Pearson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2018] NSWCATAD 295

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Pearson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 295
Hearing dates:	11 April 2018, 19 June 2018
Date of orders:	19 December 2018
Decision date:	19 December 2018
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	D Dinnen, Senior Member
Decision:	The Reviewable decision is affirmed
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - FIREARMS – public interest – whether a risk to public safety – mental illness – licensing and registration scheme – genuine reason.
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Firearms Act 1996 Firearms Regulation 2006 Government Information (Public Access) Act 2013
Cases Cited:	Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSW ADTAP 9 Constantin v Commission of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16 Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service, [2001] NSW ADT 50 Davos v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 7 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 46 FLR 409 Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43 Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276 Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSW ADT 28
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Douglas William Pearson (Applicant) Commissioner for Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant in person   Solicitors: Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/00317443

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. Douglas William Pearson (the Applicant) was first issued with a Category AB firearms licence on 15 June 1998 for the genuine reason of ‘recreational hunting/vermin control’. Subsequent applications for firearms licences were approved until the application lodged 22 May 2013, in which the Applicant admitted to a history of mental illness. On 31 May 2013 the Applicant’s licence was suspended.

2. On 3 June 2013 the Respondent requested the Applicant attend a medical assessment for the purpose of determining his fitness to possess and use firearms. Medical reports were provided by Dr Martin Carlson (the Applicant’s GP) on 8 July 2013 which included the reports of the Applicant’s psychologist Seth Talmadge. As a result of those reports, on 31 July 2013 the Respondent requested that the Applicant provide a full psychiatric report regarding his fitness to possess and use firearms. A report of Dr Stephen Allnutt, psychiatrist, was ultimately provided on 20 January 2014.

3. On 9 April 2014 the Respondent sought from the Applicant a further report from Dr Allnutt which was to address specific questions of risk assessment. On 3 June 2014 the Applicant’s licence application was refused by the Respondent. The Applicant sought internal review on 4 July 2014 and on 23 October 2014 the Respondent set aside its decision and issued the Applicant’s licence through an automated process, pending provision of photographic advice and collection by the Applicant (the 2014 licence). The Applicant did not collect the licence by the due date of 27 December 2014 and it was thereby deemed to have been surrendered in accordance with Clause 18(2) of the Firearms Regulation 2006.

4. On 5 August 2016 the Applicant re-applied for a Category AB firearms licence for target shooting and recreational hunting purposes (the 2016 licence). The licence for recreational hunting was granted and issued through an automated process, pending provision of photographic advice and collection by the Applicant. The Applicant again did not provide the photographic advice and collect the licence before it expired on 14 January 2017.

5. On 23 January 2017 the Applicant re-applied for a Category AB firearms licence for the genuine reason of ‘recreational hunting/vermin control’. The application was refused by the Respondent on public interest grounds. The Applicant sought internal review and on 28 September 2017 the Respondent affirmed its decision (the Reviewable Decision). In its reasons for decision, the Respondent outlined the lengthy history of correspondence between the Applicant and Respondent, and various complaints made by the Applicant to the Respondent and other government agencies from 2014 onwards as supporting the Respondent’s concerns that the Applicant’s mental illness negatively affected his fitness to possess and use firearms.

6. On 16 October 2017 the Applicant sought review of the Respondent’s Reviewable Decision in the Tribunal, on the following grounds:

I am not satisfied with the Internal Review of the unknown Adjudicator/Assessor (AA) dated 28.9.’17 received at 1:30pm on the 9.10.’17. …

The grounds below are not intended as an exhaustive list and have already required more space than that provided on the form.

1 From the AA’s first sentence claiming, “…all papers relating to your application were obtained and examined.” (This may well be false and misleading, may indicate further GIPA breaches or both. See point 3.)

