Kroon v Police - [2005] SASC 70

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
KROON v POLICE
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
4 March 2005
FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS - FIREARMS - LICENCES AND RELATED MATTERS - LICENCES - ISSUE OF AND GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL GENERAL PRINCIPLES - ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE NOT AVAILABLE AT HEARING - WHEN ADMISSIBLE
Appeal against sentence - appellant pleaded guilty before magistrate to threatening another person with a firearm - offending involved appellant firing shots from a .22 calibre rifle in the vicinity of his son - appeal on grounds that appellant was suffering from incorrectly prescribed medication at time of offending and that these matters were not known at time of sentencing.
Consideration of section 42(4) of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) and of r 97.18(b) of the Supreme Court Rules 1988 (SA) - consideration of receipt of further evidence - consideration of medical history of appellant and of medical evidence - discussion of relevant factors to be considered when re-sentencing - consideration of section 10(1) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA).
Held - further evidence admitted - at time of offending appellant was suffering from side effects as a result of taking incorrectly prescribed medication - the offending was out of character - appeal allowed - conviction recorded by the magistrate set aside - appellant released on a supervised three-year good behaviour bond - appellant disqualified from using or possessing any firearm until further order.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 47A, s 299A(1)(g); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42(4); Supreme Court Rules 1988 (SA) r 97.18(b); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10(1), s 16, referred to.
Re Van Beelan (1974) 9 SASR 163; R v McIntee (1985) 38 SASR 432; R v Penno [2004] SASC 354; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Neal (1982) 149 CLR 305; Habra v Police [2004] SASC 430, considered.

KROON v POLICE
[2005] SASC 70
Magistrates Appeal
GRAY J:

This is an appeal against sentence.[1]
[1] An appeal against conviction was lodged but abandoned.
On 26 March 2003 the appellant, Peter Kroon, pleaded guilty before a magistrate to a charge of threatening another person with a firearm contrary to section 47A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).[2] He was convicted and released on a two-year good behaviour bond. The bond included a condition that he be subject to supervision for 18 months. He was disqualified from holding a firearm licence and was ordered not to possess a firearm.
[2] A person who, without lawful excuse, threatens another person with a firearm, or imitation firearm, is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: $15 000 or imprisonment for 4 years.
Circumstances of the Offending
At about 6.00pm on 7 February 2003 Mr Kroon was observed by his son and his wife to be packing his belongings into his vehicle. He asked his son to open the boot to his son’s vehicle. His son refused. An argument ensued. Mr Kroon threatened his son, saying words to the effect of, “Let’s see how you feel with a .22 in your guts”. He then walked into a shed and retrieved a .22 calibre rifle. Mr Kroon then walked to the front of the vehicle, pointed the rifle at his son and demanded that the boot be opened. His son hid behind the vehicle and Mr Kroon fired ten shots. He then walked around the side of the vehicle and confronted his son with the firearm. Another shot was fired. Mr Kroon’s son then opened the boot. Mr Kroon said there was nothing inside that interested him and walked away. The family, fearing for their safety, contacted the police and hid on the property. The police attended and Mr Kroon was arrested.
In his record of interview with the police Mr Kroon provided the following account of the events giving rise to the charge:
Q.    Peter do you mind telling me what happened tonight?
A.Yes, I started packing my bags to load in the back of my ute. I grabbed a few of my tools that were in my shed. I attempted to open the boot of my sons’ [sic] car which by the way is not his car, it’s registered in his mothers [sic] name. I asked him to open the boot because I believed my wheel brace was in there. He refused to do so, so I told him that I would get a bar and I would open it for him and then he’s threatened me that, we’re editing this I suppose, that he would stop me. In that case I said I will get the rifle out and make sure you don’t use the car again and leave it at that. That way you can’t use the car and take any stuff ….. which I did.
Q.    And how did all of that take place, what did you do then?
A.I put a couple of rounds through his radiator and one or two through the windscreen.
…
Q.    What happened to you today to make you want to go?
A.Because of what happened last Sunday when they didn’t give a damn weather [sic] I had a severe hypo or weather [sic] I didn’t. And I passed out twice and I thought well if that’s the way they want to be I’ll get out of this hypo somehow and they can all get fucked.
