HFI v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2025] NSWCATAD 171

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

HFI v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 171

Hearing dates:

3 July 2025

Date of orders:

17 July 2025

Decision date:

17 July 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Smith, Senior Member

Decision:

Decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - firearms licence - revocation of licence - applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances – association with persons with criminal histories – mental health concerns - genuine reason for possession of firearms - public interest – real and appreciable risk

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:

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Davos v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 7

Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124

Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5

Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144

Ly v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115

Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97

Director-General, Ministry of Transport v FV (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 60

Tolley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 149

Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2004] NSWADT 110

Texts Cited:

NCAT Practice Direction 7 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

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

Representation:

Applicant (self-represented)
Maddocks (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/00011179

Publication restriction:

(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of the confidential material is prohibited.
(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the disclosure to the Applicant and the public of the confidential material is prohibited.
(3) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b) and 64(1)(d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the transcript and recording of the confidential hearing is not to be published or disclosed to the Applicant or the public.
(4) Pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the publication of the name of the Applicant and any witness is prohibited.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Decision

1. The Applicant sought an administrative review of the Respondent’s decision to revoke her firearms licence (“revocation decision”) because of concerns held by Police about the Applicant’s mental state and presentation during an incident on 22 March 2024.

2. The Tribunal has found that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over her firearms because of her way of living and domestic circumstances.

3. The Tribunal has found that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence, as there is a real and appreciable risk to public safety if the Applicant were to hold a firearms licence, which overrides the Applicant’s privilege to possess and use a firearm.

4. The Tribunal has therefore determined that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the revocation decision.

Background

5. On 28 March 2023, the Applicant applied for a Category AB firearms licence, based on membership of a hunting club.

6. On 8 May 2023, the Applicant was issued with a firearms licence that had a Special Condition placed on it, pursuant to s 19(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (Firearms Act). This condition required that firearms, firearm parts and ammunition must not be stored or possessed at any location where a person referred to in this decision as “BP” resides or frequents. The Applicant was in an on and off defacto relationship with BP for approximately two years, concluding in March 2016. They had two children during their relationship, who are cared for by the Applicant.

7. On 22 March 2024, the Police attended the Applicant’s residence, where she was living with her two children and her mother and stepfather. The Police attended after receiving information from the Applicant that the partner (“LK”) of “RR”, a person who the Applicant has known since at least 2011, had sighted photographs of the Applicant’s children on RR’s computer, mixed in with other pornographic photographs.

8. While speaking with Police, the Applicant described a history of recent events involving “NK”, who the Applicant had been friends with for about 10 years. The Applicant stated that NK was a “hacker” and “hunts paedophiles” and had gone after the “wrong people” and was being pursued by bikies. The Applicant stated that NK had told her that her and her children were at risk. The Applicant spoke to Police away from the house as she believed that there were devices in the house that had been hacked by the people that NK had wrongfully gone after.

9. As a result of the information that the Police received during their attendance on 22 March 2024 and their observations of the Applicant, the Police offered the Applicant the opportunity to speak with paramedics concerning her mental health, which was accepted. Due to the waiting time for the paramedics and as there were no immediate concerns for the Applicant’s welfare, a referral was made for the Applicant to the local mental health service.

10. Police subsequently conducted welfare checks on LK and RR, and NK, all of whom presented to Police as very confused. LK and RR were referred for a mental health assessment.

11. On 25 March 2024, after the Applicant had held a firearms licence for eight months, Police served a notice of suspension on the Applicant. The Applicant’s firearms licence was suspended on the ground that it was not in the public interest of public safety due to mental health concerns. The suspension was valid for 12 months.

12. On 1 August 2024, the Firearms Registry requested that the Applicant undertake a mental health risk assessment.

13. On 24 October 2024, the Applicant’s firearms licence was revoked because of the incident on 22 March 2024 and mental health concerns relating to the Applicant. The Applicant was advised in the notice of revocation that it may be helpful to provide a full report from a mental health professional with any request for an internal review. The Firearms Registry had not received a report from the Applicant after making the request on 1 August 2024.

14. On 28 October 2024, the Applicant requested an internal review of the revocation decision.

15. On 22 November 2024, the Firearms Registry received a report of a mental health assessment of the Applicant which was completed by a registered psychologist who had seen the Applicant on three occasions in the space of a week. The psychologist stated that there are no diagnosed conditions or impairments suffered by the Applicant.

16. On 13 December 2024, the revocation decision was affirmed on internal review.

17. On 22 December 2024, the psychologist who had assessed the Applicant provided an “Amendment” report to the Firearms Registry which addressed deficits in the report provided on 22 November 2024. The psychologist referred to reasoning contained in the internal review decision.

18. On 9 January 2025, the Applicant filed an administrative review application seeking a review of the revocation decision.

19. On 3 July 2025, with the Tribunal satisfied that it had jurisdiction to review the revocation decision under s 75(1)(c) of the Firearms Act, a final hearing was held. During the open hearing, the Applicant and the Applicant’s mother were cross-examined, and both parties made oral submissions. A confidential hearing was held after the end of the open hearing.

