P v Registrar of Firearms - [2018] ACAT 74

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

P v REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS (Appeal) [2018] ACAT 74
AA 12/2018 (AT 22/2017)
Catchwords: APPEAL – firearms licence – appeal against decision to refuse licence – licence refused because of mental health issues – person may not handle firearms responsibly and therefore not suitable to have a licence –appeal dismissed as lacking in substance – difference between ‘frivolous or vexatious’ and ‘lacking in substance’ – meaning of ‘abuse of process’ – appeal dismissed
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 32
Court Procedures Act 2015 s 5A

Firearms Act 1996 ss 17, 56

Cases cited:Bleyer v Google Inc [2014] NSWSC 897
Carlisle v Filara Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 33

Chaffners v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186
Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams [2017] ACAT 53
Council of the Law Society v The Legal Practitioner [2011] ACAT 49
Dawkins v Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar (1876) 1 QBD 499
Drefus v Peruvian Guano Co (1889) 41 Ch D 151
Feldman v The Daily Beast Company LLC [2017] NSWSC 831 Lazarus v Azize [2015] ACTSC 344
Gindy v Chief Minister & ACT Government and Ors [2011] ACAT 67
King v Higgins [2009] ACTSC 153
McColley v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTCA 21
P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20
Practitioner D3 v ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2017] ACTCA 62
Smith v Lucht [2014] QDC 302
Turner t/as Classic Gourmet Sausages v Leda Commercial Properties Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 389

Tribunal: Presidential Member G McCarthy

Date of Orders:  15 June 2018
Date of Reasons for Decision:         20 July 2018
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          AA 12/2018

BETWEEN:
P

Appellant

AND:
REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
Respondent

TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member G McCarthy

DATE:15 June 2018
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

The application for appeal dated 28 March 2018 is dismissed.
……………Signed……………..
Presidential Member G McCarthy
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) AA 12/2018
BETWEEN:
P
Appellant
AND:
REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS
Respondent

TRIBUNAL: Presidential Member G McCarthy

DATE:20 July 2018
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

The application for removal or referral of the appeal to the Supreme Court dated 28 March 2018 is dismissed.
………………………………..
Presidential Member G McCarthy