Mr Kroon explained to police that when he said “hypo” he was referring to hypoglycaemic (low blood sugar). He also told police that he had been drinking alcohol that day, around six glasses of tawny port. The following exchange then took place:
Q.So when you told [your son] you want to get the wheel brace out and just tell me again what happened then?
A.    He said I’m not opening the boot for you.
…
I said well I’ll force it open.
…
And he said I’ll stop you any way I can.
…
And I said well I’ll see how you stop a 22 bullet.
...
Um, I stood in front of the car, he stood at the back of the car. I asked him to open it, he said no. I put a bullet in his radiator.
…
Through the lower part of the bonnet into the radiator. I saw the water coming out.
…
I asked him again [to open the boot] and he went and said no. He said why don’t you put one in me, he said I don’t care if you kill me. I said, I’m not here to do that. I said I’m here to get you to open the boot. Stop you stealing stuff from me that you’ve been doing for many years.
Q.    Okay so then what happened?
A.    So I held the gun up again and put another one through it.
…
And then he still refused and then I put one in the windscreen, then I put one at a slightly higher range into the windscreen, so that it went through the passenger side rear window as well cause he was standing on the drivers [sic] side.
…
And then he showed me this and he showed me that and I said no, that’s not mine, that’s not mine, that’s not mine. Said okay, nothing I want in there. Why didn’t you open it, you’ve put me in a worse place.
Mr Kroon agreed with the police suggestion that in total he had fired around half a dozen rounds in ten minutes.
Personal Circumstances of the Appellant
Mr Kroon is aged 63 years. He served in the Royal Australian Navy from 1961 to 1970 as a marine engineer. He was exposed to traumatic events during Vietnam service and was on the HMAS Melbourne when it collided with HMAS Voyager. He receives a disability support pension and a service pension. He is said to suffer from a post traumatic stress disorder connected with his service in the navy. He has further medical problems including diabetes, heart problems, anxiety and chronic back pain. He has been described as a heavy drinker, drinking up to one half to a litre of wine per day.
Mr Kroon has no criminal antecedents. He has been involved in his local community. He has served on the Board of the Riverton Public Hospital and as Vice-President of the Returned Services League. He is the father of three children and lives on a property near Auburn with his wife of 41 years.
Approach of the Magistrate
When sentencing Mr Kroon, the Magistrate took into account Mr Kroon’s previous good character and his history of military service:
… I am prepared to deal with you having regard to your previous good character. It carries substantial weight - all things being equal. Military service would normally be something that would be very significant, and Vietnam was one of those conflicts at the time that there was massive opposition at home. Those that went didn’t have a choice. I presume you may have been a career service person at the time, but there have been considerable difficulties within and without and many people that served in Vietnam have never been able to find a peaceful resolution. They have never felt as though they have been of value. … Service on the HMAS Melbourne had much more difficulty in relation to a very famous or infamous ship.
The magistrate remarked that Mr Kroon presented in a “steady, reasonable manner” and that he had “obviously received appropriate treatment and responded well”. As earlier observed, a conviction was recorded and Mr Kroon was released on a two-year good behaviour bond.
The Appeal
The primary ground of appeal relates to the recording of a conviction. Counsel for Mr Kroon submitted that at the time of the offending Mr Kroon was suffering from a thyroid condition brought about by the taking of incorrectly prescribed medication. It was said that this wrongly prescribed medication caused Mr Kroon to become emotionally unstable and to act completely out of character. These matters were not known at the time of sentencing.
The Medical History
On 22 January 2003, Mr Kroon was admitted to the Repatriation General Hospital. It was reported by a psychiatrist Professor Ben-Tovim that on discharge on 25 January 2003, Mr Kroon had been prescribed medication in error:
Soon after discharge he was prescribed Thyroxine 100mg [sic], in error, and continued on that drug until he was re-admitted to the Repatriation General Hospital.
Mr Kroon had been prescribed thyroxine by a doctor, who was not his regular general practitioner and who did not have access to his discharge notes. Professor Ben-Tovim also reported:
Mr Kroon told me, when I first interviewed him, that he had taken increased doses of the ducene since he had left hospital in January, and on the afternoon of the incident had taken at least 5 tables [sic] of the drug. He said at the time he felt a lot calmer when he was taking Ducene.
