time in a “psych ward”.

30. She also said that he had been prescribed with medication to assist him but that it was “making him slow” so she believed he had stopped taking the medication. Tasmanian records of 30 March 2023 say that the Applicant informed a health professional that he no longer wished to take medication because “the experiment has not worked”.

31. Under a summons, the Older Person's Mental Health Services produced a number of documents relating to treatment of the Applicant between January 2023 and May 2023. The evidence was that:

1. the Applicant had a previous psychiatric admission in 1995;

2. the Applicant had been diagnosed with “paranoid schizophrenia” more than 17 years ago and that delusions were present for at least 17 years prior to 2023;

3. the Applicant in February 2023 had admitted to one of the people treating him that he drank too much and “has to drastically reduce his consumption of alcohol” (Tasmanian “Exported Medical Record” of 17 February 2023).

32. Tasmanian medical records of 2 May 2023 express the opinion that the Applicant was “suffering from a Delusional disorder” and recommended treatment. Records of 2 March 2023 also evidence a diagnosis of a “Delusional disorder”. It also said that the Applicant was not displaying “insight at all into his delusional thinking and is adamant he is well and everyone else is wrong about his situation”.

33. The Applicant had been a member of a pistol club. His wife described him as a “skilled shooter” but that when he shouted at her and was “out of control”, that was the only time she felt concerned that he had access to firearms. The Applicant also always kept a knife with him. However, evidence was provided by the Applicant's wife that the Applicant had never threatened her with a firearm during their years of marriage.

34. There was evidence that the Applicant used his firearms for the purposes of sport including hunting animals for food.

35. On 9 September 2024, the Respondent’s delegate refused the Applicant’s application for a Category AB firearms licence under the Firearms Act.

36. On 23 September 2024, the Applicant sought internal review of the Respondent’s decision.

37. On 5 November 2024, a different delegate of the Respondent conducted an internal review and affirmed the decision made on 9 September 2024.

38. By application filed on 3 December 2024, the Applicant sought administrative review of the decision made by the Respondent’s delegate on 5 November 2024.

Applicant’s rights of review

39. Under s 75(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, a person may relevantly apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) for administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) of a decision to refuse issue of a licence in force under the Firearms Act. Section 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) allows jurisdiction to the Tribunal to exercise functions as are conferred or imposed on the Tribunal under the ADR Act.

40. It was not in dispute that the Tribunal has jurisdiction for administrative review of the decision of the Respondent in this matter, in circumstances where the Respondent had refused to issue to the Applicant a licence under the Firearms Act.

41. The Tribunal’s powers on review are set out in s 63(3) of the ADR Act as follows:

(1) In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following:

(a)  any relevant factual material,

(b)  any applicable written or unwritten law.

(2)  For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision.

(3) In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide:

(a)  to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or

(b)  to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or

(c)  to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or

(d)  to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.

Consideration

42. The statutory scheme for the licencing of firearms is set out in the Firearms Act. The Respondent “may” issue a licence in respect of an application, or refuse any such application under s 11.

43. The Respondent’s power to issue a licence is discretionary. The statutory context governing the issue of firearms licences set out in the Firearms Act, therefore, is of relevance in determining how that discretion is to be exercised.

44. Section 3 sets out the underlying principles of the Firearms Act in the following terms.

Principles and objects of Act

(1)  The underlying principles of this Act are—

(a)  to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and

(b)  to improve public safety—

(i)  by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

(ii)  by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

(c)  to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

(2)  The objects of this Act are as follows—

(a)  to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

(b)  to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms,

(c)  to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d)  to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and supply of firearms,

(e)  to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

(f)  to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms.

45. The paramount principle derived from s 3 is ensuring public safety (Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218, at [24]). This is the “overriding need” that must be given effect under the legislation.

46. Matters of fact relevant to determination of the question must be proved under the required standard of proof. However, there is no onus of proof. The Applicant, in particular, does not bear the onus of proof (Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107, at [75] and [81]-[82]).

47. When exercising the discretionary power under s 11, what is required is an assessment of risk in allowing an applicant to have a firearms licence. The test is stringent. The Tribunal must be satisfied that there is “virtually no risk” (Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28, at [28]).

48. Section 11 says when a licence must not be issued. Section 11 provides:

(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

……

(c)  the Commissioner is satisfied that the storage and safety requirements set out in Part 4 are capable of being met by the applicant, 

……

(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)  Despite any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

Fit and proper person

49. The first question for determination is whether or not the Applicant is a “fit and proper person” within the meaning of s 11(3)(a). A licence must not be issued to the Applicant unless the Respondent is so satisfied.

50. Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person within the meaning of the legislation, does not involve consideration of the Applicant’s character as an abstract matter. The question must be asked within the particular statutory context. Specifically, it is whether 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”.

Compliance with firearms legislation

51. The first matter that requires consideration in determining whether the Applicant is a “fit and proper person” within s 11(3)(a) is the evidence as to the Applicant’s record in complying with his obligations under firearms legislation.