2 through the reliance on regurgitated unsupported ‘facts’ (most of which have already been addressed and discredited using documentary proof over the last 4 years)

3 and by avoiding reference to the ongoing history of withholding documents from GIPA, Internal Review, IPC, etc on which decisions have been and are being made such as Director of NSW Firearms Registry, Mr Lyons’ use of a 14.8.’13 document, “the nine specific questions” and as evidenced in NCAT 2017/001509942 and GIPA 2017-4527 (19.9.’17)

4 and the failure to identify Police choices relating to procedural fairness and natural justice

5 and despite AA’s finding I have supplied “false and misleading information”, which too has already been addressed on 26.6.’14, (see NCAT 2017/00150942 Documentation Attachment 51)

6 I believe the NSW Police Force have no cogent grounds to claim I have done anything wrong. I have only taken legal actions… as everyone should if they are lied about, lied to, had their property given away and then further ‘disadvantaged’ because they lodged complaints about this ongoing behaviour.

While the NSW Police Force may be under no obligation to tell the truth, the frequency and apparent indifference to exercising this “right” has made dealing with it for well over 4 years now, very unpleasant. There certainly has been no evidence of “After fully and independently considering all relevant matters…” during this time and I seek NCAT’s involvement.

7. The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing on 11 April 2018, and orders were made for the filing and service of written submissions following the hearing. The Applicant filed numerous pieces of correspondence and voluminous bundles of documents containing his evidence and outlining his submissions aimed at pointing out discrepancies and incorrect statements in the Respondent’s material, and providing background material regarding his numerous complaints and applications for information pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2013 (GIPA). A further directions hearing was held on 19 June 2018 as a result of the Applicant’s correspondence to the Tribunal, to confirm that all relevant material had been provided to the Tribunal.

Legal principles

8. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Respondent’s decision pursuant to section 75(1)(c) of the Act and section 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The Tribunal can take into account both the material before the original decision maker as well as any new material put before the Tribunal: Drake v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 at 77.

9. The underlying principles of this 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.

10. The objects of this Act include, relevantly:

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

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

11. Section 11(7) provides that:

Despite any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

12. The legislation requires strict compliance precisely because misuse of firearms can result in catastrophic consequences: Davos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 7, [117].

13. A discussion of relevant case law with respect to public interest was set out by the Tribunal in the case of Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276 at paragraph [69]- [74]. The concept of "public interest" was discussed by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (NSW) (“the ADT”) in Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 as follows:

The "public interest" is an inherently broad concept giving an appellant [the Respondent] the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. As the possibility of refusing an application on the ground of character is dealt with in the same section, it is reasonable to infer that the parliament intended that the public interest discretion operated in areas to which the character ground was not relevant or, possibly, in circumstances where an objection on character grounds would not be sufficient in its own right to warrant refusal.

14. The circumstances in Toleafoa related to the revocation of a security licence. In Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28 (Ward), the ADT confirmed that these comments apply equally to the Act. In Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50, the ADT stated:

There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these directions [to revoke firearms licences] should be exercised. In my view, the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act.

15. In Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 43, the ADT Appeal Panel said that the relevant factors to be considered by the Respondent in determining whether to exercise his discretion include matters of general public policy, which were in turn said to be informed by the principles and objectives of the Act, namely, to confirm firearm possession and use as a privilege conditional upon the overriding need to ensure public safety.

16. In Ward the Tribunal considered the fitness and propriety of Mr Ward to hold a firearms licence. The Tribunal stated at paragraphs [27 – 28]:

27 ...The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that [the Applicant] would not pose a risk to public safety if he had access to firearms.

28 The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk.

17. The Appeal Panel in Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16 at [33] (Constantin) found that the term ‘public interest’ included matters beyond the character of the Applicant and included public protection, public safety, and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system.

Consideration

18. I accept the Respondent’s submission that the evidence in these proceedings involves a significant number of lengthy and detailed documents created by the Applicant, many of which contain information and submissions which have no relevance to the matter before the Tribunal in these proceedings. The Tribunal’s task is to reach the correct and preferable decision as to whether granting the Applicant a firearms licence is in the public interest on the relevant material before it. Despite the Applicant’s correspondence ad submissions, it is not the Tribunal’s task to determine complaints of procedural unfairness against the Respondent in relation to its processing of the Applicant’s licence applications, or to determine the veracity of facts in relation to other grievances raised by the Applicant. This includes the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent inappropriately disposed of his seized firearms in 2013.

