Pascoe v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2025] NSWCATAD 154

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Pascoe v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 154

Hearing dates:

23 May 2025

Date of orders:

27 June 2025

Decision date:

27 June 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Smith, Senior Member

Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed.

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – firearms licence – revocation of licence – offence of affray – Applicant subject to conditional release order – factors relevant to exercise of Tribunal’s discretion – public interest – real and appreciable risk

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police v Gainey (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 23

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Hogan [2024] NSWCATAP 77

Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50

Davos v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 7

Gibson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 212

Grant v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 158

Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2002] NSWADT 218

Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144

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

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

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Darryl John Pascoe (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
West Tamworth Legal (Applicant)
Hall & Wilcox (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/00029406

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

Decision

1. The Applicant sought an administrative review of the Respondent’s decision to revoke his firearms licence after the Applicant was sentenced to a conditional release order for two counts of affray.

2. The Tribunal has found that there is no clear basis or any significant circumstances to justify restoring the privilege of holding a firearms licence in circumstances where the Applicant would be refused a licence of the same kind.

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, in the exercise of its discretion, that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

Background

5. On 10 February 2018, the Applicant applied for a Category AB firearms licence for the genuine reason of recreational hunting/vermin control as an owner of rural land. The licence was granted on 23 September 2018.

6. On 6 September 2023, the Applicant reapplied for the Category AB firearms licence. The licence was granted on 18 November 2023.

7. On 23 June 2024, two incidents occurred at a Hotel (“the Hotel incident”) and Services Club (“the Club incident”) in the “local area” involving the Applicant, the Applicant’s father and members of the Applicant’s ex-partner’s family. As a result of these incidents, the Applicant was charged with two counts of affray. The Applicant pled guilty to both counts.

8. On 16 August 2024, the Respondent served the Applicant with a Notice of Suspension of firearms licence.

9. On 10 October 2024, the Local Court found the Applicant guilty of the two counts of affray. The Court sentenced the Applicant with a conditional release order for a period of 12 months for both offences, commencing on 10 October 2024 and concluding on 9 October 2025, without conviction. The Applicant was also prohibited from attending the Hotel and Services Club in the local area for a period of six months, commencing on 10 October 2024 and concluding on 9 April 2025.

10. On 19 November 2024, the Respondent decided to revoke the Applicant’s firearms licence on the basis that the Applicant had been found guilty of affray and was subject to a conditional release order (“revocation decision”).

11. On 3 December 2024, the Applicant sought an internal review of the revocation decision. The Applicant submitted that he was not the aggressor during the incidents resulting in the conditional release order and that he required his firearms licence for pest and vermin control on his cattle farm.

12. A Senior Adjudicator of the Respondent conducted the internal review, and on 27 December 2024, affirmed the revocation decision. The Senior Adjudicator found that allowing the Applicant to retain his licence after he was found guilty of affray and whilst subject to a conditional release order would be anomalous and unfair to other members of the community. The Senior Adjudicator was not satisfied that it would be in the public interest for the Applicant to be authorised for firearms whilst he was subject to the conditional release order for a prescribed offence and where there were no exceptional or special circumstances which would warrant the return of his licence.

13. On 21 January 2025, the Applicant filed an administrative review application seeking a review of revocation decision.

14. On 23 May 2025, with the Tribunal satisfied that it had jurisdiction to review the revocation decision under s 75(1)(c) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (Firearms Act), a final hearing was held. During the hearing, the Applicant was cross-examined. Both parties made oral submissions.

Relevant law

Object and principles

15. 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.

16. 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 – conditional release order – offence of affray

17. 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.

18. Section 11(5)(d)(iii) of the Firearms Act prescribes that a licence must not be issued to a person who is subject to a conditional release order, whether entered into in NSW or elsewhere, in relation to an offence prescribed by the regulations.

19. For the purpose of s 11(5)(d) of the Firearms Act, clause 5(2)(a) of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW) (Firearms Regulation) prescribes the offence of affray under s 93C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (referred to in clause 5(1)(i) of the Firearms Regulation).

Revocation of licence on basis of public interest

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

21. Clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation 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.

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

23. 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.”

24. In Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [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.”

25. 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.”

26. 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 at [94].

Tribunal’s approach to determination

27. 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)).

28. There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in reviewing the revocation decision. Previous authorities frequently state that the discretion as to revocation should be exercised with the objects of the Firearms Act in mind, with public safety being given paramount consideration: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 (Cusumano) at [23]; Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2002] NSWADT 218 at [24]; Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police v Gainey (GD) [2007] NSWADTAP 23 at [20].