Relevant law

Object and principles

20. Section 3(1) of the Firearms Act states that the underlying principles of the Act are:

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

2. to improve public safety:

1. by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

2. by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

3. to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

21. Section 3(2) of the Firearms Act provides that the objects of the Act are as follows:

1. to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

2. to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms,

3. 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,

4. to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and supply of firearms,

5. to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

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

Revocation of licence – way of living or domestic circumstances

22. Section 24(2)(a) of the Firearms Act provides that a licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind.

23. Section 11(4)(a) of the Firearms Act prescribes that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances.

24. The term “reasonable cause to believe” was considered by the Tribunal in Ly v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115. At [41], the Tribunal stated that the term is not satisfied by “mere assertion” and “the belief requires more than mere suspicion or conjecture. On the other hand, it is not necessary for an applicant to establish even a prima facie case. It is necessary, however, for the applicant to show objectively that there is reasonable cause for the relevant belief. It is not necessary to demonstrate whether or not the applicant has the belief.” At [43], the Tribunal stated that the Tribunal must be objectively satisfied, from established facts that the applicant’s circumstances are that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over their firearm.

25. Even though the person may be a suitable person to have access to firearms, the circumstances of the people they live with or closely associate with may pose a risk. In Tolley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 149, at [31], the Tribunal stated:

“Given the breadth of the Commissioner’s discretion and the overriding object of public safety there is no basis for differentiating between conduct of the applicant themselves and conduct of another which may impact on public safety in the context of a firearms licence.”

26. In Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124 at [103], a case involving an applicant who had been the subject of many allegations of domestic violence, the Tribunal stated:

“There is no suggestion that the Applicant has ever misused firearms or that he has ever threatened to do so. However, I accept that there is general concern in the community about firearms in homes and the potential for domestic violence incidents to involve firearms. Taking a balanced view of the risk to the public, it is my view that there are real grounds for concern in this matter. The licensing regime is about identifying the possible risks to the public, and then making decisions that are consistent with the need to reduce any risks to a minimum. I cannot be satisfied that the risk to the public would be reduced to a minimum if the Applicant has access to firearms.”

Revocation of licence on basis of public interest

27. Section 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act provides that a licence may be revoked for any other reason prescribed by the regulations.

28. Clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW) provides that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence.

29. The expression “public interest” is not defined in the Firearms Act but has been considered in a number of Tribunal decisions.

30. 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] the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual."

31. In Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16, at [33], the Appeal Panel stated that:

“The ‘public interest’ allows, we consider, for issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system.”

32. In Davos v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 7, at [117], the Tribunal stated:

“The legislature has determined that imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms is the best way of improving safety. The most fundamental principle of the Act is that the possession and use of firearms is conditional upon the overriding need for public safety. The legislation requires strict compliance precisely because misuse of firearms can result in catastrophic consequences.”

33. In Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2004] NSWADT 110, at [32], the Tribunal stated:

“The principal issue that I have to decide is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if Mr Webb's licence is reinstated. In determining this issue it is my view that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account. Minimal, fanciful or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration. In particular, the likelihood of risk to the safety of the public must be assessed by reference to Mr Webb's prior conduct. The conduct of concern is that which has led to his convictions. It is appropriate that any exercise of discretion accord with the principles and objects of the Act.”

34. In Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97, at [66], the Tribunal stated:

The question of risk is therefore not viewed as requiring an applicant to discharge an almost impossible burden of proving a near-absolute negative, but in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety.

35. One of the objects of the Firearms Act, as set out in s 3, is to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety: Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28, at [27]. Where there is the possibility of a threat to the public's safety, the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm: Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144 (Lee), at [94].

Issues for determination

36. The task of the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is, having regard to any relevant factual material and any applicable law (s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act)).

37. In this matter, the following issues require determination:

1. Issue 1 - Should the Applicant’s licence be revoked on the basis there is reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the Applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances?

2. Issue 2 - Is it in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence?

Material before the Tribunal

38. The following documents were before the Tribunal in the open hearing:

Applicant’s material

1. Administrative review application filed by the Applicant on 9 January 2025, attaching the Internal Review decision of 13 December 2024 (Exhibit A1).

2. Bundle of documents relied on by the Applicant (Exhibit A2).

3. Applicant’s statement in response to Police material filed on 27 March 2025 (Exhibit A3).

4. Applicant’s statement and supplementary submissions filed on 12 June 2025 (Exhibit A4).

5. Affidavit of clarification by Applicant’s mother dated 24 February 2025 (Exhibit A5).

Respondent’s material

1. Documents filed by the Respondent in accordance with s 58 of the ADR Act (“s 58 documents”), which included a USB with Police body worn camera footage of Police attendance at the Applicant’s residence on 22 March 2024 (Exhibit R1).

2. Supplementary bundle of documents filed by the Respondent on 16 April 2025 (Exhibit R2).

3. Further supplementary bundle of documents filed by the Respondent on 22 March 2025 (Exhibit R3).

4. Respondent’s submissions filed on 22 May 2025 (Exhibit R4).

5. Table prepared by the Respondent in relation to the Applicant’s case law references (Exhibit R5).

6. Email to Applicant from Respondent’s legal representative dated 30 June 2025, requesting that the Applicant’s mother be available for cross-examination (Exhibit R6).

39. The Respondent also filed a confidential statement by a Senior Constable and Confidential submissions (“Respondent’s confidential material”) which were before the Tribunal in the confidential hearing:

40. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that she had drafted the content of her statements and then uploaded the documents into ChatGPT to improve them. The Applicant also used ChatGPT to prepare her supplementary submissions including case references (Exhibit A4). The Respondent examined these case references and prepared a table (Exhibit R5) which indicates, among other matters, that the case references as cited do not exist. The Tribunal explained to the Applicant that case references produced by Generative AI must be verified to ensure they are accurate. The Tribunal stated that it could not rely on the case references that the Applicant had used in her submissions.