19. I accept that the Applicant has a long history of firearms possession and use without incident, including compliance with licencing and safe storage regulations. He has no criminal record and there is no dispute that he is a “fit and proper person” pursuant to the Act’s requirements. I give these matters considerable weight, but they are to be balanced against any concerns regarding the public interest.

20. Relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of the public interest in granting the Applicant a licence are the following matters:

1. The Applicant’s current mental health;

2. Whether the Applicant failed to disclose his history of treatment for mental illness to the Respondent;

3. The Applicant’s failure to collect previous licences granted in 2014 and 2016, and his reasons for doing so.

Mental health

21. According to the medical evidence of Dr Carlson, which I accept, the Applicant suffers from an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, with some obsessive/compulsive and emotional avoidance personality traits. Dr Carlson stated in 2013 that the Applicant’s obsessive traits were “likely to lead to extreme caution and exact handling of firearms”, that he had never posed a risk and that there was no current risk resulting from his ability to appropriately use and control firearms safely. Dr Carlson opined that the Applicant’s long-standing difficulties in accepting poor treatment regarding his workers compensation issues “in no way affects his ability to make rational judgment in regards to firearms management”.

22. Mr Tamadge, the Applicant’s treating psychologist, reported to the Applicant’s treating general practitioners that the Applicant’s stress and anger symptoms resulted from protraction of his workers compensation claim, and that he continued to make progress with Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) treatment. There was no assessment of risk in relation to firearms management included in Mr Tamadge’s reports, and so I consider their relevance limited.

23. The report from Dr Allnutt, psychiatrist, was eventually obtained by the Applicant as a result of the Respondent’s requirement for a psychiatric report which addressed nine questions relevant to a risk assessment. The nine questions were:

1. How long have you been treating the Applicant;

2. What, if any, condition or impairment has the Applicant been diagnosed with or suffered?

3. How would this impairment affect their fitness to possess and use firearms?

4. Is the Applicant taking any medication that would have an adverse effect on their alertness (i.e. their ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery)?

5. Has the Applicant ever deviated from any prescribed course of action or medication, relevant to the above mentioned impairment? If so, what were the circumstances and results?

6. In your expert medical opinion:

i) Is there a current risk that the Applicant’s condition or impairment may impact on their ability to exercise continuous or responsible control over firearms?

ii) Is there any history that the condition or impairment has affected their ability to exercise the desired control and responsibility over firearms in the past?

iii) If there is a previous history, yet no current concern, why have the circumstances changed?

iv) Is it possible that the Applicant will relapse?

7. In your expert medical opinion, does the Applicant:-

i) Currently have the ability to form a rational judgment or to exercise will power to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgment?

ii) Has the Applicant previously demonstrated an inability in this regard?

iii) If there is a previous history, yet no current concern, why have the circumstances changed?

iv) Is it possible that the Applicant will relapse?

8. In your expert medical opinion:-

i) Does the Applicant’s condition or impairment have the current potential to put public safety at risk if they were to have possession and use of a firearm? (Please note that a reference to ‘public safety’ includes the safety of the person being assessed.)

ii) Has the Applicant previously posed such a safety risk?

iii) If there is a previous history, yet no current concern, why have the circumstances changed?

iv) Is it possible that the Applicant will relapse?

9. Any other matters considered relevant.

24. The report from Dr Allnutt did not systematically answer the risk assessment questions posed by the Respondent. It did, however, address the issues referred to in those risk assessment questions. Dr Allnutt stated that the Applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder with some symptoms of anxiety and depression, and some obsessional personality traits. Relevantly, Dr Allnutt opined:

…In addition and notably, your client has owned firearms for decades. There is no evidence of him using the firearms in an inappropriate or irresponsible manner throughout the period of time that he was experiencing more significant depressive symptoms. Your client has acted appropriately and responsibly with regard to his firearms as evidenced by his communications with the Firearms Registry with regard to the manner in which he should report when completing the form and also in ensuring that the firearms were collected as soon as possible; his frankness with which he reports his previous psychiatric history and symptomatology are significant. This, along with his obsessional nature, suggests that he is the type of person who by nature places great value on “doing the right thing”, and this could be regarded as a protective factor. Other relevant strengths include – that there has been no evidence of prior aggression, or threats of harm to others. He has no criminal history….