29. In Gibson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 212 at [23], the Tribunal agreed with what was said in Cusumano in relation to how the discretion is exercised in accordance with the objects of the Firearms Act, but also took the view that the following matters are relevant in determining how the Tribunal exercises its discretion in each individual case:

1. the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, which gave rise to the Commissioner's decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence ("the improper conduct"),

2. the applicant's explanation of the circumstances giving rise to the improper conduct,

3. the consequences, if any, for the applicant if the licence is revoked; and

4. the likelihood of the applicant repeating the improper conduct in the future.

Material before the Tribunal

30. The followed documents were before the Tribunal in the hearing:

1. Administrative review application filed by the Applicant on 21 January 2025, attaching the Internal Review decision of 27 November 2024 (Exhibit A1).

2. Statement of the Applicant dated 3 April 2025 (Exhibit A2).

3. Character reference for the Applicant by a Former Pastoral Assistant who has known the Applicant for 30 years (Exhibit A3).

4. Applicant’s written submissions filed on 3 April 2025 (Exhibit A4).

5. Documents filed by the Respondent in accordance with s 58 of the ADR Act (“s 58 documents”), which included a USB with CCTV footage of the Club incident (Exhibit R1).

6. Respondent’s written submissions filed on 5 May 2025 (Exhibit R2).

Position of the parties

31. The Applicant seeks that the revocation decision be set aside. The Applicant submits that he held a firearms licence for approximately seven years and during that period did not come to the attention of the Police for any firearms misuse or accident. The Applicant submits that the Tribunal should consider the facts of the incidents, including that he committed the affray offences after a level of provocation and for the Hotel incident, in self defence of his father. The Applicant submits that the non-conviction sentence was seen by the Local Court as the correct sentence in reference to the sentencing principles. The Applicant submits that, while affray in a public place is a serious offence, his case is on the lower side of objective seriousness.

32. The Applicant also submits that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence due to his previous firearms history, no previous adverse involvement of Police, current employment and no breaches of the conditional release order since imposed.

33. The Respondent seeks that the revocation decision be affirmed. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s licence should be revoked because he would not be able to hold a licence of the same kind and would be mandatorily refused due to the conditional release order for the offence of affray if he were to apply for a licence. The Respondent accepts that the Tribunal has discretion, however submits that the fact of the mandatory refusal if the Applicant was applying for a licence of the same kind, is compelling and persuasive. The Respondent submits that the recorded non-conviction is irrelevant, and a conditional release order is sufficient to attract the mandatory application of s 11(5)(d)(iii) of the Firearms Act and clause 5(2)(a) of the Firearms Regulation.

34. The Respondent also submits that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence, considering the overriding focus on public safety. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there would be virtually no risk to public safety if the revocation decision was set aside.

Consideration

Issues for determination

35. In this matter, the following questions require determination:

1. Should the Applicant’s licence be revoked because he is currently subject to a conditional release order for the offence of affray?

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

36. The Respondent confirmed at the hearing that the Respondent does not take issue with the Applicant’s fitness and propriety and makes no submission that this is a ground for revocation of the Applicant’s firearms licence.

37. In applying the reasoning in Cusumano, the Tribunal is to exercise its discretion in relation to determining whether to revoke a firearms licence by considering:

1. the principles and objects of the Firearms Act

2. the nature and seriousness of the improper conduct

3. the applicant's explanation of the circumstances giving rise to the improper conduct

4. the consequences, if any, for the applicant if the licence is revoked; and

5. the likelihood of the applicant repeating the improper conduct in the future.

38. The consideration of these matters will also assist the Tribunal in assessing whether there is a real and appreciable risk to public safety if the Applicant holds a firearms licence.

Principles and objects of the Firearms Act

39. The principles and objects of the Firearms Act refer to the “strict” approach in terms of the firearms licensing scheme, which prioritises public safety over an individual’s privilege to use and possess firearms.

40. A strict approach in this matter would weigh in favour of the Applicant’s licence being revoked. While the Applicant is subject to a conditional release order for the prescribed offence of affray, he would be mandatorily refused a new firearms licence. Reflective of the strict approach, the Respondent’s position in affirming the revocation decision at internal review, is that the Applicant should not be authorised for firearms whilst he is subject to the conditional release order for a prescribed offence and where there were no exceptional or special circumstances which would warrant the return of his licence.