REASONS FOR DECISION

On or about 15 January 2017, the appellant (Mr P)[1] applied for an adult firearms licence to possess class A and class B firearms under the Firearms Act 1996 (the Firearms Act). By letter dated 22 March 2017 the respondent (the Registrar) refused the application. By application dated 13 April 2017 Mr P sought review of the Registrar’s decision in the Tribunal.
[1] In the original proceeding, the Tribunal determined that the name of the appellant should not be disclosed because much of the evidence and argument concerned his mental health. The original Tribunal therefore used the title ‘Mr P’ to identify him. On the appeal, I am of the same view and use the same title
On 8 March 2018, the original Tribunal ordered that the Registrar’s decision be set aside, but made an additional order that Mr P’s application for a firearms licence be refused.[2]
[2] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20
The original Tribunal’s orders were as follows:
1.The decision of the delegate of the Registrar of Firearms to refuse a licence under the Firearms Act 1996 is set aside.
2.The Tribunal substitutes its decision to refuse the licence. This is on the basis that on the available evidence there are reasonable grounds for believing that because of Mr P’s mental health he may not handle arms responsibly, and that information held by the Australian Federal Police in relation to Mr P indicates that it would be contrary to the public interest for him to have access to a firearm.
3.Under section 39(2)(b) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 the publication or provision of public access to the evidence given in this matter and documents filed with the Tribunal that could identify the applicant can only take place by further order of the tribunal.
By application dated 28 March 2018, Mr P appealed from the orders of the original Tribunal. By application also dated 28 March 2018, Mr P applied for his application for appeal to be removed or referred to the ACT Supreme Court. The four grounds of appeal and the reasons in support of Mr P’s application for removal of his appeal to the Supreme Court were identical. They stated:
-   Breach of official ACTCA Orders made [in 2007] in favour of [Mr P] – [reference omitted].
-   Political repression of fundamental human rights owned by [Mr P] instigated by status quo aggression and abuse of official judicial powers.
-   Obstruction/perversion of justice
-   Status quo aggression/conspiracy to murder [Mr P] 1997 to 2018.
Mr P provided in support of his applications an 18 page hand written submission and numerous attachments which I have read and considered. Much of the submission focused upon a decision of the ACT Court of Appeal made in 2007 in which Mr P appealed from a decision of the ACT Supreme Court to dismiss his appeal against his conviction in the ACT Magistrates Court regarding inappropriate storage of a firearm and ammunition.
Mr P’s submission repeatedly referred to the orders of the Court of Appeal, alleging, for example, that numerous named persons then holding executive or judicial office were in a “criminal conspiracy to pervert and obstruct natural justice in favour of [Mr P] as ordered” by the Court of Appeal.[3]
[3] Submission, paragraphs 17 and 20. Mr P added a note that the reference to “14/2/07” was incorrect and should refer to “12/2/07”.
In response to Mr P’s submission, I read the Court of Appeal’s decision. In its ex tempore judgment, the Court of Appeal determined that “the finding of guilt would have to stand” but decided that because of Mr P’s “previous good record” there should be no conviction recorded on either count conditioned upon Mr P “entering into a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months”. The Court of Appeal also ordered that a rifle that would ordinarily have been automatically forfeited to the Territory not be forfeited to the Territory “subject, of course, to the usual requirements that there be a safe place of storage for it, current licences et cetera, as with the other weapons”. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal only “to that extent”.
Mr P provided two further submissions dated 3 April 2018, described as ‘Appeal Notes’, which I have read and considered.
In the first submission, Mr P alleged among many other things that the solicitor for the Registrar could not “professionally read and interpret” the orders of the Court of Appeal and that the solicitor had “recklessly and incompetently chosen to sabotage” the Court of Appeal’s orders. For the reasons discussed below, there is no basis for these claims.
Mr P quoted the following statements in paragraph 54 of the original Tribunal’s reasons for decision:
… making threats to kill the AFP Commissioner. It appears that the psychiatric treatment order was made under the Mental Health Act in relation to [Mr P], that [Mr P] improved with the treatment provided under the order, and that he was discharged from hospital on 4 June 2010.[4]
[4] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [54]; further submission at paragraph 11
By reference to the original Tribunal’s statements, Mr P alleged:
Thus [the original Tribunal] carelessly and recklessly with wilfall (sic) criminal intent to obstruct and pervert justice. Specified the above fraudulent facts to criminally sabotage [the] ACTCA Orders.[5]
[5] Further submission at paragraph 12
Regarding the original Tribunal’s statement that Mr P “was discharged from hospital on 4 June 2010”, Mr P stated that this “is about the time period I was unlawfully incarcerated for seven agonising years 2010 to 2016”.
Mr P also referred to a report dated 29 August 2017 from Dr Saboisky, psychiatrist, in which Dr Saboisky noted that Mr P “was admitted into psychiatric care initially because he threatened to kill the Police Commissioner.”[6] Mr P contended that Dr Saboisky was used as a “cover up … To force [Mr P] into slavery under a brutal and sadistic Kangaroo Court 11/4/17 by mental coercion, bullying and mental brainwashing. As co-ordinated by [the original Tribunal, counsel for the Registrar and the solicitor for the Registrar].”[7]