On 28 January 2003, Mr Kroon’s wife became very concerned about his behaviour and contacted her husband’s general practitioner, Dr Holmes. After he commenced the prescribed course of thyroxine it was said that his behaviour changed markedly. Mr Kroon was admitted later that day to the Clare Hospital. He refused to hand his medication to hospital staff, yet later told his wife the hospital had not allowed him to keep his medication. Mr Kroon later discharged himself from hospital and was later located walking towards Auburn. He was drinking alcohol and taking tablets.
On 2 February 2003, Mrs Kroon became increasingly concerned about her husband’s behaviour. At that time Mr Kroon and his son were erecting a cupboard. Mrs Kroon observed them “making a mess of it” so she asked them to leave it. Mr Kroon ripped the cupboard out and threw it on the ground. He went into another room and his wife believed he fell into a coma. Following this incident, Mrs Kroon described her husband’s behaviour as bizarre and out of character. She said he threatened to kill himself.
On 7 February 2003 Mrs Kroon rang Dr Holmes and discussed her concerns about Mr Kroon’s behaviour. She was advised to encourage Mr Kroon to attend the hospital. He refused to do so and Mrs Kroon became concerned that he might try and kill himself. The incident the subject of the charge occurred later that day.
Mrs Kroon said her husband’s behaviour continued to be erratic and confused until he was re-admitted to the Repatriation General Hospital in late March 2003.
On 27 March 2003 Mr Kroon’s medication was altered. Since this time Mr Kroon’s behaviour is said to have returned to normal. Mrs Kroon and her son were of the belief that the wrongly prescribed medication made Mr Kroon highly irritable and angry and a different person. They say that prior to these events Mr Kroon had no history of violence. Mr Kroon’s wife and son have provided affidavit evidence confirming Mr Kroon’s change in character when taking the wrongly prescribed drug.
Medical Evidence
Dr Holmes has been Mr Kroon’s general practitioner for ten years. He completed his Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of Pathologists in 1997, and has been a rural practitioner for the past 17 years. Prior to this he worked in the Department of Clinical Chemistry at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital with medical practitioners who were said to be highly respected in the field of chemical pathology and to have pioneered aspects of thyroid research.
In a report dated 17 December 2003, Dr Holmes described Mr Kroon’s behaviour on the night of the charged offending as “totally out of character”. He considered that the offending behaviour related to the mis-prescription of thyroxine at an inappropriate dosage. He was of the view that thyroxine should be used with extreme caution in patients thought to have diabetes. Dr Holmes considered that the medication had a profound adverse effect on Mr Kroon’s physical and mental state:
In Mr Kroon’s case, soon after starting [thyroxine] (in error), he experienced:
Chest pain, tachycardia, palpitations and angina. He also had increased irritability, anxiety, nervousness, and excitability. He was restless, had severe headaches, poor concentration, emotional and sleep disturbance. He was disorientated and lost touch with what was really happening. He suffered nausea and vomiting and was short of breath. His diabetes became out of control. All of these symptoms and signs are adverse reactions known to occur with even the appropriate use of [thyroxine].
Dr Holmes explained that thyroxine should only be used for the treatment of hypothyroidism, thyroiditis or thyroid tumours, conditions which he believed Mr Kroon did not have. Dr Holmes concluded:
The fact the firearm episode followed so closely to the inappropriate ingestion of [thyroxine] (also an inappropriately high initial dose) and the fact that these symptoms and signs have now settled, not to reoccur, lead me to firmly believe that this played a major role in the unfortunate events of the 6^th [sic] of February 2003.