41. In Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Hogan [2024] NSWCATAP 77 (Hogan), the Appeal Panel held that there is no such requirement that there be special or exceptional circumstances before a firearms licence may be retained after conviction for an offence which will preclude the renewal of the licence. At [53], the Appeal Panel noted that the Firearms Act does not expressly require that there be special or extraordinary circumstances before there may be an exercise of discretion in favour of a licensee maintaining their licence in circumstances where they are not eligible to obtain a licence. The Appeal Panel in Hogan preferred the approach of the Tribunal in Grant v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 158 at [30]-[31], where the Tribunal adopted the approach of asking what exercise of discretion would promote the principles and objects of the Act. At [55], the Appeal Panel in Hogan stated:

“The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the Act calls for some circumstance, or justification to not treat a relevant conviction as the basis for revocation. That justification would not be present merely because the offence was a first offence or because the person had a history of compliance with the Act. To do so would be akin to giving every licensee a single opportunity to breach the conditions of the licence or the Act. Given the purpose of the Act is to protect the public, that would not promote its objects. Something more must be engaged before the privilege of maintaining a licence would be extended to someone who is no longer eligible to hold a licence. There must be some clear basis to justify the continuation of a licensee’s licence, in circumstances where the Act is clear that that person is ineligible to obtain a licence.”

42. The Respondent’s position at internal review was that there needed to be exceptional or special circumstances to warrant the return of the Applicant’s licence. The Respondent’s submissions for the hearing, however, adopted the Appeal Panel’s approach in Hogan, which the Tribunal also adopts, that there must be some clear basis to justify the continuation of the Applicant’s licence, in circumstances where the Firearms Act expressly provides that he would otherwise be ineligible to obtain a licence due to the conditional release order for the prescribed offence of affray.

43. The Applicant has explained his role in the two incidents, which will be examined by the Tribunal further below, and maintains that he is an honest person of good character. The Applicant, in his statement, attested that he is a person of good behaviour and asks the Tribunal to “reinstate the privilege of me having a firearms licence”.

44. During cross-examination, when asked why the privilege of a firearms licence should be extended to the Applicant when he would not otherwise be eligible to be granted a firearms licence, the Applicant stated that he did not want to lose his firearms licence or the ability to participate with a firearm in sport and recreation. The Applicant stated that he had a “clean record”, and he needed his clean record for his job. The Applicant currently works in a supervisory role preparing underground miners in Papua New Guinea. The Applicant stated that he is not a threat to anyone in public and that he does not “go drinking and then fighting with people”.

42. The Applicant gave evidence during the hearing that he visits his rural property, which adjoins his father’s property, approximately one week out of every six weeks. The Applicant has relocated to another suburb and otherwise spends most of his time working in Papua New Guinea (four weeks on, two weeks off). The Applicant stated that he goes clay pigeon shooting.

43. There was no reliable or corroborative evidence before the Tribunal of any urgent or significant need for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence in connection with his rural property or for his current employment.

44. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has presented a clear basis or any significant circumstances to justify restoring the privilege of holding a firearms licence in circumstances where the Applicant would no longer be eligible to obtain a licence of the same kind. The Tribunal is of the view that in the absence of the requisite justification, it would not promote the principles and objects of the Firearms Act to extend the privilege of holding a firearms licence to the Applicant.

Nature and seriousness of the improper conduct

48. The Hotel incident and the Club incident, which occurred within approximately 15 minutes of each other on the same date, both involved the Applicant committing the offence of affray. The offence of affray, in s 93C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), involves a person using or threatening unlawful violence towards another and whose conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his or her personal safety. There was no dispute that this offence is serious, however the Applicant submitted that his case was on the lower side of objective seriousness.

49. The Tribunal has considered the Police records, the Applicant’s statement and oral evidence, and has viewed the CCTV footage of the Hotel incident.

50. In relation to the Hotel incident, it is evident that the Applicant reacted to the name calling from a member of his ex-partner’s family who was affected by alcohol, and rather than leaving the premises, the Applicant approached the members of his ex-partner’s family (three males in total) in a confrontational manner. This then led to a physical altercation where the parties ended up on the ground wrestling. The Applicant’s evidence during the hearing was that the other party had hold of him and the Applicant threw the first punch which did not connect. The parties had to be physically pulled apart and told by staff to leave. It appears that had it not been for the intervention of others, the altercation would have continued.