[6] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [57]; further submission at paragraph 10
[7] Further submission at paragraph 17
In his second submission, Mr P again referred to the orders of the Court of Appeal. He made submissions about their meaning and effect, alleging that the original Tribunal “has unprofessionally failed to read and apply these orders.”
On 9 April 2018, a Tribunal registry officer sent an email to the solicitor for the Registrar and Mr P, stating:
Good morning parties,
The Tribunal has received a request for appeal of an ACAT decision in the matter of [Mr P] v Registrar of Firearms. The matter number is now AA 12/2018. Please find attached a copy of the application, listing notice and supporting documentation received by the Tribunal on 4 April 2018.
If you have any questions regarding this, please feel free to contact the Tribunal on 02 6207 1740.
In response to the registry officer’s email, on 11 April 2018 Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal stating among other things “The Tribunal is here by (sic) put on official notice of imminent prosecution”. Mr P stated he was “now detecting” that the solicitor for the Registrar was in a “criminal conspiracy” with the Tribunal’s registry officer. He stated that a Tribunal directions hearing listed for 23 April 2018 is a:
…kangaroo court and thus international war crimes will be specified by me and I will formerly (sic) prosecute the above and other unspecified status quo thugs.
On 17 April 2018, Mr P sent a further hand written submission to the Tribunal stating that he had “construed” from the registry officer’s email that the officer and the solicitor for the Registrar were “involved in the deliberate falsification of email documents” and that as a consequence of the “suspicious email” from the registry officer, the Tribunal “must contact” both the Commonwealth DPP and the ACT DPP. This claim appeared to stem from his belief that the extensive documents forwarded by the Tribunal to the solicitor for the Registrar, as previously filed by Mr P, were incomplete.
On 23 April 2018 at a directions hearing, the Tribunal made the following order:
The appellant [Mr P] is to give to the Tribunal and to the [Registrar] by 14 May 2018 a document setting out each error of fact or law to be relied upon in the appeal (where possible by reference to particular paragraphs of the decision); explaining how each alleged error was material to the order of 8 March 2018.
On 10 May 2018, Mr P filed with the Tribunal an extensive submission dated 9 May 2018 in two parts regarding his appeal which I have read and considered.
Much of Part A of the submission again focused on Mr P’s belief that the seizure of his firearms in 2004 was unlawful, and his beliefs about the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Mr P also alleged that amendments to section 56 of the Firearms Act were “concealed by omission” from the original Tribunal when it heard Mr P’s application for review on 11 September 2017.
Mr P again criticised the report of Dr Saboisky, contending that the report was used in the original Tribunal proceedings as:
a criminal form of international war crime founded against a smear campaign by propaganda. With a neo-Nazi orientation.[8]
[8] Submission dated 9 May 2018, Part A, page 4 of 98
Mr P submitted that the alleged inference that he had a current criminal record, a current mental health issue and was a current ACT MH patient is “false, negative, not true”. He contended that the inference “by criminal defamation and extortion” is that he is a “violent person, criminal, terrorist, sadistic individual capable of murder is fostered by neo-Nazi orientation incitement of hatred in violation of international laws under mental torture”.
Mr P made extensive submissions about perceived wrongs against him during the 1990s.
Part A included a submission dated 9 May 2018 from Mr P’s brother (referred to in these reasons as Mr J) as to why the original Tribunal erred. Mr J gave evidence in the original Tribunal proceeding which the original Tribunal described as “honest and moving … in relation to Mr P’s life.”[9]
[9] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [76] – [80]
In his submission dated 9 May 2018, Mr J referred to a report from Professor Henderson dated 9 August 2005 in which Professor Henderson stated that Mr P “is not mentally dysfunctional and is not mentally ill”. Mr J said his brother, rather, is “dyslexic” and “autistic”. Mr J submitted that this was not mentioned in the original Tribunal’s reasons for decision, but is “critical for a just outcome in assessing Mr P’s application for a firearms licence.” He submitted that “to condemn Mr P as mentally ill [is] in my opinion an incorrect and convenient diagnosis.” Mr J described his brother as “a fine human being tortured in his endeavour for justice.”
Mr J submitted that Dr Saboisky was not “a credible witness” because he had never held a face-to-face interview with Mr P. He questioned how it was therefore possible for Dr Saboisky to make a meaningful or valid assessment of Mr P’s status. He submitted that Dr Saboisky had made an assessment based on out of date information which is now not relevant and possibly over 10 years old.
Mr J stated:
Mr P’s persistent and relentless pursuance for justice involving endless email communications appears to have been regarded as a mental illness, but should be viewed in light of his autistic behaviour.[10]
[10] Mr J’s submission dated 9 May 2018, page 4
