HALTINER AND REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
[2008] ACTAAT 16
•15 May 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CITATION:HALTINER AND REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS [2008] ACTAAT 16 (15 MAY 2008)
AT07/35 & 74
Catchwords: Firearms – suspension and cancellation of licence – use of firearm associated with consumption of alcohol – use of firearm as a means of intimidation – possession of unregistered firearm.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989, s 37
Firearms Act 1996, ss 17, 39, 41, 43, 113, Sch 2
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Hamilton and Registrar of Firearms [2003] ACTAAT 9 (20 February 2003)
Tribunal:Mr M H Peedom, President
Date:15 May 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) NOS: AT07/35 & 74
GENERAL DIVISION )
RE: MARC PETER
HALTINER
ApplicantAND: REGISTRAR OF
FIREARMS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal : Mr M H Peedom, President
Date : 15 May 2008
Decision : The decisions under review are affirmed.
……………………………
President
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) NOS: AT07/35 & 74
GENERAL DIVISION )
RE: MARC PETER
HALTINER
ApplicantAND: REGISTRAR OF
FIREARMS
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 May 2008 Mr M H Peedom, President
The applicant in this case has applied for the review of two decisions made by a delegate of the respondent. The first decision, given on 28 June 2007 was to suspend the applicant’s firearms licence number N0004540 (“the licence”). The second decision, given on 3 December 2007, was to cancel the licence. The decisions were made pursuant to sections 39(1) and 41(3)(c) of the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Act”), respectively. The Tribunal is conferred with jurisdiction to review the decisions in question by paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 113 of the Act.
The licence
2. The licence is a class A and B licence and is expressed to expire on 22 August 2010.
3. In his application for the licence the applicant stated that the reason for holding the licence was for the removal of rabbits, hares, pigs, foxes, feral cats, feral dogs and dingoes. He identified himself as the owner of rural property near Braidwood, New South Wales on which he intended to use firearms in accordance with the licence.
4. Pursuant to section 17 and items 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the licence authorised the applicant to possess or use a registered firearm of the kind to which the licence applied for the purpose established by the applicant as the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm. The firearms registered in the name of the applicant were:
- Rifle Winchester .222 short rimfire lever action;
- Rifle Winchester .30/30 lever action;
- Under and over barrel shotgun 12 gauge; and
- Rifle Finlan Larson Winchester .308.
The T documents
5. Pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 the respondent lodged with the Tribunal statements containing an explanation of the reasons for the decisions, the findings on material questions of fact relevant to the decisions and the evidence considered relevant by the delegate in arriving at the decisions (“the T documents”).
6. The T documents show that the decisions under review were made by the delegate following the provision of information to the Australian Federal Police by the Detective Senior Constable Hinton of the New South Wales Police on 21 June 2007 regarding complaints about incidents that had occurred at the applicant’s property about 12 to 18 months beforehand and since that time. Evidence was given at the hearing of the appeal about the incidents by a number of persons and is set out below.
7. On 26 June 2007 an officer of the New South Wales Police conducted an inspection of the applicant’s property and located a .308 rifle which was not secured. It was loaded. The applicant had explained that he was going shooting but was having breakfast at the time. The officer also found an unregistered air rifle at the applicant’s property.
8. The applicant was charged under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (“the NSW Firearms Act”) with being the holder of a Category A or B licence and not having approved storage and with possessing an unregistered firearm.
9. On 2 May 2007 then Acting Sgt Munro of the Australian Federal Police advised the applicant that he had suspended the licence pending the hearing of the charges by the Queanbeyan Local Court. He said that he had suspended the applicant’s licence because he had formed the opinion that the applicant was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. He said that, based on the information provided to him by DSC Hinton, he had formed the view that the applicant may have pointed a loaded firearm in the direction of people; that he may have threatened people with a loaded firearm; he may have threatened to shoot people who were using an easement on his property; and he had been charged with two offences, being unsafe storage of a firearm and possession of an unregistered firearm. He had determined to suspend the applicant’s firearms licence pending the finalisation of the charges against him.
10. On 24 October 2007 the charges were dealt with by the Queanbeyan Local Court. The first charge was found to be proved but was dismissed without conviction. In respect of the second charge the applicant was convicted and fined $100.