41. Clause 14 of NCAT Practice Direction 7 - Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence states that Generative Artificial Intelligence must not be used for the purpose of altering, embellishing, strengthening or diluting or otherwise rephrasing a witness’s evidence when expressed in written form. The Applicant was clearly not aware of this prohibition and was self-represented. The Tribunal accepted, without any objections made by the Respondent, the tender of the Applicant’s documents as listed at [38] above. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that the contents of these documents were true and correct to the best of her knowledge. The Applicant was cross-examined during the hearing so that the content of her statements could be tested.

Positions of the parties

42. The Applicant seeks that the revocation decision be set aside. In the application, the Applicant states that in relation to her mental health concerns, she has been “cleared by a psychologist, a forensic psychologist, my mother (a GP) with whom I’ve lived with for nine years”. In relation to her “associations with 3 individuals” (i.e. BP, RR and NK), the Applicant states that she no longer has contact with these people.

43. The Applicant submits that hunting, as her genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm, is accurate. The Applicant submits that she had expressed an interest in improving her target shooting skills. The Applicant submits that she made no attempt to deceive, nor has she ever used firearms outside legal parameters.

44. The Respondent seeks that the revocation decision be affirmed. The Respondent submits that:

1. During the Police attendance at the Applicant’s residence on 22 March 2024, Police received information and made observations regarding the Applicant’s mental health.

2. The Applicant previously associated with BP, RR and NK, all of whom have criminal histories which the Applicant was aware of during her association with them.

3. The Applicant has provided information which suggests that she may have been using firearms for a purpose otherwise than in connection with the purpose established as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.

45. The Respondent submits that due to these factors, the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms due to her way of living or domestic circumstances, and it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold a licence.

Consideration

Issue 1 - Should the Applicant’s licence be revoked on the basis there is reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the Applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances?

46. In determining this issue, the Tribunal has primarily taken into account the evidence of the criminal histories of, whether the Applicant has any ongoing association with BP, RR and NK, as well as the evidence about the Applicant’s mental health.

BP

47. The criminal history of BP was included in the Respondent’s material. BP has been convicted of:

1. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2014, 2016 and 2024.

2. Assault officer in execution of duty in 2013.

3. Resist officer in execution of duty in 2013.

4. Enter inclosed land not prescribed premises without lawful excuse in 2016.

5. Possessing a prohibited drug in 2016 and 2017.

48. BP was charged and convicted of most of these offences before and during the period that he was in a relationship with the Applicant (two years prior to March 2016).

49. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

50. During February 2016 and March 2016, there were incidents reported to Police involving the Applicant and BP. The Police records included in the s 58 documents noted:

1. On 26 February 2016, Police attended the Applicant’s residence after the Applicant had told a witness that BP abused her and he was going to take their two children away from her. When Police arrived, the Applicant told Police that nothing had occurred, and she had just had a verbal argument with BP. When asked if any other incidents occurred, the Applicant told Police that nothing had occurred. BP was reported by Police as being argumentative and initially would not let Police into the house.

2. On 6 March 2016, the Applicant and BP were in a heated argument. BP was allegedly aggravated and encroached on the Applicant’s personal space and started yelling abuse at her. BP’s family member who was present intervened to calm BP down as they could see the argument was escalating, however another argument ensued resulting in the family member leaving to avoid further conflict. The Applicant attempted to leave the house with the children, however BP would not allow her to leave with both children and stood in her way. The Applicant “regretfully” handed over one of the children to BP and left the house with the other child.

3. On 6 March 2016, after leaving the house, the Applicant walked to the local Police Station and provided a statement. The Applicant disclosed that during her relationship with BP, he had been “constantly abusive and aggressive”. The Applicant stated that the previous day, BP had left the Applicant on the side of the road and refused to pick her up.

4. On 7 March 2016, an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was served by Police on BP, permitting contact so that the parties could discuss custody arrangements for the children.

51. During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that her relationship with BP commenced in 2014 and lasted for two years. The Applicant stated that she knew at the time that he had a criminal history and that one of his charges “came up while we were together”. The Applicant stated that BP “quickly became abusive and very controlling”. The Applicant stated that the end of the relationship was a “messy situation”. The Applicant could not recall the exact end of the relationship but said that it probably ended “when I took him to Court”. The Applicant stated that the last time she spoke to BP was two years ago.

52. In the Applicant’s internal review submission, which was included in the s 58 documents, the Applicant stated the following about BP:

“I have no ongoing relationship with BP and have had minimal contact with him over the last few years. He currently resides in […] (last I heard) and has no involvement in my or my children’s lives, beyond the occasional phone call every few years. On the rare occasions we have spoken the interactions have been civil, but I remain fully aware of his violent and untrustworthy nature. I take every precaution to ensure that he is not around me or my family. I honestly think he’s lost interest any way at this point.”

53. In relation to the welfare check by Police on 26 February 2016, the Applicant stated the following in her internal review submission:

“During the welfare check, I fully cooperated with the attending officers and showed them my children to reassure them of their well-being. I explained that the call had been made out of spite by my ex, as I had just been awarded full custody, had a current AVO against him and had not answered his approximately 40 calls on that day, which was my birthday. BP had sent me a message saying if I didn’t answer him he would call Police. My mother, a local GP, was present at the time and can confirm this. I did not argue with officers but simply provided a context for their visit. If I seemed frustrated it was directed at BP’s attempt to control and coerce me into contacting him, not at the police. I clearly remember the officer saying that he understood the situation and would make a note in the system to disregard further welfare check requests from my ex.”