There is a potential stressor that is about to emerge for him and that is the WorkCover hearing. I believe that the most prudent course would be to await the outcome of that hearing and reassess his mental state thereafter.

25. In a short supplementary report, Dr Allnutt stated:

There has been no evidence of serious threat to the public in the past. Predicting future risk, particularly in populations that have not posed serious risk [in] the past is unreliable.

26. Whilst Dr Allnutt didn’t specifically answer each of the Respondent’s risk assessment questions systematically, his opinion accorded with Dr Carlson’s, who had. I accept Dr Allnutt’s evidence as corroborative of Dr Carlson’s opinion, that the Applicant’s mental health did not and does not pose a risk to his ability to appropriately possess and use firearms. In doing so, I am not discounting the importance of an applicant complying with the Respondent’s requirements to provide specific medical documentation to support an application, which I will address further below.

27. The Respondent did not seek to cross-examine any of the doctors or health care professionals who provided their opinions. On the available medical evidence, I find that the Applicant does not pose a risk to public safety.

28. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had made a threat to a local member of parliament, which should be interpreted as demonstrating he posed a risk to public safety. Police records state that on 13 January 2015 they attended the Applicant’s residence as a result of a telephone conversation between the Applicant and staff of the local member for Bega, Andrew Constance MP, in which the Applicant “seemed unstable and made a direct threat to the physical safety of the MP”. The Applicant explained in evidence that he did not threaten the individual, but rather his position as a local member, regarding his ability to remain in an elected position. On the basis of the evidence available to the Tribunal, which included documentation of the complaint relevant to the purported threat, I accept the Applicant’s evidence and find that this incident did not demonstrate a risk to public safety.

Failure to disclose

29. The respondent submitted that the Applicant had provided false and misleading information prior to his 2013 licence application, by failing to notify the Respondent of his treatment for mental health issues. According the Dr Allnut’s report, the Applicant first received treatment from a mental health professional in 1994, associated with his workers compensation claim. In the context of his workers compensation claim, his mental health continued to be monitored and assessed, and he was treated by his GP for an anxiety disorder related to his workers compensation claim in 2004. This conflicts with the Applicant’s statement in his 2008 licence application to the Respondent, where he answered “no” to the question “Have you in NSW or elsewhere attempted suicide or self harm or been referred or treated for alcoholism, drug dependence, or a mental or nervous disorder or illness”.

30. In evidence, the Applicant explained that, at the time when he completed the 2008 application, he did not comprehend the question to include referrals or treatment associated with his workers compensation claim. In the context of his subsequent volunteering of this information in the 2013 application I accept the Applicant’s explanation demonstrates there was no deliberate false or misleading statement made by him in 2008. This is confirmed by the medical evidence, including Dr Allnutt and Dr Carlson’s opinions that his obsessional and personality traits tend towards extreme caution and “doing the right thing”. Whether it was deliberate or not, the statement made in 2008 was false as the Applicant had been referred and treated for a “mental or nervous disorder or illness”. Considering the subsequent disclosures by the Applicant, I afford this factor, as relevant to the public interest and thereby determination of this application, to be of limited weight.

Genuine Reason

31. The final matter which was raised by the Respondent as relevant to the public interest was the Applicant’s failure to collect his 2014 and 2016 licences, once they had been granted. While superficially this seems like a minor issue, the Applicant’s actions – or lack thereof – and his reasons for doing so are significant in the context of the objects of the Act.

32. On several occasions during his assessments by medical professionals for the purpose of both his firearms application and his workers compensation proceedings, and in his correspondence with the Respondent, the Applicant made statements which indicate that the ‘genuine reason’ he provided to the Respondent in his firearms licence applications is not, in fact, the reason for which he seeks the licence.