11. By letter dated 31 October 2007, Acting Sgt Munro requested the applicant to provide reasons as to why his licence should not be cancelled pursuant to section 43(3)(c) of the Act within 7 days. By letter dated 3 December 2007 Acting Sgt Munro advised the applicant that no response had been received from him. He said that he had determined to cancel the applicant’s firearms licence pursuant to section 41(3)(c) of the Act on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. He had formed that opinion on the basis of the convictions recorded against the applicant in the Queanbeyan Local Court and the information contained in the statement of reasons for suspension of the applicant’s licence.
The hearing
12. At the hearing of the appeal the applicant was represented by Mr B Collaery, a legal practitioner, and the respondent was represented by Mr S Pilkinton, of counsel. Evidence was given by the applicant and on his behalf by Mr N Greaney. Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr G Barclay, Mr P Jansson, Ms C Payne and Mr B Albrighton.
13. In affidavits admitted in evidence at the hearing, the applicant stated that he was a plumber resident in Canberra. He was the owner of a rural property in the Braidwood district and when he visited the property he stayed in a caravan. He had been continuously licensed to carry a firearm since he was 18 years of age and had been taught how to use firearms safely by his father who had served in the army.
14. The applicant said that in the past few years he had become concerned about the intrusion onto his property of hunters using pig dogs. He had advocated the need for pig dog owners to report any of their missing dogs. This had made him unpopular with newly-arrived neighbours. He had also had an unrelated dispute with a neighbour about gate-closing and other farm practices. This had given rise to a visit to his property by officers of the New South Wales Police. When they arrived he had just taken his rifle out of a locked metal travelling case and was finishing his breakfast before stepping out of caravan to feed his cattle. He had been delayed by a phone call and the police had charged him with having an insecure firearm. The police had also asked him if he had any other firearms in his caravan. He realised he had an old slug gun in his cupboard which had been there unused and untouched since he was about 17 or 18 years of age and he had not remembered to hand it in when the gun amnesty was announced.
15. The applicant said that a number of his cattle had been killed by wild dogs and he had had to humanely shoot them. He said that he took his responsibility as a primary producer to eradicate vermin seriously and always carried his rifle with him when he was inspecting his cattle in the morning and the evening. He had shot three wild dogs on his property in the last 10 years.
16. The applicant referred in his affidavit to an incident at his property that had occurred in about January to June 2006. On the day in question he had heard a 4 stroke motorbike on his property and later saw two of his wire fences had been cut in a way that would allow a large vehicle to drive through to parts of his property. Later that night he had gone with Mr Graham Barclay in Mr Barclay’s vehicle around his property to shoot rabbits and other vermin. They noticed car lights approaching. He said that it was a four wheel drive vehicle with a hunting dog in the back. He had not given the persons in the vehicle permission to be on his property. He got out of the vehicle taking his rifle, a 22 Mag Winchester with him. He held the rifle in his hand with the barrel pointed down towards the ground and said to the persons in the vehicle that if the pig dog got off the vehicle he would shoot it. He had ejected two to three cartridges from his rifle. He had threatened to call the police but Mr Barclay had told him not to worry about it and to let them go and give them another chance. He decided to let them go. As they drove away towards his caravan, Mr Barclay had let off some fire crackers in the direction of the four wheel drive vehicle.
17. In oral evidence given at the hearing, the applicant stated that on the night of the incident referred to above, another man named Greg had accompanied him and Mr Barclay when they went hunting. Prior to going hunting Mr Barclay and Greg had come to his shed and they were drinking alcohol for about an hour and were bonging on some marihuana on a little bottle for about half an hour. They were drunk like fishes. He said he did not drink alcohol but might have a little bit of port every now and then.
18. They had left to go hunting in Mr Barclay’s vehicle and Mr Barclay was driving. Greg had been sitting in the back of the vehicle drinking alcohol out of a can. The applicant had a rifle and Mr Barclay was handling a spotlight. The rifle was a Magnum 22 Winchester. When they came across the four wheel drive vehicle it had some young people on the back and some young people in the front. There was a young lady and the others were boys. When he got out of Mr Barclay’s vehicle he took his rifle because it had to be secure and he didn’t like leaving it with Mr Barclay and Greg.