54. During cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that:

1. There was no AVO in force at the time of the welfare check on 26 February 2016 as the AVO was not obtained until March 2016 (following the incident on 6 March 2016).

2. The Applicant’s birthday is in May, not 26 February.

3. The Applicant had not been “awarded full custody” as of 26 February 2016. At this time the children were in the care of both parents, and on 6 March 2016, BP kept one child and the Applicant took the other child with her.

55. The Applicant had also told Police on 26 February 2016 that there had been no occurrences of abuse from BP, as had been reported to a witness. However, on 6 March 2016, the Applicant reported to Police that BP was constantly abusive and aggressive during their relationship.

56. During cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that the statement she made in the internal review submission was not an accurate reflection of what happened on 26 February 2016 and that she had got the dates wrong. The Applicant stated that it was the “general gist” of what happened. The Applicant stated that BP was trying to intimidate, control and coerce her and that his behaviour had been the “same pattern over and over and over again for a very long time”.

57. The Applicant’s evidence of recent and ongoing contact that the Applicant has with BP was not clear. It appears that BP and the Applicant are able to contact each other in relation to the children and that the Applicant has had direct contact with BP herself. The Applicant knows the area in which BP lives and is aware of his “violent and untrustworthy nature”.

58. As noted above, there was a Special Condition imposed on the Applicant’s firearms licence that firearms, firearm parts and ammunition must not be stored or possessed at any location where BP resides or frequents.

Factual findings

59. It is an undisputed fact that BP has a serious criminal history.

60. It was an undisputed fact that the Applicant is still in contact with BP. Despite knowing about his criminal history and his “violent and untrustworthy nature”, the Applicant admitted to ongoing contact with BP at least in relation to their children. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the extent of the contact that the Applicant has with BP, given the Applicant’s inaccurate account of the Police welfare check on 26 February 2016.

RR

61. The criminal history of RR was included in the Respondent’s material. RR has been convicted of:

1. Take and drive conveyance without consent of owner in 2007.

2. Drive vehicle recklessly/furiously or speed/manner dangerous in 2007.

3. Manufacture prohibited drug in 2014. The penalty imposed for this offence was a community corrections order which remained in place until 10 April 2024.

62. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

63. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

64. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

65. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that she was together with RR when she was with BP. The Applicant stated that her relationship with RR lasted five years until they broke up in 2013.

66. The Applicant stated that she and RR purchased a dog together when they were in a relationship, and after their relationship that they would take turns at caring for the dog. The Applicant stated that this occurred until the dog died six months ago. The Applicant stated that she had “no intention to continue that connection now that we have lost the dog”.

67. The Applicant stated that she last spoke to RR about seven months ago, and the last time she received correspondence from RR was five or six months ago, when she asked him if he could pick up some things left in her driveway.

68. The Police record of the incident of 22 March 2024 noted that at the time RR “remains close friends” with the Applicant.

69. The Applicant stated that RR had never stayed at her house. The Applicant stated that LK had “knocked on the door one night” and asked to stay for a short time as she didn’t want to go back to RR as he was “in a state” and “traumatised”. When asked by the Tribunal what this meant, the Applicant stated that RR had 90% third-degree burns, his business had fallen apart, and he had a mental breakdown being in fear of losing everything. The Applicant also stated that RR “drinks too much to get on top of it”. The Applicant stated that while LK was staying at her house, RR visited the home although the Applicant “didn’t see him much at all”. The Applicant conceded, when it was put to her, that LK, RR’s partner, felt comfortable enough with the Applicant to come and ask to stay at her home.

70. However, the Applicant’s mother, during cross-examination, stated that RR had stayed at their house for the same period that LK had stayed at their house, for about three months around the end of 2023/early 2024. The Applicant’s mother said that she had to ask RR to leave their house “for the same reasons” that she asked NK to leave (which is addressed below). The Applicant’s mother stated that RR was “a very different young man before he got tied up with NK”. The Applicant’s mother told Police during their attendance at the home on 22 March 2024 that RR became friends with NK.

71. The Applicant’s mother has no interest in the outcome of the proceedings, other than not wanting to damage the reputation of her daughter. Noting this and the fact that the Applicant was not accurate and was inconsistent in her own evidence, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s mother evidence about RR staying in the home, over the Applicant’s account that RR did not stay at her home and that she hardly saw him when he visited LK who was staying at the home.

72. In the Applicant’s internal review submission, the Applicant stated the following about RR:

“RR has no interest in my firearms and, while he may have made some mistakes related to drug charges almost a decade ago, he is now permanently disabled due to 85% third-degree burns. To my knowledge, RR has never been involved in a violent crime and has never expressed any interest or desire to access my firearms. There is no indication that he would attempt to persuade me to allow him access to them or take any similar action.”

73. RR was caught up in what the Applicant described as the “hacking confusion” or the “hacking incidents” involving NK. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that RR had taken a phone charger that NK had left at the Applicant’s house to a “forensic check person”. The Applicant stated that RR told her that it was a listening or investigative device. RR therefore returned to the Applicant’s home (to take and return the phone charger/listening device) after the three-month period that he stayed there and was asked to leave.

74. The Applicant stated that RR and LK had told her, prior to the Police attendance on 22 March 2024, that there were photos of her children on RR’s computer that were mixed up with other pornographic photographs. The Applicant stated that RR claimed that these had been inserted into his computer by someone else, which caused the Applicant to believe that there was some plausibility to what NK had been telling her about computer hacking and him being pursued by the “wrong people”.