Mr J also challenged the original Tribunal’s view that because of Mr P’s mental health he might not handle firearms responsibly.[11] Mr J stated that in the past six years Mr P has never attacked or physically harmed anybody, caused damage to property or been involved in a civil disturbance. He stated that Mr P has been a member of an archery club, an athletics club and a fishing club without any problems. He stated that Mr P has obeyed instructions regarding taking medication and attending appointments and did not create any problems while under the supervision of ACT Health.
[11] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [89]
Mr J questioned how anyone would cope with “being autistic, loose (sic) a job about which you are passionate… and then spending the next 25 years seeking justice.” He submitted that it is “no wonder Mr P got depressed, behaved occasionally unsociably under the influence of alcohol and made wild threats out of frustration.” Mr J stated that he has observed his brother “publicly always behave in a responsible manner”.
Last, Mr J referred to the original Tribunal’s reference to the following comment in Professor Henderson’s report:
Concerning the probability of [Mr P] being now or in the future a danger to others, I do not consider myself sufficiently experienced to estimate this. I do believe that it would be unwise for him to have access to weapons, but this is not a judgment made by me as a psychiatrist.
Mr J contended that the original Tribunal was confused by Professor Henderson’s statement, and offered a “possible meaning that Professor Henderson is implying that as a concerned member of the public weapons should not be accessed by the general public at large, but this is not (sic) avoiding Mr P’s legal rights.”
In Part B of his submission, Mr P contended that the original Tribunal had acted above the law, failed to act impartially, had acted in conspiracy with the Registrar’s counsel and solicitor and that the original Tribunal’s reasons for decision were “designed to inflict mental torture and injury” against Mr P “in breach of international law for torture as administered by both the UN and ICC”.[12] Mr P described the tactic as “identical” to the “zombie agreement” concerning Mr P’s redundancy drafted by Mr P’s then employer in 1997.[13]
[12] Submission dated 9 May 2018, Part B, page III
[13] Submission, dated 9 May 2018, Part B, page IV
Mr P returned to his submission, and belief, that the original Tribunal’s decision failed to enforce the Court of Appeal’s orders and that the failure to do so was “fraud”. Mr P repeated his claim that at the time of the orders he did not have any mental health history and that the Police “sabotaged” the orders.
Mr P stated that the original Tribunal’s decision:
conceals that the victim for seven years suffered sadistic medical-scientific experimentation. By forced sadistic mental health medical injections. Design (sic) to repress the victim’s normal mental thinking processes as a self representation (sic) litigant.[14]
[14] Submission, dated 9 May 2018, Part B, page 4
Arising from a direction of the Appeal Tribunal that Mr P identify the errors of fact or law in the original Tribunal’s decision upon which he relied, Mr P responded to each paragraph of the original Tribunal’s decision. He responded to the majority of the paragraphs with no more than the words “Bull shit”.
His responses to other paragraphs were, in my view, not responsive to what the original Tribunal wrote. Rather they repeated his grievances about past treatment of his mental health, his belief that the way he has been treated has arisen from a “criminal conspiracy”, that the Tribunal is a “kangaroo court” and that he was “from 2010 to 2016 unlawfully detained by forced incarceration.”[15]
[15] Submission, page 10
In many cases, Mr P responded to a paragraph in the original Tribunal’s reasons by quoting from the paragraph, particularly the original Tribunal’s finding (contrary to the position of the Registrar) that section 56 of the Firearms Act did not enable the Registrar to require Mr P to undergo a mental health assessment. By reference to this finding, Mr P alleged that “between January and June 2017 the AFP Firearms Registrar changed by law the application of sect 56 ACT Firearms Act 1996. This was concealed by omission at the ACTCAT hearing 11/9/17 from the victim.”[16] By reference to this finding, Mr P also alleged that he “was exposed to sadistic medical negligence in breach of international law for mental torture”.[17]
[16] Submission dated 9 May 2018, Part A, page II
[17] Submission dated 9 May 2018, Part B, page 45 of 98
Mr P also provided a document headed “Analysis - Errors of law”, Attachment D, in which he responded to each paragraph of the original Tribunal’s reasons for decision using the words “positive” or “negative”. In the opening section of his document under a heading “Analysis Elements”, “positive” is stated to mean “in favour of justice for the victim” and “negative” is stated to mean “obstruction/perversion of justice”. In his responses to some paragraphs of the reasons for decision, Mr P expanded upon his response word “negative” by repeating his contentions about the past conduct of various persons and agencies as described above.
During April, May and June 2018, Mr P sent numerous emails to the Tribunal, copied to others, expressing his rage and frustration at the injustices that he perceives have occurred. I refer to some of them in order to illustrate their consistent character.
On 11 May 2018, Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal, copied to others, claiming among other things that there is “sufficient primary evidence now to formerly (sic) charge the AFP Commissioner with war crimes”. He stated that “in specific to the victim and by applied neo nazi smear propaganda against the victim as being sadistically classified as Mr P in Orr Roberts report 8/3/19”. He then added further statements, for example “and for instigating repeated cycles of criminal conspiracy to murder against the victim [Mr P]. Founded on mental torture to permanently harm and injure the victim at all cost by double jeopardy etc”.