19. The applicant said that Mr Barry Albrighton had purchased a property nearby his. Mr Albrighton had come to see him and asked him about access along a Crown road near their properties. The applicant had said that he would give Mr Albrighton a key to unlock a gate across the road. Subsequently, the Crown’s Department had got involved and told him that the lock and a chain should be removed from the gate. When he had bought the property it had a gate with a lock on it and he had kept the lock on the gate to secure his caravan and to stop piggers coming through and causing damage. Subsequently a number of the land-owners from the area including himself had attended a meeting to discuss the issue of the locked gate on the road. He had obtained an enclosure permit to allow him to keep his cattle within his property. Some people didn’t close the gate when they went through it and his cattle got out. At some time the gate was removed and had to be replaced.
20. The applicant had subsequently agreed with Mr Albrighton that they would clear an area of land and put up a new fence. Survey pegs had been put into the ground to show the line of the fence but someone removed them. He had complained to Mr Albrighton that he had removed the pegs and Mr Albrighton had commenced digging fence post holes on the applicant’s side of the boundary. He had told Mr Albrighton that he wanted the fence line within a centimetre of where it was supposed to be. Mr Albrighton had showed him fencing material that he had purchased but the applicant considered that it was not suitable as it was not new. During the course of a discussion about the fence, Mr Albrighton had told the applicant that no-one liked him and he ought to leave the valley. When he turned to walk away, Mr Albrighton kicked him in the leg and when he fell down he was attacked by Mr Albrighton using his fists. The applicant had retaliated and tried to get away from Mr Albrighton. They had both said that they shouldn’t be fighting and the applicant offered his hand to Mr Albrighton. Mr Albrighton had then struck him in the face. The applicant fought back and hit Mr Albrighton in the mouth and saw blood gushing from his face. Mr Albrighton had then taken the keys from the applicant’s car and threw them over the fence. He had then gone and reported the matter to the police.
21. The applicant and Mr Albrighton had subsequently attended a mediation session and the issue between them regarding the fence had been resolved. The applicant agreed that there had been an occasion when he had said to Mr Albrighton that he would keep him in his sights. He had said this because he didn’t trust him. He couldn’t recall whether he had any rifles at the time he made the comment but he agreed that he did carry his weapons with him some of the time.
22. The applicant recalled an incident in June or July 2006 when Mr Jansson and his partner, Ms Payne, were driving through the right of way on his property. He had gone to his van and got his rifle because he didn’t want it lying around and insecure. The applicant said that when he went out to feed his cattle he would keep his rifle locked inside his van. If he saw people coming it was his practice to take his rifle out of his van and also to take it with him when he went to see his neighbours. He said that was normal practice among farmers.
23. The applicant was cross-examined by Mr Pilkinton. He agreed that the storage of his rifles in a cupboard in his caravan did not properly secure them but he said that he kept the door of his caravan locked. The slug gun that had been found by the police was kept in the same cupboard. It was not registered. When the police came to his property he had thought about the matter deeply and recalled that he had the slug gun in the cupboard and handed it to them. He might have noticed the slug gun when he opened the cupboard to take out his other rifles but it just didn’t come to him. He agreed that Constable Hinton had given evidence to the Court at Queanbeyan that when the .308 rifle was found it was loaded but he said that Constable Hinton was lying. He subsequently accepted that cartridges were in the magazine of the rifle at the time.
24. The applicant was asked why he ejected bullets out of his rifle after he approached the four wheel drive vehicle containing the young people on the night he went shooting with Mr Barclay. He said that he had done it just to put some pressure on the people in the vehicle so that they knew he was angry with them. He did not do it to scare them but to let them know not to come back onto his property. He agreed that when he was standing at the back of the vehicle, he had said that if the dog got off the vehicle he would shoot it. He denied that he had pointed the rifle at any person.
25. The applicant agreed that at the time he had said to Mr Albrighton that he would keep him in his sights he could have had two rifles with him. He had made the comment to Mr Albrighton because he didn’t trust him. It was just a figure of speech.