51. The Applicant stated that after leaving the Hotel, he went to the Club and ordered a drink at the bar, but did not commence drinking before members of his ex-partner’s family, who had been at the Hotel, arrived at the Club. The Applicant stated, and the Police records indicate, that a member of his ex-partner’s family first pushed the Applicant’s father who fell to the ground. This person then began wrestling with the Applicant. In the wrestle, the Applicant punched the member of his ex-partner’s family who had initiated the verbal name calling at the Hotel. This caused further punching from a member of his ex-partner’s family towards the Applicant. The group was dispersed by other patrons and left the premises before the Police arrived.

52. The offences were committed in public places and directly impacted on members of the public. The Police records for both incidents, which were included in the s 58 documents, noted that both licensed premises had witnesses present who were “appalled and disgusted” with the behaviour of the Applicant and others involved. During cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that the incidents had put other patrons at risk and that people would be concerned for their safety. The Applicant also conceded that the staff during the Hotel incident were shocked, and a staff member during the Club incident could not believe what had happened and was shocked. The Applicant stated that after the Club incident, a nurse who was having dinner at the restaurant section of the Club, came and asked the Applicant if he was OK and indicated that he (the nurse) “could not believe what had happened”.

53. The Tribunal is satisfied that the improper conduct in this case is serious, adversely affected members of the public, required intervention from members of the public and placed members of the public at risk.

Applicant’s explanation of the circumstances giving rise to the improper conduct

54. The Applicant said in his statement that when he was physically attacked first by a member of his ex-partner’s family during the Club incident, “I felt that I had no choice but to react” and that “I should have just walked out of the hotel”.

55. The Applicant was asked, during cross-examination, what he meant by stating he had no choice to react and whether physical violence was the only option in the circumstances. The Applicant stated he felt intimidated at both establishments and when a member of his ex-partner’s family told him to go outside during the verbal name calling exchange, the Applicant believed it was going to happen inside or outside and he was going to get attacked anyway. The Applicant stated that next time he would “just cop it, take it” and “let them assault me” as it had given him “too much grief” and he would “let the Police deal with it afterwards”.

56. In relation to the Club incident, the Applicant conceded that as he had physically participated in this incident (punching one of the members of his ex-partner’s family), self-defence was ruled out. It was still submitted by the Applicant, however, that in circumstances where his 74-year-old father had been pushed to the ground, this would elicit some self-defence. When it was put to the Applicant, during cross-examination, that self-defence was difficult to accept and that the physical altercation in the public setting was undeniably serious, the Applicant stated that he “should have just copped a bashing. What could I do with three people coming at me?”.

57. The Police records noted there was a “long running hatred” between the Applicant’s family and his ex-partner’s family. The Applicant, under cross-examination, stated that he did not believe that it was hatred towards himself, but that his ex-partner’s family had been involved in multiple altercations for about 30 years in the local area, associated with alcohol use. The Applicant stated that he had previously seen a member of his ex-partner’s family get drunk and verbally attack people at family gatherings.

58. The Applicant stated that it had been six years since he had separated from his ex-partner, and he was not expecting to have an altercation with his ex-partner’s family. The Applicant stated that while there were some issues for a short period of time after the relationship ended, he now communicates with his ex-partner when it is necessary to see his children, who reside with his ex-partner. The Applicant stated that he does not have any issues with his ex-partner.

59. Given that the Applicant had knowledge of the alleged prior conduct of his ex-partner’s family, in terms of violence and/or verbal abuse while affected by alcohol, the Applicant should have foreseen what might occur as a result of how he (the Applicant) behaved, particularly during the Hotel incident. The Applicant, however, continued in a verbal exchange of name calling, approached the three males in a confrontational manner, threw the first punch, had to be dragged away from the physical altercation and told to leave, and continued with the verbal name calling as he left. All this behaviour of the Applicant would likely have led to the Club incident, 15 minutes later, where a physical altercation extended to the Applicant’s father (74 years old at the time) and another member of the ex-partner’s family.

60. The Tribunal is of the view that while the Applicant may not have initiated the verbal name calling at the Hotel incident, the Applicant’s response during the Hotel incident contributed to the affray occurring. It was the Hotel incident that then led to the Club incident where a second affray occurred with more physical violence involving more people and placed more members of the public at risk. The Tribunal does not place much weight on the Applicant’s explanation that he did not instigate the incidents and that he had, to some extent, acted in defence of his father. The Applicant’s statements in response to how he should have responded also, in the Tribunal’s view, demonstrate a lack of remorse and insight into his own behaviour, and how this impacted on members of the public.