Professor Ben-Tovim, a psychiatrist, first assessed Mr Kroon on 25 February 2003 at the Repatriation General Hospital. He formed the view that at the time of the offending Mr Kroon was suffering from an iatrogenic hyperthyroidism caused by taking thyroxine prescribed in January 2003. Dr Ben-Tovim noted that there was no record of Mr Kroon displaying symptoms of thyroid disorder during his admission in January 2003. On 2 September 2003 he reported:
In the third edition of the standard work of its day, Mayer-Gross Slater and Roth Clinical Psychiatry, (…1969, p.356) it states that “Psychological disturbances are prominent in every case of hyperthyroidism [in this case medically induced]. The least controversial part of this subject is the psychiatric picture associated with thyrotoxicosis. The symptoms in most cases resemble those found in anxiety neurosis. There is a marked anxiety and tension, the patient is unable to sit still and concentrate, there is distractible over-activity and exaggerated sensitivity to noises and other stimuli. There is emotional lability, irritability and impatience. Minor Neurotic traits are prone to become exaggerated and formerly effective and relatively balanced individual [sic] may become unreasonable, demanding and behaving in a hysterical manner. The patient shows diminished tolerance for frustration, becomes less capable of sustained effort and craves for stimulation without being able to respond to is [sic] as he would like.”
Professor Ben-Tovim continued:
It would seem to me that Mr Kroon showed many of those symptoms after he had been prescribed thyroxine, and that he started to take large doses of a benzodiazepine in an effort to control the symptoms he was experiencing. I certainly found Mr Kroon to be very agitated when I first saw him whilst he was under the influence of the thyroxine, and he had calmed down substantially when I saw him after he had stopped the thyroxine.
…
The effects of the thyroxine were to induce the symptoms as described above. The additional doses of benzodiazepines are likely to have further disinhibited Mr Kroon, and diminished his capacity to analyses [sic] his situation in any meaningful way.
In a later report Professor Ben-Tovim concluded:
Given that the incident leading to [Mr Kroon’s] arrest and subsequent conviction occurred two weeks after he had started the Thyroxine, I can only conclude that the incident was material [sic] contributed to by his inappropriate drug treatment. This medical error having been recognised and the Thyroxine discontinued, [Mr Kroon] has greatly improved in mood and emotional stability.
Endocrinologist
Dr Anthony Roberts, an endocrinologist, has specialist qualifications in the area of hyperthyroidism. At the time of his report of 3 November 2003 he was the physician in charge of the Thyroid Clinic at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. At the time of the report Dr Roberts had treated Mr Kroon for diabetes over a two-year period and had last been consulted on 30 April 2003.
Dr Roberts was of the view that it is not uncommon for thyroxine to be inappropriately prescribed. This may occur in instances when a patient shows signs of general tiredness or fatigue even though a subsequent thyroid function test proves to be normal.
Dr Roberts confined his report to the issue of the thyroid function tests, the prescription of thyroxine and its possible effects on the thyroid function test results. The two thyroid function tests were conducted on 23 January 2003 and on 27 March 2003.
Dr Roberts did not find Mr Kroon to be suffering from hyperthyroidism. He said that at most, the tests results could reveal subclinical hyperthyroidism, which he explained was the presence of normal thyroid hormone levels and a lower than normal thyroid stimulating hormone. Dr Roberts was of the opinion it was “highly unlikely” that Mr Kroon would have had any symptoms attributable to his thyroid function results. Dr Roberts did not directly consider the broader psychological and emotional issues.
Further Evidence
This Court is invested with the power to receive further evidence on the hearing of an appeal from a magistrate by the terms of section 42(4) of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) which provides:
On an appeal, the appellate court may, if the interests of justice so require, re-hear any witnesses or receive fresh evidence.
The reception of further evidence on appeal is also addressed by r 97.18(b) of the Supreme Court Rules 1988 (SA) which provides:
On the hearing of an appeal governed by Rule 97 the Court:
…
may in its discretion receive further evidence upon any question of fact;
It is well established that the power to receive further evidence on appeal must be exercised with caution. In Re Van Beelan[3] the following principles were identified:
– the ultimate question is whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.
–the additional evidence must be such that it would have been admitted at the trial.
–the additional evidence must be of such substantial importance and of such cogency, plausibility and relevancy that when considered with the other evidence given at the trial the result ought in the minds of reasonable men to remove the certainty of guilt which the former evidence produced
–in considering whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred great importance will generally be attached to whether a deliberate choice was made by the defence not to call the evidence and the probative force and nature of the evidence produced at the trial.