26. When asked to explain why he went to his van to get his rifle before speaking to Mr Jansson and Ms Payne he said that it was a good idea because, if there is a vehicle coming down the other side and grabbed hold of the rifle and he was not keeping an eye on it, there would be trouble. There had not been any other vehicles in the vicinity at the time apart from his van and Mr Jansson’s vehicle and he did not trust anyone after what Barry Albrighton did to him and what he did with the fence line. He had had quite a few cars along the road and if he wasn’t watching they could stop. There had been people with bows and arrows on the road. The applicant agreed that his van was able to be locked.
27. Mr Greaney is a proprietor of a plumbing business. He said that he had known the applicant nearly all his life. He described him as a family man and he would have no hesitation in having him supervise his 16 year old daughter if the need arose. He had never seen the applicant be violent or aggressive. He said the applicant was a responsible person with firearms.
28. A statement dated 21 June 2007 was provided to DSC Hinton about the incident by Mr G Barclay. In the statement Mr Barclay said that he owned the property adjoining the applicant’s property. On the day when he had gone shooting with the applicant he had received a telephone call from the applicant who advised him that someone had damaged the fence of his property. He had later gone with the applicant to inspect the damage. Later that night he had gone spotlight shooting with the applicant. They had taken only one gun. It was a lever action .22 Magnum long rifle owned by the applicant. They had gone to the place where the fence had been damaged. A utility vehicle was driving towards them and both vehicles stopped. There were five young men and a young girl in the other vehicle. The applicant had been aggressive and told the people in the other vehicle that they were trespassing and he was sick of it. At the time the applicant was speaking to the other people he was holding his rifle in his hands and he had a bowie knife on his side and an ammunition belt around his waist.
29. The young people were obviously scared and said that they were lost. There had been a dog chained in the back of the utility. Mr Barclay said words like “we shoot dogs on this place”. The applicant had then said “you’re damn right”. He then stood next to the side of the utility and held the gun up and levered and cocked the rifle. He put it up to his shoulder and aimed it into the back of the utility. Three of the young people who were in the back of the utility had been within the line of the rifle barrel. The applicant had been yelling and ranting. A man named Greg who had been with the applicant and Mr Barclay said to Mr Barclay “for God’s sake restrain him”. Mr Barclay said “settle down Marc you can’t shoot the dogs, they are restrained”. The applicant had then said “alright I’ll shoot your tyres out”. He then shouldered the rifle towards the front tyres.
30. Mr Barclay then told the young people to get out of the place. Later when they had been driving back towards the applicant’s house, they came across the young people again on a Crown access road between his place and the applicant’s property. The applicant said words like “chase them down, get them”. Mr Barclay had told the applicant that it was an access road and that he should calm down. The young people turned off the main track, jumped out of the vehicle and ran and hid. The three men had then gone home.
31. There had been a number of occasions, Mr Barclay said, when the applicant had discharged his firearm in the direction of Mr Barclay’s property both during the day and at night. He had spoken to the applicant about this and the applicant had denied shooting. He was concerned about the applicant’s mental stability and had concerns for his own and his family’s safety, particularly when the applicant had firearms. He had seen guns lying around the shed on the applicant’s property which had been unsecured.
32. In oral evidence given at the hearing Mr Barclay said that on the night he was invited to go shooting with the applicant all three of them had been drinking before they set off. They had been drinking from a bottle that the applicant said was his father’s favourite port. Mr Barclay had been smoking as well. When they came across the four wheel drive the applicant had approached it with his rifle and a knife strapped to his leg. The applicant had aimed his rifle at the back of the vehicle and people were in the line of fire. A girl who was in the front of the vehicle and the line of fire had been sobbing. Mr Barclay had told the people in the four wheel drive that he had their number plate and registration details and if they came back he would visit them in the night.
33. Mr Barclay was cross-examined by Mr Collaery. He said that he and Greg had been smoking marihuana on the night of the incident but not the applicant. He used marihuana for the treatment of his depression. He had observed the applicant drinking three to four ordinary sized glasses of port before they went shooting.
