MATTHEWS and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
[2025] WASAT 69
•9 JULY 2025
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA)
CITATION: MATTHEWS and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2025] WASAT 69
MEMBER: MS N OLDFIELD, MEMBER
HEARD: 18 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED : 2 JULY 2025
PUBLISHED : 9 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S: CC 852 of 2024
BETWEEN: SIMON MATTHEWS
Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Firearms - Review of revocation of firearms licence - Fit and proper person - Conviction for common assault
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 55
Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 11(3)(a)(ii), s 20(1)(a)(iii), s 22(2)
Firearms Act 2024 (WA), s 139, s 150(a), s 192(1)(b), s 411, s 413, s 430
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27, s 29
Result:
Application is dismissed
Respondent's decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence is affirmed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Mr M Ryan |
| Respondent | : | Mr J Orley |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Mortlock Ryan & Co |
| Respondent | : | WA Police Legal Services |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Di Chiera and Commissioner of Police [2020] WASAT 145
Hayes and Commissioner of Police [2023] WASAT 18
Minitti and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASCA 198
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
(These reasons were delivered orally and have been taken from the recording of the hearing. They have been edited to improve legibility, add footnotes and make necessary corrections for the purposes of correcting any grammatical errors or infelicity of expression without altering the substance of the reasons.)
Introduction
These are my reasons for decision in relation to Mr Matthews' application to review the decision of the Commissioner of Police to revoke his firearms licence. I have relied upon the witness evidence presented at the final hearing on 18 June 2025, as well as the evidence contained in the hearing book.
Legal framework and jurisdiction
There was no dispute regarding the applicable provisions of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA),[1] Firearms Act 2024 (WA),[2] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)[3] and the relevant legal principles.[4] They were amply detailed in the parties' written and oral submissions and I do not propose to go through them in detail today.
[1] Firearms Act 1973 (WA), including s 11(3)(a)(ii) and s 20(1)(a)(iii).
[2] Firearms Act 2024 (WA), including s 139, s 150(a), s 192(1)(b) and s 413.
[3] State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), including s 27 and s 29.
[4] As contained in previous decisions, including Minitti and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASCA 198, Di Chiera and Commissioner of Police [2020] WASAT 145 and Hayes and Commissioner of Police [2023] WASAT 18.
Suffice to say the parties agreed, and I am satisfied:[5]
(a)the Tribunal was required to determine the correct and preferable decision on the basis of a hearing de novo; and
(b)the only contention between the parties was whether Mr Matthews was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, which in the new Firearms Act is called a firearms authority.
[5] It was non-contentious that the Tribunal had jurisdiction in this matter on the basis of s 411, s 413 and s 430 of the Firearms Act 2024 (WA).
Material facts
Uncontentious facts
I am satisfied the evidence established the following.
Firstly, by a letter dated 11 November 2024 the Commissioner of Police notified Mr Matthews that a decision had been made to revoke his firearms licence on the basis that his conviction for the offence of common assault meant that he was no longer considered to be a fit and proper person to hold the licence. But for the revocation, Mr Matthews' firearms licence was due to expire on 6 October 2025.
Secondly, Mr Matthews is a 41 year old man, respected in his community. As a farmer and livestock transporter he used firearms to kill pest animals and injured stock. He had held a gun licence for many years and no concerns had previously been raised in relation to his use or storage of firearms. His previous interactions with police had been limited to traffic matters. In 2003 he was convicted of driving under the influence, fined and lost his licence for 12 months. In 2006 he was again convicted of driving under the influence, was fined a greater amount and lost his licence for 2 years.
The assault
I will now address the contentious issues.
On 26 January 2023 an incident occurred at Lake Towerinning. Families had gathered at the lake to picnic, swim and enjoy the Australia Day holiday.
Accounts of the incident differed, but all parties were agreed and I am satisfied that Mr Matthews engaged in an altercation with Ms Edgill and her partner because Mr Matthews believed a member of their family had taken alcohol out of his car.
Mr Matthews said he also believed money had been taken.
The parties are agreed and I am satisfied that:
(a)Mr Matthews uttered words to Ms Edgill's family; and
(b)when they did not respond as he desired, Mr Matthews reacted by bringing his foot into contact with the back of Ms Edgill's partner who was seated and facing away from Mr Matthews.
Accounts of the force used by Mr Matthews differ. In a statement to police Ms Edgill's partner stated Mr Matthew's kick to his back hurt. Ms Edgill stated Mr Matthews attacked her partner and kicked him. She rejected the suggestion the kick was more of a tap. Mr Matthews told me his kick was not done with force but just to get attention. He said he would call it a 'love kick'.
Ms Edgill's partner did not react in a positive manner to feeling Mr Matthew's foot connect with his back, and a confrontation ensued. The parties did not agree on the order of events, but they did agree:
(a)at some point Ms Edgill's partner and Mr Matthews engaged in a physical altercation; and
(b)physical contact was also made between Mr Matthews and Ms Edgill.
Ms Edgill's evidence was:
(a)After the kick, her partner stood to confront Mr Matthews and she stepped between them to attempt to stop them fighting.
(b)Mr Matthews' reaction was to put his hand on her throat before pushing her back. She said his hand prevented her from breathing for about five seconds.
(c)And it was then that the physical altercation between the men occurred.
Mr Matthews said:
(a)After the 'love kick' he had an altercation with Ms Edgill's partner and was punched to the side of the head.
(b)After their brawl had ended, Ms Edgill came towards him shouting.