On 13 May 2018, Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal, copied to others, contending among other things that the original Tribunal “commissioned a kangaroo court against my international human rights. That this was founded on unlawful and criminal intent to brainwash the victim by forms and patterns of mental torture.”
On 14 May 2018, Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal, copied to others, stating among other things:
I now hold a strong belief that white English Australia like John Howard respects other non-English Europeans and non-white ethnic groups is not genuine. I now construed by the way the kings men being the Australian Federal Police (AFP) have recorded false and fraudulent police file records against my name after [ACT Court of Appeal judgment] is founded on genocide. That by incitement of hatred are applying racial hatred against me. Identical to how Adolf Hitler drafted and legislated hate laws against his own people from 1933 to 1945. When he was defeated by a lesser evil (Vikings - USSR).
On 23 May 2018, Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal, copied to others, stating among other things:
I construed that the above hearing is a formal kangaroo court in violation of international law.
At Philip driving along Townsend Street at 13.21 I observed a very suspicious black van ... I recall that the male driver is a security officer working for [X] and Senior Executive Management Levels. I recall that on the 16/12/2000 this security agent was a conspirator that directed a violent criminal assault against my protected international human rights. I thus now construed this criminal agent is working for the AFP Commissioner, ACATCAT [the Tribunal] and the ACT Government Solicitors. And is by criminal conspiracy planning to murder me by espionage covert means.
I will now proclaim the Tribunal is incompetent, corrupt to the core and is by criminal conspiracy commissioning acts of genocide against the victim [Mr P].
Thus I will now terminate all communications with the Tribunal and apply for international intervention upon my case specifics etc …. And lay formal criminal war crime charges against the Tribunal and all conspirators.
On 29 May 2018, the Registrar filed an application for Mr P’s application for appeal to be dismissed pursuant to section 32(2)(a) and/or (b) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (the ACAT Act). The relevant parts of section 32 state:
32 Dismissing or striking out applications
(1) This section applies if the tribunal considers that an application, or part of an application is––
(a)    frivolous or vexatious; or
(b)    lacking in substance; or
(c)    otherwise an abuse of process; or
(d)   made by a person who has been dealt with by a court or tribunal in Australia as frivolous or vexatious.
(2) The tribunal may, by order, do 1 or more of the following:
(a)    refuse to hear the application or part of the application;
(b)    dismiss the application or part of the application;
(c)   direct that the person who made the application not make a subsequent application to the tribunal of the kind stated in the direction—
(i)        within a stated period of time; or
(ii)       without the leave of the tribunal.
On 31 May 2018, the Tribunal sent Mr P and the solicitor for the Registrar a copy of the Tribunal’s order listing the Registrar’s application for hearing at 10:00am on Friday, 15 June 2018.
On 2 June 2018 Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal, copied to others, stating among other things that the original Tribunal:
…has not legally explained to me why it has ignored ACTCA Orders …? And from 2007 to 2018 as for blacklisting my human rights and forcing me into life-threatening situations fostered by brutal abuses of power via the AFP Commissioners and his subordinate staff?
Mr P contended that the original Tribunal:
has not legally explained why it has concealed and repressed my primary evidence of a State approved terrorist style road rage commissioned against my life on the 31/5/17? To murder the victim and to murder other local victims resident of Australia? I believe that current Cth Terrorism Legislation applies.
On 6, 8, 12 and 13 June 2018, Mr P sent further lengthy emails, copied to others, repeating his protests about his perceived treatment since 1997 and his contention (among many others) that the Tribunal member who heard his original application should have disqualified himself from adjudicating because he was “in conspiracy” with counsel for the Registrar “to brainwash the victim’s humanitarian human rights.”
In his email dated 8 June 2018, Mr P stated that he “will not attend any more directions or hearings as directed by the Tribunal. And now will make international resolutions to the ICC and UN of criminal war indictments against those who [he] considers as suspect war criminals.”
On 13 June 2018, a Tribunal registry officer sent Mr P an email in response to his statement that he would not be attending the hearing of the Registrar’s application. The officer stated -
It would be in your best interests to attend this hearing as the presiding member will be considering the respondent’s request to have your application for appeal struck out. It is strongly recommended that you attend so that you have the opportunity to provide any oral submissions with regards to why you believe your application should not be struck out.
If it is more convenient for you, you may attend the hearing by phone.
On 13 June 2018, Mr P sent an email to the Tribunal in reply stating among other things:
All along the way from 11/9/17 [the date upon which the original Tribunal heard Mr P’s application] the Tribunal and the ACT Government Solicitors and the AFP have applied concealment by mental torture against my international humanitarian rights. In violation of rule 156 ICC.
Now if you by the AFP and the Tribunal and the ACT Government Solicitors make inappropriate decisions on the 15/6/18 I will draft war crime indictments via rule 156 of the ICC etc. And against the HCA and [X] etc.
Your got all the facts. I will not attend.
Where the Registrar’s application had been listed for hearing on 15 June and Mr P had made clear that he was aware of the hearing and would not be attending, I concluded that I should hear the application despite Mr P’s absence.