34. Mr Jansson resides on a 360 acre rural property nearby the applicant’s property with his partner, Ms Payne. He said that on an occasion in winter 2006 he and Ms Payne were travelling along the right of carriageway through the property owned by the applicant. He saw a male person who he assumed to be the applicant feeding cattle with bread from a trailer attached to a white van about 50 metres from the carriageway in the paddock. As he approached, the male person gestured with his hands hailing them to stop. He stopped on the carriageway and saw the male person turn and walk towards the white van and take a rifle from it and then walk towards them. The male person came to the passenger side of the vehicle where Ms Payne was seated. He was holding the rifle in his left hand and it was pointed towards the ground. Mr Jansson introduced himself and Ms Payne to the applicant. He felt surprised and intimated by the fact that the applicant was holding a rifle. He was very concerned at the fact that the applicant had held a rifle during their conversation.
35. In cross-examination Mr Jansson agreed that, after a meeting had been held in Braidwood to discuss the issue of the gate being locked on the road, that the applicant had agreed that he would not lock it and that he had ceased doing so. He was aware that the applicant had a problem with straying cattle but said that he had always closed the gate after him when he went through it except when it was open on his arrival.
36. Ms Payne said that when the applicant approached Mr Jansson and herself with a rifle she felt a bit fearful. She said that there was no-one else around at the time.
37. Mr Albrighton is the owner of a rural property adjoining the applicant’s property. To gain access to his property, he travels through the Crown easement road through both properties. When he first purchased his property in October 2006 a gate across the road was kept shut and padlocked. He and a number of other neighbours and the applicant had a meeting with the Department of Crown Lands and the local council about the land-owners being denied access to their properties. As a result of the meeting, the applicant agreed not to lock the gate.
38. In about February 2007 Mr Albrighton visited the applicant at his property to advise him of some road works that were to take place on the road and to enquire whether he wanted to divert the easement across the property in order to allow him more privacy. He said to the applicant if the road was diverted it wouldn’t be necessary for him to say hello to the applicant. The applicant had replied: “Don’t worry, I will keep you in my sights”. At the time he made this remark, he said he could see two loaded rifles next to the applicant. He told the applicant that he believed the remark was totally inappropriate and would not be tolerated again.
39. On 27 August he visited Mr Matt McKenzie-Fox, the care-taker of his property. The applicant was present and there had been a discussion about the construction of a boundary fence between their two properties. The applicant became aggressive and attacked him. A fight had ensued and both men suffered injuries. Mr Albrighton obtained treatment for his injuries and reported the matter to police.
40. In cross-examination Mr Albrighton agreed that he had not inspected the applicant’s rifles on the occasion in February 2006 when he had had a discussion with the applicant. He said that he assumed, because the bolt of one of them was secured and the other had a magazine fixed, that they were loaded. Mr Albrighton denied that he was the aggressor in the incident that had occurred on 27 August 2007.
The legislation
41. Provision is made for the suspension of a licence by section 39 of the Act. It states:
39 Suspension of licence
(1)The registrar may, if the registrar is satisfied there may be grounds for cancelling a licence, suspend the licence by serving personally or by post on the licensee a notice—
(a)stating that the licence is suspended, the period of suspension and the reasons for suspending it; and
(b)requesting that the person provide the registrar with reasons why the licence should not be cancelled.
(2)The registrar must suspend a licence in accordance with this section if the registrar has reasonable grounds for believing that the licensee has been charged with, committed, or threatened to commit, a domestic violence offence.
(3)A suspended licence does not authorise the possession or use of firearms during the period specified in the notice suspending it.
(4) In this section:
domestic violence offence—an offence is a domestic violence offence if the conduct making up the offence is domestic violence under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2001.
42. Provision is made for the cancellation of a firearms licence by section 41 of the Act. It relevantly provides:
41 Cancellation of licence
……….
(3) A licence may be cancelled—
(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—
(i)supplied information that was (to the licensee’s knowledge) false or misleading in a material particular in, or in connection with, the application for the licence; or
(ii)contravenes any provision of this Act, 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 registrar is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence; or
(d) for any other prescribed reason.
………..