75. During the Police attendance at her home on 22 March 2024, the Applicant told Police that she would “150 percent vouch” for RR and that RR would not have stored photos of children on his computer as he was not “that sort of person”. Police noted that the Applicant changed her story during her discussion with them, from not speaking with RR for over ten years to regularly speaking with him. During her discussion with Police, the Applicant also stated that RR “comes here to talk to me” because he doesn’t like talking over the phone. The Applicant referred to RR’s belief that “they” might be in his Wi-Fi.

76. When Police attended the residence of RR and LK on 23 March 2024, after explaining the reason for their visit, Police reported that RR and LK provided a “very confused and not reliable answer involving their computers and any other electronic devices being hacked and remotely controlled by NK, photographs involving the Applicant’s children mysteriously appearing and disappearing from RR’s computer”. Police consequently formed the opinion that it would be beneficial to refer both RR and LK to a crisis team for a mental health assessment.

Factual findings

77. It is an undisputed fact that RR has a serious criminal history.

78. The Applicant allowed RR to stay at her home as recently as early 2024 despite knowledge of his criminal history. The Applicant was inconsistent with Police in her information about the frequency of her contact with RR, and during the hearing, the Applicant’s evidence about whether RR had stayed at their home was at odds with her mother’s evidence. The Tribunal has accepted the Applicant’s mother’s evidence over the Applicant on this issue. It was the Applicant’s mother, and not the Applicant, that asked RR to leave the house due to concerns about his behaviour.

79. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s association with RR has ended and is of the view that, given the history of the Applicant’s long-standing relationship with RR despite knowledge of his criminal history, there is a likelihood of the Applicant continuing to associate with RR.

NK

80. The criminal history of NK was included in the Respondent’s material. NK has been found guilty of:

1. Common assault in 2010.

2. Self-administer/attempt self-administer prohibited drug in 2010.

3. Robbery armed with an offensive weapon in 2015.

4. Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen in 2016 and 2021.

5. Destroy or damage property in 2019.

6. Possess prohibited drug in 2021 and 2023.

7. Custody of knife in public place in 2021 and 2023.

8. Deal with identity info to commit etc indictable offence in 2021.

9. Dishonestly obtain property by deception in 2021.

10. Possess unauthorised pistol in 2021.

11. Possess unauthorised firearm in 2022.

12. Possess equipment to make false identification documents with intent of committing an indictable offence in 2022.

13. Use prohibited weapon contrary to prohibition order in 2023.

14. Possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit in 2024.

81. NK is currently in custody after being charged on 15 May 2024 with the offences of destroy/damage property with intent to endanger life and cause grievous bodily harm to person with intent (two charges).

82. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

83. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

84. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

85. During cross-examination, when asked about her relationship with NK, the Applicant stated that she and NK were friends in their early 20s and had bonded over their shared love of music and creative pursuits. The Applicant stated that all three men – BP, RR and NK had been part of “the same very large extended group of musicians and creatives” who had gone to the same concerts. The Applicant, and the Applicant’s mother, stated that in his early 20s, NK used to wear cowboy boots and carry a guitar everywhere.

86. The Applicant stated that she and NK “reconnected” in 2023 after he was released from prison. The Applicant said that she helped NK put in a housing transfer, took him to the doctor and the dentist. The Applicant stated that NK had told her that he wanted to get on a “cleaner path”.

87. Around October 2023, the Applicant’s mother and stepfather were going on an overseas trip for a few weeks. The Applicant stated that at the time she had been diagnosed with a heart condition and was not confident to stay at home on her own with her children. The Applicant said that she had posted a request on Facebook to her Facebook friends asking if anyone could come and stay with her while her mother and stepfather were away, however no one responded. The Applicant stated that NK was one of her Facebook friends and had been since they met in their 20s.

88. The Applicant stated that at this time, NK called her and said that he had nowhere to go. The Applicant stated that NK was “really the only person available”, and so she invited him to stay at her place while her mother and stepfather went overseas.

89. The Applicant stated that the “person who walked through the door” was a “very different person to the person I used to know”. The Applicant stated that NK stayed at their home up until Christmas 2023, until her mother asked NK to leave. The Applicant stated that she wanted NK to leave as well.

90. During cross-examination, the Applicant’s mother stated that NK had stayed at their home before RR came to stay, from the time she and her husband went overseas in October/November 2023 to after Christmas 2023.

91. During cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that she knew NK had a criminal record and had been in custody, but she was not sure what it was for. The Applicant said that she suspected that what he said it was for may not have been the truth.

92. The Applicant was asked by Police on 22 March 2024 whether NK could be experiencing psychosis, given what he had told her. In response the Applicant said that she thought NK was “back using drugs”. The Applicant stated that “when he got out of jail he was clean but I think he has been back on it”. During cross-examination, the Tribunal asked the Applicant what drug NK used, to which the Applicant stated that NK used methamphetamines.

93. It was put to the Applicant during cross-examination that on 22 March 2024, the Applicant did not tell Police that NK had hacked her phone, nor did she express any dangers that NK posed. In response to these questions, the Applicant stated that she was not sure whether it was NK or someone else that was doing the hacking.

94. When asked, during cross-examination, whether she had cut off contact with NK after 22 March 2024, the Applicant stated that she did not as “he was absolutely obsessed with me”. The Applicant stated that “cutting off men like that is very dangerous”. When the Tribunal asked the Applicant to elaborate on this statement, the Applicant stated that some men don’t take rejection very well, and she felt like cutting NK off immediately would have been dangerous.