(c)He thought she might punch him, so he pushed her with an open hand at the top of her chest in the region of the collarbones.
(d)Nothing further occurred because he found the language of Ms Edgill so disturbing that he walked away.
Mr Crane said:[6]
(a)He did not see the commencement of this incident.
(b)He heard the shouting and arrived to see Ms Edgill close to Mr Matthews and shouting at him. Mr Matthews had an arm extended towards her. There was a man behind Ms Edgill reaching over her and another man behind Mr Matthews who said to him, 'you're lucky my missus is here'.
(c)Mr Crane extricated Mr Matthews and walked him back to his car. He observed Mr Mathews was out of breath and looked 'roughed up'.
The aftermath
[6] Mr Crane was a witness called by the applicant, who had seen part of the incident.
I am satisfied the evidence established the following:
(a)As a result of this incident Ms Edgill made a complaint to the police.
(b)Mr Matthews was charged with common assault and on 11 July 2024 a prosecution notice was issued, setting the first hearing for 6 August 2024.
(c)Mr Matthews did not attend that hearing.
(c)The Katanning Magistrates Court proceeded with the matter pursuant to s 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (CP Act), found Mr Matthews guilty and fined him $800.
Mr Matthews stated he did not receive the prosecution notice. He was somehow informed the notice had been left at his partner's workplace on a day she was not at work and the notice had gone missing. He said he only became aware of the hearing when he received notice of the fine which had been imposed.
Mr Matthews said if he had received the prosecution notice he would have attended Court to defend himself and he was confident the charge would have been 'thrown out'.
Consideration
The conviction
Section 55 of the CP Act relevantly provides that where an accused who has not pleaded guilty does not appear at court on a hearing of the charge, the court may deal with the charge in the absence of the accused. To do so, the court must be satisfied the accused was served with the prosecution notice. When dealing with the charge, the court must take as proved the material facts of the charge, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, I can presume her Honour Magistrate O'Donnell was satisfied Mr Matthews had been served with the prosecution notice and that the statement of material facts was taken as proved. There is nothing in the transcript indicating to the contrary.
Counsel suggested Mr Matthews had not placed his hand around the throat of Ms Edgill and that regardless he had defences of selfdefence and provocation. Counsel for the Commissioner opposed the notion that the Tribunal could go behind the conviction. I did not find the submissions of counsel for Mr Matthews persuasive on this point.
Mr Matthews could have challenged the decision of the Magistrates Court, but did not. Therefore, his conviction stands and, in my view, I am required to accept both the fact of the conviction and the statement of material facts upon which the conviction was based.
Even if I am not bound to accept as true the statement of material facts, I am not satisfied there is sufficient justification to depart from them because Ms Edgill gave evidence at the final hearing which was consistent with the statement of material facts and she appeared a credible witness.
Fit and proper person
In any event, in considering whether or not Mr Matthews is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms authority, I can consider the surrounding circumstances of the incident and any mitigating factors.
However, I am not satisfied there were any mitigating factors:
(a)I am not satisfied the theft, even if it had been proven to have occurred and done by a member of Ms Edgill's family, justified violence upon her.
(b)Mr Matthew's decision to kick the back of Ms Edgill's partner, whether softly or not, was provocative and far from the only option reasonably available to him.
(c)Further, I am not satisfied Mr Matthews acted reasonably in self-defence given Ms Edgill is significantly shorter and on Mr Matthews' own evidence she did nothing other than shout profanities and come within his arm's reach.
Mr Matthews said he had changed his way of living by an involvement with children's sport and having stopped drinking alcohol. However, the police did not allege Mr Matthews was affected by alcohol at the time of the incident and nor did Mr Matthews. It was not explained how his involvement in children's sport was relevant to this matter.
This matter seems on the borderline of the concepts of a fit and proper person.
On the one hand the assault was violence perpetrated with very little explanation in a place where families and children were present.
On the other hand, the assault was Mr Matthews' only criminal conviction. Common assault is a less serious offence and the fine imposed was much less than the maximum. The Commissioner conceded that this appeared to be an isolated incident and out of character for Mr Matthews. He has owned and used firearms for a long time without any concerns having been raised. No firearms were involved in the assault. The character references indicate Mr Matthews is considered by his community to be a calm, responsible and reliable person.
Conclusion
It is with significant difficulty I have reached the conclusion I am satisfied the best and preferable decision is to uphold the decision of the Commissioner on the basis Mr Matthew is not presently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms authority.
My reasons are:
(a)In seizing Ms Edgill's throat, the assault was particularly violent. This violence was directed to a woman who was significantly shorter and a stranger to him.
(b)The assault occurred a relatively short time ago.
(c)Mr Matthews did not show any remorse or insight into his behaviour. He clearly remained resentful if not angry. He seemed to have no understanding of having hurt Ms Edgill and seemed more concerned that he was hurt in the altercation with her partner. Mr Matthews said he had learnt 'it's not the right option but sometimes you should just let people run over the top of you and then otherwise let the courts or police deal with it'. Those words sounded more the statement of someone who considered himself the victim, rather than someone who realised he had handled a matter poorly.
Accordingly, my orders will be that the application is dismissed and the decision of the Commissioner of Police to revoke Mr Matthew's firearms licence is affirmed.
Orders
The Tribunal orders:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The decision of the respondent to revoke the applicant's firearms licence number 04483488 is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MS N Oldfield, MEMBER
9 JULY 2025
0
3
4