52. Obligations placed upon licence holders include those set out in the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW) (Firearms Regulations). They include obligations to notify the Respondent of any change in the address of the premises on which the holder of a licence or permit keeps any firearms (r 17(3)). It was not in dispute that when the Applicant took firearms to Tasmania, he did not notify the Respondent as required under r 17(3).

53. It was also not in dispute that the Applicant had pleaded guilty to breaches of the Firearms Act 1996 (Tas) arising out of his possession of firearms and ammunition as described at [15] above.

54. The Respondent relies on the charges laid against the Applicant for breaches of the Firearms Act1996 (Tas) as a matter supporting her submission that the Applicant should not have a firearms licence. Further, the Applicant did not notify the Respondent of the change in the address of the premises on which he intended to keep his firearms when he went to Tasmania in 2023 taking firearms with him. The Respondent’s submission is that the Applicant held various firearms licences since 2001 and should have at all relevant times been familiar with firearms legislation.

55. It was not in dispute that the Applicant breached provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 (Tas) requiring the storage of firearms and ammunition in the prescribed manner. While these were not breaches of NSW law, they remain relevant to the determination of the question at hand, namely whether the Applicant was a “fit and proper person” within the meaning of s 11(3)(a).

56. I accept that the breaches of the firearms legislation in both NSW and Tasmania are matters that the Respondent can properly take into account in determining whether or not the Applicant should have a firearms licence. The Applicant’s breaches of both NSW and Tasmanian law applying to firearms are indicative of a less than optimal record of compliance with laws dealing with the possession and storage of firearms. These are not matters that favour the Applicant’s case that he should be issued with a firearms licence having regard to the requirements of s 11(3)(a). These are also matters that go to whether the Respondent can be satisfied that the storage and safety requirements set out in Part 4 of the Firearms Act are capable of being met by the Applicant within the meaning of s 11(3)(c).

57. I also accept that the events occurring in May 2000 and April 2016 concerning firearms referred to at [25] and [26] above are relevant considerations, although I place less weight on these matters having regard to the time that has passed since the events in question.

Mental health

58. The question of whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person within the meaning of the legislation also requires consideration of his mental health. The evidence of his mental health included a diagnosis in 2023 of the Applicant as having a delusional disorder. That evidence is found in the medical records from early 2023 described at [32] above. An earlier diagnosis was one of paranoid schizophrenia.

59. The Applicant believed that at various times, there had been attempts to poison him including by his wife and members of a religious congregation to which he had belonged.

60. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

61. When giving his evidence at the hearing, the Applicant contested the submission that he suffered from any mental health conditions and believed that he had none. There was evidence that the Applicant had not been taking prescribed medication for his diagnosed mental health condition. That refusal appears to have been based on the Applicant’s belief that he was well.

62. This evidence shows that the Applicant was not displaying insight into his mental health condition. The Applicant was “adamant” that he was well and that everybody else was wrong about his situation (see [32] above). At the hearing, when questioned by the Respondent’s solicitor, the Applicant reiterated his belief that he was well and disagreed with those who said that he had a mental health condition requiring treatment.

63. There is a need for the evidence to establish whether or not any of the Applicant’s conditions have the potential to put public safety at risk if he has the possession or use of a firearm (Allsop v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 160, at [83]). The Respondent submitted that the violence and threats of violence made by the Applicant are connected with the Applicant’s mental health. I accept that submission. The Applicant’s diagnosis from 2023, the evidence of his refusal to accept his situation and obtain treatment, the violence and threats of violence made by the Applicant and the matters set out at [60] above, in my opinion, are evidence that the Applicant’s condition has the potential to put public safety at risk. He does not as a result satisfy the requirements of s 11(3)(a). He also does not satisfy the specific requirements of s 11(4)(c).

64. The latest evidence of the Applicant’s mental health before the Tribunal is from early 2023. There was no evidence of the Applicant’s mental health that is more current. If such evidence were before the Tribunal showing that his mental health conditions have been treated and his mental health is stable, the Tribunal may be in a position to find otherwise. However, there is no such current evidence before the Tribunal.

65. Given the significant length of time that has passed since the earlier diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, I give that earlier diagnosis less weight and do not rely on it.

Domestic incidents

66. The Respondent relies upon a number of domestic incidents in making her case that the Applicant is not a “fit and proper” person within the meaning of s 11(3).

67. These incidents include, first of all, the threats of violence made by the Applicant to his wife on 26 March 2023 described at [6] and [7] above. The Applicant was at the hearing questioned by the Respondent’s solicitor concerning the events of the day. When questioned, the Applicant accepted that he did say words to the effect that he would “belt” his wife unless she stopped poisoning him.

68. There was evidence of a second threat made later on 26 March 2023 described at [7] above reported to Tasmania Police. However, there was no evidence of the words used in making that threat.

69. The third domestic incident occurring was physical contact between the Applicant and his wife when they were loading their car as described at [8] above. She described that contact as a “kick”. The Applicant denied kicking his wife. The Applicant when questioned said that contact may have occurred during the course of loading the car but he did not describe it as a kick.

70. The fourth incident occurring was what the Applicant's wife said was the pulling of her hair, described at [9] above. The Applicant denied pulling his wife’s hair. The Applicant when questioned at the hearing indicated that some contact did occur but was not specific as to what it was.