81. The Applicant stated in her internal review submission that she was aware that NK was arrested in April or May 2024 “for attempting to murder three people”. The Applicant stated in the submission:

“As soon as I realised the seriousness of the situation, I completed distanced myself from NK. I have since been on the receiving end of his verbal abuse and manipulation, he is still sending me suggestive letters from prison although I’ve told him many times I’m not interested. I am considering apply for an AVO, though I remain cautious about escalating his behaviour to the point of endangering us further. I needed to extricate myself from the connection carefully without angering him.”

96. During cross-examination, however, the Applicant stated that NK had called her once or twice from prison but she had told them that she did not want him to contact her.

Factual findings

97. It is an undisputed fact that NK has a very serious criminal history.

98. It was an undisputed fact that the Applicant invited NK to stay at her home with her and her children, shortly after he was released from custody and with knowledge that he had a criminal history and previously used illicit drugs. Similar to the situation with RR, it was the Applicant’s mother, and not the Applicant, that asked NK to leave the house due to concerns about his behaviour. It was an undisputed fact that NK has continued to contact the Applicant after being arrested, although the extent of this contact is not clear. The Applicant has stated that she has had difficulty ending contact with NK in fear of angering him or placing herself in danger.

99. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s association with NK has ended. The Tribunal is of the view that, given the history of the Applicant’s relationship with NK despite knowledge of NK’s criminal history and illicit drug use, there is a likelihood of the Applicant continuing to associate with NK.

Applicant’s mental health

Self-reported history

100. The Applicant stated that she has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The Applicant stated that she had never been diagnosed with a personality disorder or psychosis.

Police concerns arising from incident on 22 March 2024

101. According to Police records and the Police body worn camera footage, when the Applicant came to the door to meet with Police on 22 March 2024, she immediately requested that Police speak with her away from the house as she believed that numerous items in the house (Wi-Fi, mobile devices, cameras) had been hacked and were capable of hearing their conversations. The Applicant then proceeded to tell Police, amongst other matters, that NK was employed as a “hacker” who hunts paedophiles and had gone after the wrong person (who NK could not say who, as it was too dangerous) and had bikies going after him with threats made on his life. The Applicant said that NK had told her that she and her children were at risk because of her connection to NK. The Applicant stated that NK had asked her to go to Police and tell Police that NK has evidence which he was willing to come forward with. The Applicant said that her friends think that NK is the one doing the hacking. The Applicant said that someone had taken photos off her device and put them on RR’s computer in a folder with pornography, to make it look like RR has interest in her children. The Applicant confirmed during cross-examination that she had not seen RR’s computer for herself.

102. Police then spoke separately to the Applicant’s mother and stepfather, who are both medical professionals. It was clear from the Police body worn camera footage, which the Tribunal viewed, that the Applicant’s mother and stepfather were concerned about the Applicant’s presentation and the situation and were supportive of Police asking the Applicant to have a mental health assessment. The Applicant’s mother informed Police that the Applicant had ADHD, OCD and a personality disorder. The Applicant’s mother stated that the Applicant was very stable but “very conspiracy theory” at the moment. The Applicant’s mother stated that the Applicant was sleep disordered and stays up “way too late” looking at conspiracy theories and speaking to “crazy friends”. The Applicant’s mother stated that the Applicant is really clever and insightful about the people she meets, but the Applicant didn’t have any insight into NK. The Applicant’s mother stated that the Applicant and NK were “feeding off each other” and that NK is paranoid. The Applicant’s mother stated that as the Applicant is not working, she doesn’t have much to do in her life and goes down all these “rabbit holes of conspiracy theories”. The Applicant’s mother stated that the Applicant gets offended when they don’t agree with her and of a nighttime is “constantly sending me videos”.

103. Prior to 22 March 2024, the Applicant and LK had attended Police stations with a similar claim (on four occasions according to the Applicant), refusing to provide any identifiable details regarding names, places or offences. The Applicant and LK maintained that their mobile phones were “tapped” and chose to scribble sentences on a notepad instead of talking so that they could not be heard.

104. Police reported that on 22 March 2024, the Applicant appeared delusional, paranoid and unable to comprehend the flaws in her version of events given to Police. Due to the Applicant’s irrational way of thinking and paranoia, the Police offered the Applicant the opportunity to speak with a paramedic regarding her mental health, which the Applicant accepted. Police were informed that it would be a three-hour wait for Ambulance attendance. As Police assessed that there was no risk of harm to the Applicant or others and the Applicant had cooperated in agreeing to voluntarily speak with paramedics, Police left the Applicant in the care of her mother and stepfather and later made a referral to the local mental health service for further and ongoing assessment of the Applicant.

105. The Tribunal has viewed the Police body worn camera footage of the Police attendance at the Applicant’s home on 22 March 2024. The Tribunal agrees with the Police observations that the Applicant appeared delusional and paranoid and the Applicant was unable to ascertain that what she was saying was irrational and highly improbable. The Applicant stated that she believed what NK had told her and her actions in requesting to speak to Police away from the house, demonstrated this.

Mental health assessment – November 2024

106. The Applicant attended three sessions with a registered psychologist between 7 November 2024 and 14 November 2024 for a psychological assessment to provide a response to the Firearms Risk Assessment Questionnaire. It was noted in the report completed on 22 November 2024 that the psychologist did not receive any background or relevant information from the referring GP. The assessment was based on interviews with the Applicant during the three sessions and the results of the Personality Assessment Inventory psychometric device employed by the psychologist.