The consequences, if any, for the applicant if the licence is revoked

61. The Applicant stated that he still has a property in the local area, next to his father’s property, which he visits about one week out of every six weeks, but his father “takes care of most things”. The Applicant stated that “I probably need my gun licence for the farm for vermin control”. The Applicant stated that he would like to keep his licence for his farm, and he would also like to do clay pigeon shooting from time to time. The Applicant stated that he did not want to lose his firearms licence over one incident.

62. The Applicant stated that Police checks must be done for him to be allowed access to mine sites in his current employment. However there was no evidence before the Tribunal about what specific impact the revocation of the Applicant’s firearms licence would have on his current employment in mining overseas.

63. The main consequences for the Applicant of having his firearms licence revoked is the loss of sport and recreation and not being able to undertake vermin control for his rural property when he visits it, although the Applicant stated that his father who owns the adjoining property and has a firearms licence assists with this.

64. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are any significant consequences for the Applicant if his firearms licence was revoked.

65. Further, the Respondent submitted that it is open to the Applicant to reapply for a firearms licence when the conditional release order expires in October 2025. At that point, the mandatory application of s 11(5)(d)(iii) of the Firearms Act and clause 5(2)(a) of the Firearms Regulation would not have effect.

The likelihood of the Applicant repeating the improper conduct in the future

66. The Applicant stated that he had moved to another suburb, although he visits the local area when he sees his father, about one week out of every six weeks. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner’s family were people to “stay right away from”, which is why he had relocated. The Applicant stated that he only goes to the local area to check on his property occasionally and spend time with his father. The Applicant stated that he had seen the same members of his ex-partner’s family in the local area since the incidents, but he avoided them.

67. The Applicant stated that the Police Officer who had responded to the incidents had made it very clear to all who were involved that if there was another incident in the future it would be very serious. The Applicant stated that he would be avoiding any interaction with members of his ex-partner’s family. The Applicant stated that the only person he has contact with is his ex-partner.

68. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the dispute (or whatever led to the offences of affray) between the Applicant and his ex-partner’s family was resolved.

69. The Applicant submitted that the main reasons that a similar incident would not occur again in the future is that he is no longer in the local area on a full-time basis and he had limited his exposure to his ex-partner’s family. The Applicant submitted that there was a general and specific deterrent, noting the Police Officer’s warning if any future incident was to occur. The Applicant stated that it was a one-off incident where things went bad on the night and that he is otherwise not a violent person.

70. The Applicant relies on one character reference from a Former Pastoral Assistant who has known the Applicant for 30 years. This person stated that from his knowledge of the Applicant, the Applicant would not usually engage in this type of behaviour and the Applicant had said that the stress of his marriage breakdown and the level of provocation from the family members of his ex-partner made him act out of his normal calm character.

71. The Applicant does frequent the local area regularly (at least one week out of every six weeks), owns a property in the area which he visits, and spends time with his father who resides in the area. The Applicant stated that the local area is a small town with about 600 residents where “everyone knows everyone’s’ business”. While avoidance of the members of the Applicant’s ex-partner’s family may prevent any future incidents occurring, there remains a risk of improper conduct occurring in the future, particularly given that the dispute between the families is long-standing and remains unresolved and there is a lack of remorse and insight on the part of the Applicant in relation to his own behaviour.

Assessment of risk to public safety

72. Having considered the nature and seriousness of the improper conduct that led to the revocation decision, the Applicant’s role in the improper conduct in terms of his response and contribution to the offences of affray, the lack of insight and remorse that the Applicant had demonstrated about his own behaviour and the likelihood of the improper conduct occurring in the future, the Tribunal is of the view that there is a real and appreciable risk to public safety if the Applicant were to hold a firearms licence. This is not a risk that is minimal, fanciful or theoretical.

Conclusion

73. In relation to the question of whether the Applicant’s licence should be revoked because he is currently subject to a conditional release order for the offence of affray, the Tribunal finds there is no clear basis or any significant circumstances to justify restoring the privilege of holding a firearms licence in circumstances where the Applicant would no longer be eligible to obtain a licence of the same kind.

74. 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.

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

Order

76. 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

Decision last updated: 27 June 2025