The Registrar’s submissions

The Registrar submitted that Mr P had not identified any error of fact or law that had reasonable prospects of success and that Mr P’s application was obviously unsustainable in law or in fact. He submitted that many of the claims, for example that the original Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and that the original Tribunal member was acting in conspiracy with the Registrar’s lawyers, were bare allegations lacking any statements of fact in support. The Registrar submitted that Mr P’s reliance upon the decision of the ACT Court of Appeal misunderstood the legal effect of that decision.
With reliance on Gindy v Chief Minister & ACT Government and Ors,[18] the Registrar submitted that Mr P had “no arguable case which should be allowed to be resolved at hearing.”

Consideration

[18] Gindy v Chief Minister & ACT Government and Ors [2011] ACAT 67 at [23]

I was disappointed that Mr P did not attend the hearing on 15 June 2018. I had hoped to have a conversation with him about his grievances and why, in my view, I could not deal with them in response to his application for a firearms licence. I wanted to discuss with him why he thought he should be granted a firearms licence. I had hoped a conversation would be more productive than later written reasons for decision.
I have set out above in some detail what I hope are the primary aspects of Mr P’s grievances. I have done so using his own words, conscious of his belief that his words in the past have been misconstrued.
I recognise that there are many details that I have not mentioned, particularly about perceived events that occurred between 1997 and 2017, but I hope that my quoting from Mr P’s lengthy submissions and subsequent email correspondence shows him that I have read and considered everything he provided.
Having read Mr P’s submissions, I recognise the significant effort that he has made to write them and to assemble the many attachments. I acknowledge Mr P’s fervent belief that he has been wronged. I have taken into account his brother’s submissions about the pressures Mr P has lived under for more than 25 years ‘fighting the justice system’. However, whatever their merits, in my view these grievances have no connection with the question whether Mr P should now have a firearms licence.
For example, the circumstances giving rise to Mr P’s redundancy in 1997 and whether the process was so flawed that the redundancy agreement might be described as a “zombie agreement” are not relevant, one way or another, to the question whether Mr P “is suitable” [19] to hold a firearms licence in 2018. I make the same observation regarding alleged police conduct in 2004 or later.
[19] Firearms Act, section 17
Returning to the Registrar’s application for an order that Mr P’s application for appeal be dismissed, the Registrar relied on section 32(1)(a) and (b) of the ACAT Act. A question arose about the difference between the two provisions.
The phrase ‘frivolous or vexatious’ is sometimes said to mean the same thing as lacking in substance or an abuse of process[20] or also to mean that a claim has no reasonable prospects of success.[21] However other cases, particularly early cases, have held that a proceeding is ‘frivolous’ when the party bringing it is ‘trifling with the court’,[22] ‘wasting the time of the court’,[23] or bringing the action only for annoyance. Early cases have held that an application is ‘vexatious’ not only when it is hopeless or oppressive but also where it tends to cause the other party anxiety, trouble and expense and is brought only for annoyance.[24]
[20] King v Higgins [2009] ACTSC 153 at [37] – [41]
[21] Council of the Law Society v The Legal Practitioner [2011] ACAT 49
[22] Chaffners v Goldsmid [1894] 1 QB 186 at 187
[23] Dawkins v Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar (1876) 1 QBD 499 at 502
[24] Drefus v Peruvian Guano Co (1889) 41 Ch D 151 at 158.
More recent cases suggest a high degree of overlap or common meaning between ‘lacking in substance’ and ‘frivolous or vexatious’. It is sometimes said that a court or tribunal should look to the merit or substance of a claim. Where a claim or defence has substance, a party’s motivation for bringing it or defending it is irrelevant.
‘Abuse of process’ can overlap with ‘lacking in substance’ and/or ‘frivolous or vexatious’. It involves proceedings that are “foredoomed to fail”, where there is “no rational argument to support the claim”, where the claim “contains scandalous and vexatious allegations” and/or where the claim “could not possibly succeed”.[25]
[25] King v Higgins [2009] ACTSC 153 at [38]. See also Turner t/as Classic Gourmet Sausages v Leda Commercial Properties Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 389; Carlisle v Filara Pty Ltd [2002] ACTSC 33 and McColley v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTCA 21