107. The psychologist assessed that the Applicant has no diagnosed conditions or impairments, and none that would prohibit the safe and responsible use of firearms.

108. The psychologist stated that no risks of impairments were identified for the Applicant, and there was no history of an inability to form rational judgements, or exercise will power.

109. There was no mention in this report of the Applicant’s previous diagnoses (ADHD and OCD) or the Applicant’s history with BP, RR or NK and any associated risks, or any mention of what had led to the revocation decision including the concerns that Police had about the Applicant’s presentation and her mental health on 22 March 2024.

110. On 22 December 2024, the psychologist provided a report entitled “Amendment” to the Firearms Registry which he asked to be accepted for additional required details in the consideration of the status of the Applicant’s firearm licence. This was in response to concerns raised by the Firearms Registry about the initial report the psychologist prepared.

111. This amendment report noted that the Applicant had, during the assessment, spoken extensively about the fear of vulnerability and distress she experienced due to NK’s actions and the subsequent interactions with Police over his criminal activities. The psychologist stated that these details were not included as it was assumed the Police were familiar with NK’s criminal activities, thereby ruling out paranoia on the Applicant’s part. The psychologist stated that the veracity of the Applicant’s claims about NK’s abuse, criminal activities and hacking can be objectively confirmed through the evidence in the Police investigation and reports and would therefore dispel any concerns about the Applicant’s mental capacity for the safe and responsible use of firearms. The psychologist noted that the Police records and reports were not available to him.

112. The Tribunal finds that the psychologist’s statement that the Applicant’s behaviour that was observed by Police in March 2024 was justified, as it was later confirmed that NK was in fact involved in serious criminal activities, should be given limited weight. This is because the activities for which NK was subsequently arrested over do not relate to any “hacking” or “hunting paedophiles” or going after “the wrong people” or any of the other irrational or implausible statements made by NK to the Applicant which she believed and caused her to contact Police. The amendment report does not address the limitations of the psychologist’s first report. The Tribunal is therefore not able to place much weight on this report as a reliable expert assessment of the state of the Applicant’s mental health. Given the limitation of this assessment, the Tribunal is not able to rely on it as evidence that the Applicant is able to exercise continuous and responsible control over her firearms.

Evidence from the Applicant’s mother

113. At the start of the hearing, after the Respondent had advised the Applicant that her mother was required for cross-examination and had received no response from the Applicant, the Applicant stated that her mother was not available as she was at work and her mother “would rather die than be cross-examined” publicly about her daughter. The Applicant stated that her mother doesn’t want to be involved in “mucky underworld stuff”.

114. When the tender of the Applicant’s mother’s “Affidavit of clarification” was raised, the Tribunal was not going to admit the document as it was not duly witnessed, the Applicant could not say whether Generative Artificial Intelligence had been used to prepare it, and the evidence could not be tested through cross-examination. The Tribunal at this point was not certain that it was a document that had been prepared by the Applicant’s mother and therefore could not place any weight on it. The Applicant then requested the Tribunal to contact her mother to see if she could give evidence over the phone or via AVL. This occurred and the Applicant’s mother arrived at home from work, appeared via phone and was cross-examined.

115. In the “Affidavit of clarification” by the Applicant’s mother, it states that she seeks to correct any misinterpretation of what she said to Police on 22 March 2024. In this affidavit, the Applicant’s mother states:

“This was a highly stressful situation that had been brewing for some weeks prior to the police visit to our home. We were feeling extremely anxious about the whole situation and were unable to distinguish how real the threat was, or whether there was any truth in what was being said about the hacking.

At no time did we doubt the Applicant’s psychological stability and we did not see any paranoia as a psychological problem but rather as a natural outcome of the things that she was being told. We also were feeling paranoid about the situation.”

116. In relation to her comments to Police about the Applicant being obsessed by conspiracy theories and staying up late watching them, the Applicant’s mother states in her affidavit that she did not mean it to be a criticism and that they enjoyed talking about some of the theories with the Applicant as they can be quite entertaining.

117. The Applicant’s mother stated in her affidavit that the Applicant does not have a diagnosed personality disorder and that this was something that she had misunderstood from a conversation she had with the Applicant years ago.

118. The Applicant’s mother, in the affidavit, states that she is distressed to think that anything she said may have caused reputational damage to the Applicant or could be used in evidence before the Tribunal, questioning the Applicant’s character. The Applicant’s mother also states that she is upset that this has caused the Applicant emotional distress and that the Applicant has experienced financial hardship through having to fund psychology sessions which they considered unnecessary.

119. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that her relationship with her mother was quite strained since she married her stepfather, and that they have since had a breakthrough in their relationship. The Applicant stated that her mother had been asked “leading questions” by Police on 22 March 2024.

120. While the Applicant’s mother may not now want to say anything to distress her daughter or impugn her character given the improvement in their relationship, the Tribunal places more weight on the concerns expressed by the Applicant’s mother and stepfather to Police on 22 March 2024 about the Applicant’s presentation. These concerns were expressed candidly, voluntarily, without any input or influence from the Applicant, and at the time of the Applicant’s involvement with NK.