71. On 1 April 2023, the Applicant’s wife locked herself in the bathroom of their property in Tasmania and called Tasmania Police. There was no evidence of physical violence on the day.

72. The evidence is that the Applicant and his wife had a verbal argument during a car trip on 19 June 2023. However, there was no evidence of any threats of violence when the parties had that verbal argument.

73. Following a report of a threat of violence made by a support services provider on 21 June 2023, NSW Police attended the Applicant's premises. The Applicant's wife in her subsequent report to NSW Police did not report any threats of violence or actual violence but reported that the Applicant had a “delusional mental health illness”.

74. I accept that the Applicant’s wife has at times perceived danger to herself from the Applicant. These fears in March 2023 resulted in her wish to live separately from the Applicant. I also accept that on 1 April 2023, the Applicant’s wife locked herself in the bathroom on account of her perception of danger from the Applicant. I find that there were both threats of violence and actual violence surrounding these fears.

75. Even if the charges of common assault and the family violence order resulting from the events of 26 March 2023 were subsequently withdrawn, the withdrawal of charges and the family violence order do not prevent the Tribunal from finding the risk of violence to the Applicant’s wife had substance. There was uncontested evidence of physical contact having occurred on at least two occasions on 26 March 2023, and of verbal threats of violence made by the Applicant. These are considerations to be taken into account when determining whether or not the Applicant is a “fit and proper person” within the meaning of s 11(3)(a).

Conclusion

76. I find that the Respondent has made out her case that the Applicant was not a “fit and proper person” within the meaning of s 11(3)(a). The evidence, in my opinion, establishes that the mental health condition of the Applicant has the potential to put public safety at risk for the reasons set out at [63] above. This is sufficient to allow me to conclude that the Applicant is a not “fit and proper person” within the meaning of s 11(3)(a), without having to rely on the further matters set out at [78] below, other than to the extent that they evidence the mental health of the Applicant.

77. Section 11(4)(c) also supports the Respondent’s decision under review by reason of the evidence of the Applicant’s mental health condition and the Applicant’s breaches in 2023 of both the Firearms Regulation and the Firearms Act 1996 (Tas). These matters are sufficient to allow for reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms. It cannot be said in the circumstances of the case that there is “virtually no risk” to public safety if the Applicant had firearms.

78. The evidence of the Applicant’s breaches of firearms legislation and the evidence of threats of violence and actual violence directed at his wife are additional grounds for the finding that the Applicant is not a “fit and proper person” within the meaning of s 11(3)(a).

79. The evidence included a number of character references from 2025 provided in evidence by the Applicant. I take note of the contents of these character references. The matter in issue, however, does not turn on the character of the Applicant in a general sense. They turn on the specific question of whether he is a “fit and proper person” in the statutory sense. I find that the evidence does not allow for the satisfaction of the test for the reasons set out above.

Public interest

80. The Respondent’s submission is that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence. What is the “public interest” is not defined in the Firearms Act. In Saxby v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 275, the Tribunal said, at [14]:

“The expression ‘public interest’ is not defined in s 11(7), nor elsewhere in the Act, and a decision in relation to the public interest in this context is particularly informed by the underlying principles and objects of the Act and the strict controls under the Act in relation to licensing. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9, at [25], the Appeal Panel said that the ‘public interest' is an inherently broad concept giving the Commissioner (and hence the Tribunal on review) the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in deciding whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. Public safety is to be given paramount consideration: Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 at [24]”.

81. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 (Toleafoa), at [24]-[25], the Appeal Panel held:

"... public interest is a term embracing matters against others, of standards of human conduct and of the functioning of government and government instrumentalities et cetera established and accepted to be for the good order of society and for the well being of its members. The interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct to the interest of the individual or individuals.

…

The ‘public interest’ is an inherently broad concept giving the appellant the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. As the possibility of refusing an application on the ground of character is dealt with elsewhere in the same section, it is reasonable to infer that the Parliament intended that the public interest discretion operate in areas to which the character ground was not relevant or, possibly, in circumstances where an objection on character grounds would not be sufficient in its own right to warrant refusal... ".

82. I accept the Respondent’s submission that public interest weighs against the Applicant being granted a firearms licence. The Applicant’s past non-compliance with laws regulating the possession and storage of firearms, his history of conflict including threats of violence and actual violence as well as his mental health condition all allow the Tribunal to find that the Applicant’s possession and use of firearms would not be in the public interest.

Affirmation of Respondent’s decision

83. For the reasons set out at [76] and [82] above, the administratively reviewable decision of the Respondent under review is affirmed.

Orders

1. The administratively reviewable decision of the Respondent under review is affirmed.

2. Pursuant to ss 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked NOT FOR PUBLICATION are not to be published or disclosed to the Applicant or the public.

3. Pursuant to ss 64(1)(a) and (c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or broadcast of the names or addresses of the Applicant or his wife contained in evidence is prohibited.

4. Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication or broadcast of the content of any document provided to the Tribunal in confidence is prohibited.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 19 May 2025