[3] Re Van Beelan (1974) 9 SASR 163

In R v McIntee[4] King CJ observed:
The rules relating to fresh evidence, like all rules of law, should be applied so as to serve and not to frustrate the interests of justice … appellate courts will always receive fresh evidence if it can be clearly shown that failure to receive such evidence might have the result that an unjust conviction or an unjust sentence is permitted to stand.
[4] R v McEntee (1985) 38 SASR 432
The further evidence sought to be tendered suggests that at the time of the offending Mr Kroon was taking wrongly prescribed medication that had adverse effects on his emotional state and his behaviour.
Mr Kroon appealed against the sentence imposed by the magistrate. As earlier observed, Mr Kroon sought to tender evidence of his medical and psychological state not available to the magistrate at the time of sentencing.
The further evidence consists of reports from Drs Holmes, Ben-Tovim and Roberts as well as affidavits from Mrs Kroon and her son. Dr Ben-Tovim’s report suggests that Mr Kroon had psychological disturbances that provided an explanation for his offending behaviour. Dr Holmes’ report expresses a similar view. Dr Roberts, although disagreeing with the suggestion that Mr Kroon’s mental and emotional state would have been affected to any material degree, agrees that the medication may have caused Mr Kroon to experience subclinical hyperthyroidism.
Although the medical evidence is not sufficient to give rise to the conclusion that Mr Kroon was suffering mental impairment at the time of the offending, it does support the conclusion that Mr Kroon’s offending behaviour was “completely out of character” and probably influenced by emotional instability.
Insofar as there are differences in the medical opinions, the most favourable view to Mr Kroon should form the basis of any re-sentencing. It is also important to note that Mrs Kroon and her son confirm Mr Kroon’s change of character when taking the wrongly prescribed medication.
As earlier observed, this Court has the power to receive further evidence when determining an appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate.[5] Fresh evidence may be received in circumstances where it throws new light on observations made by the magistrate when sentencing. In the present case, the magistrate made the following comment as to Mr Kroon’s presentation at the time of sentencing:
You conduct yourself today in a very steady, reasonable manner. It gives me the confidence that I can deal with you on an even basis. … You have obviously received appropriate treatment and responded well.
[5] Habra v Police [2004] SASC 430 at [43]
The further evidence suggests that some of the treatment Mr Kroon received included the advice to take inappropriately prescribed medication. This probably had adverse effects on his emotional and mental state. The magistrate in this respect proceeded on a misunderstanding of fact.
The further evidence is material and relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion. Section 10(l) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) allows a sentencing authority to take into account personal circumstances, including the mental condition of a defendant. In the present case, material evidence relevant to Mr Kroon’s mental state was not before the magistrate at the time of sentence. Such material was not available until discovered following thyroid function tests at the Repatriation General Hospital on 27 March 2004.
This is not a case of identifiable error on the part of the sentencing judge.[6] The sentence imposed was appropriate on the material then before the court. However, the further evidence establishes that it is probable that Mr Kroon’s mental state was affected by inappropriately prescribed medication. This provides an explanation for his conduct. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to receive the further evidence. The magistrate proceeded on a misunderstanding. Unbeknown to all at the time of sentencing, Mr Kroon’s behaviour had been materially affected by inappropriate medical treatment. It follows that Mr Kroon must be re-sentenced.
[6] [2004] SASC 354 at [42]
Re-sentence
When re-sentencing Mr Kroon the Court must have regard to the gravity of the offending. In the present case, Mr Kroon’s offending involved the dangerous act of using a firearm in close proximity to his son. This was a serious offence.
The Sentencing Act confers on the court a discretion to proceed without recording a conviction. Section 16 provides:
Where a court finds a person guilty of an offence for which it proposes to impose a fine, a sentence of community service, or both and the court is of the opinion—
(a)     that the defendant is unlikely to commit such an offence again; and
(b)     that, having regard to—
(i)      the character, antecedents, age or physical or mental condition of the defendant; or
(ii)      the fact that the offence was trifling; or
(iii)     any other extenuating circumstances,
good reason exists for not recording a conviction, the court may impose the penalty without recording a conviction.