Whilst not submitted in this case, abuse of process can also occur where the resources required to determine a claim and the interests at stake are out of all proportion to a just allocation of the time and finite resources of the court.[26]
[26] Bleyer v Google Inc [2014] NSWSC 897 at [56] – [57]; Smith v Lucht [2014] QDC 302; Feldman v The Daily Beast Company LLC [2017] NSWSC 831 at [15] – [18]; Lazarus v Azize [2015] ACTSC 344 at [21]; Court Procedures Act 2015 (ACT), section 5A, as amended after the decision in Lazarus v Azize
In Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams[27] when refusing an application to appeal out of time, the Appeal Tribunal similarly commented upon the importance of appropriate use of the Tribunal’s finite resources.
[27] Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams [2017] ACAT 53 at [8] – [27]. See also Practitioner D3 v ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2017] ACTCA 62 at [58] - [59]
In this case, I was not persuaded that the application is frivolous or vexatious in any subjective way because, for Mr P, the issues are very important and very real. He does not bring his application only to ‘trifle’ with the Tribunal, or only to harass and annoy.
I was satisfied, however, that the application for appeal is “lacking in substance”. Mr P wishes, in this proceeding, to raise a litany of past grievances none of which is relevant to the question in issue: under the provisions of the Firearms Act, is Mr P “suitable” to hold a firearms licence.
In my view, Mr P’s application lacks substance whichever way it is viewed. Even if everything Mr P said were true - and I do not in any way imply that any of it is – the events Mr P alleges and the consequential obvious rage that he holds against so many people and agencies only add to the case that he should not hold a firearms licence.
I also note that Mr P does not take issue with the basis upon which a firearms licence was refused, namely the original Tribunal’s finding that he is mentally unwell. In my view, that finding was amply supported. All the expert medical evidence detailed in the original Tribunal’s decision was to the effect that Mr P has a complex persecutory delusional system.[28] Mr P did not provide the original Tribunal with any expert evidence in relation to his current mental health condition[29] and has not provided any such evidence in support of his appeal.
[28] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [88]
[29] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [72] and [87]
At the original Tribunal hearing, Mr P relied on a report from Dr Sabir written in 2016 stating that Mr P’s mental health is “stable” and that his “psychotic symptoms are currently in remission”, but that report was written two years ago. It was also taken into account by the original Tribunal.[30] Also, even if Mr P’s psychotic symptoms were (or are) in remission, it does not follow that he is now suitable to hold a firearms licence.
[30] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [71] and [84]
Further, Mr P’s submissions and email correspondence in relation to his appeal, a sampling of which I have set out above, in my view corroborate a conclusion that Mr P has persecutory delusions. The original Tribunal had the same concern based on the emails presented to it.[31]
[31] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [85]
I nevertheless considered separately each ground of appeal.
Referring to the first ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal’s decision concerned events in 2004, some 14 years ago, when Mr P was found to have an unsecured firearm and unsecured ammunition. Whilst I note, contrary to Mr P’s submissions, that the Court of Appeal said that the “finding of guilt” had to stand, the decision is still irrelevant for present purposes. The Registrar’s decision not to grant Mr P a firearms licence, affirmed by the original Tribunal, arose solely from events that occurred many years after the events in 2004 giving rise to the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2007. To be specific, the decision under review concerns Mr P’s mental health now, regardless of what it might have been in 2007.
To give an analogy, a court might decide in 2004 or 2007 not to cancel or suspend a person’s driver licence because of their previous good driving record, but that would not entitle them to continue to hold a driver licence if the person is no longer able to see. So it is in this case. The original Tribunal’s decision was based on concerns about his current mental health, regardless of what it might have been in 2004.