Reasons for decision
43. In relation to the incident which occurred some time in January to June 2006 when the applicant confronted the young persons found on his property, it is necessary to treat with caution the version of events given by Mr Barclay having regard to his and the applicant’s evidence as to the consumption of alcohol and smoking of marijuana by Mr Barclay prior to the incident and since. Nevertheless, I consider that Mr Barclay gave his evidence as to the events which occurred truthfully. Even on the applicant’s own evidence that he emptied the cartridges from his rifle in the presence of the young persons in the four wheel drive vehicle to put some pressure on them, to let them know that he was angry and to let them know not to come back to his property, a conclusion that his actions involving the use of his rifle were designed to intimidate them is justified. Mr Barclay’s unchallenged evidence that a young girl in the vehicle had begun sobbing suggests that he was successful in his endeavour. Furthermore, his actions in participating in a shooting venture with persons he described as being drunk like fishes, by itself, demonstrates a failure to act responsibly with a firearm.
44. In relation to the incident involving Mr Jansson and Ms Payne, I accept their evidence that they stopped their vehicle at the applicant’s directions. No other reason was advanced that there was any other occasion for them to become engaged in conversation with the applicant. Nor was there evidence of anything about their conduct or appearance to suggest that the applicant’s rifle, some distance away in a van capable of being locked, was at risk of misuse by them.
45. I find that the applicant retrieved his rifle from his van and kept it with him during the course of his conversation with Mr Jansson and Ms Payne as a means of intimidating them.
46. By itself, the comment made by the applicant to Mr Albrighton that he would keep him in his sights, even if said whilst rifles were nearby, does not in my view, justify a conclusion that the applicant was issuing a threat to Mr Albrighton. The evidence in relation to the physical altercation between Mr Albrighton and the applicant does not enable a conclusion to be drawn as to which of them was responsible for initiating it. In any event, it did not involve a misuse of a firearm and it is unnecessary to reach a conclusion about the matter.
47. In relation to the unregistered slug gun handed by the applicant to the New South Wales Police, I do not accept the applicant’s explanation that a rifle kept in the same cupboard for many years as the cupboard which contained rifles which he accessed on a frequent basis only came to his memory because the arrival of the police caused him to think about the matter deeply. I also take account of the fact of his conviction for possessing an unregistered firearm.
48. The Tribunal has previously taken the view that in determining the manner in which the discretion to cancel a licence issued under the Act should be exercised, it should accept that it is a principle underlying the Act that the possession and use of firearms is a privilege conditional upon the overriding need to ensure public safety (see Hamilton and Registrar of Firearms [2003] ACTAAT 9 (20 February 2003)).
49. In arriving at a conclusion on the matter, I have taken account of the fact that the applicant demonstrated that he had a sufficient reason for the issue of a firearms licence and there is nothing to suggest that that reason has ceased to exist. I also accept that the loss of the applicant’s licence may disadvantage him or cause him to incur additional cost in the management of his property. The findings by the Tribunal based on the evidence before it demonstrates, however, that the applicant has engaged in serious misuse of a firearm registered under his licence and that a conclusion that he is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence is justified.
50. The decisions of the respondent should be affirmed.
FORM 33
PUBLICATION DETAILS
TO BE PUBLISHED
To be completed by Member's Staff
________________________________________________________________________
PART A FILE NOS: AT07/35 & 74
APPLICANT: MARC PETER HALTINER
RESPONDENT: REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
PARTIES JOINED: N/A
COUNSEL APPEARING: APPLICANT: MR B COLLAERY
RESPONDENT: MR S PILKINGTON
PARTIES JOINED:
SOLICITORS: APPLICANT: COLLAERY LAWYERS
RESPONDENT: ACT GOVERNMENT
SOLICITOR
PARTIES JOINED:
OTHER:APPLICANT:
RESPONDENT:
PARTIES JOINED:
TRIBUNAL MEMBER/S: MR M H PEEDOM, PRESIDENT
DATE/S OF HEARING: 26 FEBRUARY &
8 MAY 2008 PLACE: CANBERRA
DATE OF DECISION: 15 MAY 2008 PLACE: CANBERRA
_______________________________________________________________________
PART B
RECOMMENDATION:
FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION (X)
COMMENT:
0
0
0