Once a court is satisfied that the requirement of sub sections 16(a) and (b) have been met, the court must still consider whether it is appropriate to exercise the enlivened discretion to proceed without recording a conviction.
Mr Kroon was involved in service in Vietnam and in the infamous collision between the HMAS Melbourne and the HMAS Voyager. He has witnessed tragedy and loss of life during his career as a service man. He is said to suffer a post traumatic stress disorder as a result of these experiences.
At the time of the offence thyroxine had been inappropriately prescribed to Mr Kroon. Thyroxine can cause minor neurotic traits to become exaggerated, and cause a balanced individual to become unreasonable and demanding. This is consistent with Mr Kroon’s over-reaction to his son’s refusal to open his boot, and with Mr Kroon’s mistaken belief that his son had taken his wheel brace and had been “stealing stuff” from him for many years. At the time of the incident Mr Kroon had increased his dose of ducene in an attempt to feel calmer. He had consumed alcohol. He was using different medications for a number of medical complaints.
Until the present incident, Mr Kroon has been of good character. He is entitled to some leniency.[7] There is evidence to suggest that when Mr Kroon began taking thyroxine his behaviour changed. At the time of the incident, Mrs Kroon described his behaviour as completely out of character. Since he has ceased taking this wrongly prescribed medication Mrs Kroon reports his behaviour has returned to normal. The victim of Mr Kroon’s actions, his son, is of the view that his father’s behaviour was out of character and is unlikely to reoccur.
[7] Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 at 275 per McHugh J, 288 per Kirby J, at 309 per Hayne J, at 317 per Callinan J
The evidence of Mr Kroon’s mental and emotional instability at the time of the offending does not excuse his behaviour, although it does offer a clear explanation as to his actions. Mr Kroon’s behaviour was out of character and occurred at a time of emotional distress. Emotional distress at the time of committing an offence can be relevant when considering personal deterrence and retribution.[8] In the present case it provides an explanation for uncharacteristic conduct that indicates a reduced need for a sentence to address personal deterrence. [9]
[8] R v Neal (1982) 149 CLR 305 at 324-325
[9] R v Neal (1982) 149 CLR 305 at 324-325
Despite the seriousness of the offence, the further evidence of the mis-prescription of medication and its impact on Mr Kroon’s behaviour must be considered. These are extenuating circumstances which were not before the magistrate. The medical evidence allows a merciful approach to be adopted.[10] Mr Kroon’s emotional instability is a relevant factor in the re-sentencing process. He has been rehabilitated. The section 16 discretion is enlivened. In the special circumstances of this case the court should proceed without recording a conviction.
[10] Cobiac v Liddy (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 269; Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 at 212 – 213; Miceli (1997) 94 A Crim R 327; Carter (1997) 91 A Crim R 222; Clarke [1996] 2 VR 520 at 423
Mr Kroon is to be released on a good behaviour bond for a period of three years. He is to be subject to the supervision of an officer of the Department for Correctional Services. Mr Kroon is to be disqualified pursuant to section 299A(1)(g) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 1935 (SA)[11] from using or possessing a firearm. Mr Kroon has accepted that he has no need or use for a firearm and that it is unlikely that given his history this order would be varied.
[11] (1) Where a court is satisfied by evidence adduced before it that—
This appeal is allowed. The conviction recorded by the magistrate is set aside. Mr Kroon is released on a supervised three-year good behaviour bond. Mr Kroon is disqualified from using or possessing any firearm until further order.

(a) a firearm or other offensive weapon was used in the commission of an offence; or
(b) the commission of an offence was facilitated by the use of a firearm or other offensive weapon; or
(c) in the circumstances it is expedient that an order or orders be made under this section,
the court may make any one or more of the following orders:
...
(g) an order prohibiting any person or persons specified in the order from using or possessing a firearm or offensive weapon of any kind, or of a kind specified in the order, for a period specified in the order or until further order.
(2) Upon application by a person with a proper interest in the matter, the court may vary or revoke an order under subsection (1)(e), (f) or (g).
(3) Where an application is made under subsection (2), the court shall not vary or revoke the order in respect of which the application is made unless it is satisfied that it is not inimical to the safety of the community to do so.
...