Referring to the second ground of appeal, I have no jurisdiction on the applications before me to comment upon whether there has been “political repression of [Mr P’s] fundamental human rights”. I can only consider whether Mr P should have a firearms licence. The evidence on the question is all to the contrary. I make the same observation about whether the alleged political repression was “instigated by status quo aggression and abuse of official judicial powers”. Nothing in the documents Mr P has provided on the appeal gives any basis for such claims, but even if any of them was established to any degree, it would remain irrelevant to the question whether Mr P should have a firearms licence. It follows that there is no purpose in me considering the issue, nor do I have jurisdiction to do so.
Referring to the third ground of appeal, any “obstruction/perversion of justice” could be relevant only to the extent that by some means Mr P has been improperly or unlawfully obstructed from obtaining a firearms licence. In this case, the “obstruction”, or indeed refusal, is based on the medical evidence concerning Mr P’s mental health. I have no reason to doubt that the doctors who have expressed largely consistent opinions over many years about Mr P’s mental health have done so honestly and reasonably to the best of their professional ability. Nothing suggests the experts’ opinions were given dishonestly or the purpose of improperly obstructing Mr P from obtaining a firearms licence.
Mr A raised the possibility that Professor Henderson in 2005 was suggesting that the public at large should not have firearms. I do not agree. On a fair reading, Professor Henderson’s comment that “it would be unwise for him (emphasis added) to have access to weapons” was directed at Mr P specifically. The statement that he was not giving his opinion “as a psychiatrist” was only to acknowledge that his view was outside his area of expertise. He could only give expert opinion about a person’s mental wellness: it was for others to decide whether Mr P should have a firearms licence having regard to that opinion. In any event, the opinion is largely irrelevant: it was an opinion given 13 years ago about Mr P’s mental health at that time.
Referring to the fourth ground of appeal, I do not have jurisdiction to enquire into whether there is “status quo aggression” or a “conspiracy to murder” Mr P. None of the material Mr P has provided causes me to think that any of those things were occurring or have occurred, but whatever may have occurred, the issues are irrelevant to the question whether Mr P should have a firearms licence.
In my view, anyone who is mentally unwell and fervently believes that they were “wrongly incarcerated and tortured”; who believes that numerous persons and entities have participated in a “criminal conspiracy” against them and have committed “war crimes”; who believes that police officers have repeatedly tried to murder them; and is aggrieved by the “wrongs” they believe have been perpetrated against them should not be granted a licence to hold a firearm. As the original Tribunal pointed out, “there is no requirement that the Registrar or the Tribunal on review be satisfied that Mr P will not handle firearms responsibly, only that this is a possibility… firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety”.[32]
[32] P v Registrar of Firearms [2018] ACAT 20 at [89]
Mr J’s submission, whilst eloquent and sympathetic to Mr P’s circumstances, also confirmed the lack of substance in Mr P’s application for a firearms licence. Even if Mr J were to produce evidence that Mr P is “dyslexic” and/or “autistic” and not “mentally ill”, contrary to the expert opinions of the psychiatrists, and even if I was persuaded that the original Tribunal misunderstood some points in Mr P’s long and complex history, the submission would not lead to a conclusion that Mr P is a suitable person to hold a firearms licence. Indeed, Mr J’s submission about the depression, frustration and perceptions of injustice that Mr P has experienced for 25 years counts against, not in favour of, Mr P holding a firearms licence.
My concern was not with the form of Mr P’s grounds of appeal and submissions, but their substance. I was satisfied that in response to the question whether Mr P should hold a firearms licence, or whether the original Tribunal erred by not granting him a firearms licence, all the grounds of the appeal lacked substance and could not possibly succeed. The application for appeal was therefore dismissed.

Where I determined that the application for appeal should be dismissed, Mr P’s application for his appeal to be removed to the Supreme Court was unnecessary to decide but I will formally dismiss it as a matter of record.
………………………………..
Presidential Member G McCarthy
HEARING DETAILS

FILE NUMBER:	AA 12/18
PARTIES, APPELLANT:	P
PARTIES, RESPONDENT:	Registrar of Firearms
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPELLANT	N/A
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT	Dr Jarvis
SOLICITORS FOR APPELLANT	N/A
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT	ACT Government Solicitor
TRIBUNAL MEMBER:	Presidential Member G McCarthy
DATE OF HEARING:	15 June 2018