Factual findings

121. After watching the Police body worn camera footage, the Tribunal agrees with the concerns held by Police about the Applicant’s mental health after the information obtained and their observations of the Applicant on 22 March 2024. The Applicant’s presentation and mental state was concerning and caused Police, supported by her mother and stepfather at the time, to suggest that she obtain a mental health assessment. The Applicant’s subsequent explanations of the situation at the time, the Applicant’s mother’s evidence and the mental health assessment completed by the psychologist the Applicant saw in November 2024, has not assuaged these concerns. There has been no reasonable explanation given by the Applicant or anyone else as to why the Applicant acted as she did on 22 March 2024 and had come to the point of believing and acting on what NK had told her.

122. The Tribunal therefore finds that there are unresolved concerns about the Applicant’s mental state and presentation arising from the incident of 22 March 2024.

Applicant’s use of firearms

123. Section 7A of the Firearms Act provides that a person who is the holder of a licence is guilty of an offence under this section if the person uses a firearm for any purpose otherwise than in connection with the purpose established by the person as being the genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.

124. On 28 March 2023, when the application applied for a Category AB firearms licence, the Applicant’s stated reason was for membership of a hunting club. The documents the Applicant provided from the Shooters Association that she joined, confirmed that the Applicant was only a member for the purpose of hunting, not target shooting. There was no mention in the application of target shooting, for which there are separate special provisions in the Firearms Act.

125. In the Applicant’s internal review submission, she stated that target shooting is something that she enjoys and has found to be a positive outlet. The Applicant provided further details of the benefits of target shooting as a positive hobby.

126. The Applicant’s licence was granted based on the genuine reason that she was a member of a hunting club.

127. During cross-examination, the Applicant stated that she wanted to learn to hunt ethically and has not had the opportunity to go hunting yet (in the eight months that she held a firearms licence). The Applicant stated that she had undertook target shooting at the hunting club. The Applicant said that the reference to target shooting in the internal review submissions was a statement she made in an “informal way”, and she did not mean that she was a “target shooter”.

Conclusion to Issue 1

128. The Applicant has been in relationships and voluntarily associated with three persons who have serious criminal histories. This has extended to allowing RR and NK to stay at her home while she held a firearms licence. The association itself can create a risk even if there is no evidence that the Applicant herself has not mishandled firearms. The Tribunal finds that the conduct of BP, RR and NK presents a risk to public safety if each of them were to have access to firearms. The Tribunal finds that there is a real and appreciable risk to public safety if the Applicant was to possess or use firearms, because of the Applicant’s associations with BP, RR and NK. This is not a risk that is minimal, fanciful or theoretical.

129. The Tribunal has found that there are unresolved concerns about the Applicant’s mental state and presentation arising from the incident of 22 March 2024.

130. It is not clear to the Tribunal whether the Applicant has committed an offence under s 7A of the Firearms Act or is otherwise confused as to the way in which she can use a firearm under the licence that she was issued. The Applicant has not been charged for an offence for the misuse of firearms. There is a valid concern that the Applicant has provided inconsistent information regarding the genuine reason she has used her firearms, however further evidence and investigation is required. On the available evidence, the Tribunal is not able to make any findings that the Applicant has committed an offence under s 7A of the Firearms Act.

131. The Tribunal, however, has reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over her firearms due to her way of living and domestic circumstances. This is because of the Applicant’s relationships and associations with three persons over a long period of time who have serious criminal histories, and unresolved concerns about the Applicant’s presentation and mental state on 22 March 2024.

Issue 2 - Is it in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence?

132. During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked by the Tribunal why the privilege of holding a firearms licence should be restored to her. The Applicant stated that she has never done anything wrong with her firearms, she doesn’t wish to have any future contact with BP, RR or NK, she doesn’t have any mental health issues or record of violence, she is not a danger in terms of firearms, and she wants to keep her hobby.

133. Included in the Applicant’s material were character references from four people who made positive comments about the Applicant and particularly her role as a parent. These references, however, do not refer to the Applicant’s firearm history or the issues that led to the revocation decision. While these references speak highly of the Applicant generally, they are of limited assistance to the Tribunal as they do not show knowledge and insight into the negative history of the Applicant relevant to the revocation decision. What a person giving a character reference knows of the negative history of the applicant is determinative of the weight to be attributed to the reference: Director-General, Ministry of Transport v FV (GD) [2008] NSWADTAP 60 at [41].

134. In this matter, the Tribunal has found that there is a real and appreciable risk to public safety if the Applicant was to hold a firearms licence. As held in Lee, where there is the possibility of a threat to the public's safety, the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm.

132. The Tribunal is of the view that it would not promote the principles and objects of the Firearms Act and would not be in the public interest to extend the privilege of holding a firearms licence to the Applicant.

Conclusion

136. In relation to the question of whether the Applicant’s licence should be revoked because there is reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over her firearms because of her way of living and domestic circumstances, the Tribunal finds there is such reasonable cause.

137. In relation to the question of whether it is in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence, the Tribunal is of the view that it would not be in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence. This is because the Tribunal has assessed, in all the circumstances, that there is a real and appreciable risk to public safety, and the public's right to safety must outweigh the Applicant’s privilege to possess and use a firearm.

138. It follows that, the Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

139. The Applicant’s firearms licence was otherwise due to expire on 20 July 2025. It is open to the Applicant to make a fresh application for a firearms licence, in which the Applicant will be required to disclose that she previously had her firearms licence revoked. As the Tribunal stated in Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5 at [62], in any future application by the Applicant for a firearms licence it would be appropriate that the Respondent take the Tribunal’s review of the revocation decision into account.

Order

140. The decision under review is affirmed.

**********

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

Amendments

01 August 2025 - Amended Date of orders and Decision date

Decision last updated: 01 August 2025