33. On 3 November 2014 the Respondent received correspondence from the Applicant dated 28 October 2014, which complained that the Internal Review decision of 23 October 2014 which had granted the 2014 licence made him “feel like you are pressuring me to trade off my legal entitlements, including such basic ones as to be reimbursed for the costs incurred complying with the 2012 demands to attend the insurance company’s choice of doctors…”. In a letter of 6 December 2014, the Applicant repeated prior complaints of access to documentation, allegations of tampering with evidence, inappropriate conduct by the Respondent in association with his licence applications, inappropriate delays and firearms seizures, and stated:

I attended the Moruya RTA and the Batemans Bay Police station on 4.12.’14 (Attachment 1)… but I still have no intention to misrepresent or break the law

34. In a further letter to the Respondent dated 18 December 2014, the Applicant complained that “there is still no acknowledgement of the Registry’s ongoing misrepresentation (section 70?)”.

35. Although it is difficult to ascertain the basis for the Applicant’s complaints and its relevance to the requirement for the Applicant to produce the Photographic Advice to obtain his licence, I infer the following from all the available evidence. The Respondent’s internal review decision of 23 October 2014, setting aside the licence refusal and recommending he be issued with the licence, was based in part on advice received on 17 October 2014 from the Applicant’s then solicitor, Thomas Morgan, that he was no longer pursuing any further complaints or claims against the Department of Education. The Applicant considered this to be a misrepresentation or false statement as he was continuing to pursue his claims in the Workers Compensation proceedings, specifically in relation to reimbursement of expenses associated with medical assessments, and complaints about inaccuracies in the associated documentation. The Applicant believed that providing the Photographic Authority to obtain his firearms licence was thereby contravening section 70 of the Act, which is an offence provision stating:

A person must not, in or in connection with an application under this Act or the regulations, make a statement or provide information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

36. As a result of these concerns, the Applicant was refusing to provide the Photographic Advice to obtain his licence, instead corresponding with the Respondent to rectify the false or misleading information.

37. This same concern was raised by the Applicant in the context of the 2016 licence application, resulting in a telephone call from the Respondent’s registry staff to the Applicant confirming that the granting of the firearms licence was not based on him ceasing pursuing his workers compensation claim, and a letter dated 4 November 2016 specifically stating that he would not be in contravention of section 70 of the Act by pursuing his workers compensation claim and addressing the Applicant’s other concerns of the Respondent’s practices in processing licence applications and disposal of his firearms in 2013. The 2016 licence was granted subject to the usual requirement for the applicant to produce his photographic authority and collect the licence. Despite this, the Applicant did not produce his Photographic Authority by the required date, writing again to the Respondent on 1 December 2016 complaining of inaccuracies and unfairness in the Respondent’s documentation and processes. The 2016 licence thereby expired before it was finalised and collected by the Applicant.

38. In his 2013 report, Dr Allnut reported that the Applicant “was pursuing the matter out of principle because he did not believe that the removal of his licence was the right thing to have happened. He felt it was an injustice. Dr Allnutt opined:

Describes this preoccupation with obtaining his gun licence as being driven by principle, alluding to an underlying sense of injustice compounded by his prior experiences as a teacher and his unfair treatment. Your client reported that he was utilising a significant proportion of his liquid funds in order to achieve satisfaction on this matter of principle. He reports that his frustration is largely due to the loss of his licence arising from a psychiatric assessment triggered by the Department of Education.

39. Dr Allnutt also included in his report, in very brief terms, the ‘genuine reason’ for which the Applicant had sought a licence, according to his application:

He used the guns to shoot rabbits and ducks with friends. He acknowledged that he did not really need the guns but noted that they were a way of obtaining meat and that his gun usage was a pastime.

40. Dr Allnutt’s report referred to the report of Dr Newlyn in 2012, which included that the Applicant had informed Dr Newlyn:

…that he had firearms because they were planning to put a ban on personal ownership of firearms. He had not had them out in five to six years. He had cleaned them since he had seen Dr Newlyn in 2010.

41. At hearing, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that, were he to be successful in his application and thereby be granted a firearms licence, he could not assure the Tribunal that he would then comply with the requirements to provide the required documentation, such as the photographic advice, and collect the licence.

42. I agree with the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant’s conduct in not finalising and picking up licences granted to him in 2014 and 2016 “on principle”, his statements to medical professionals and to the Tribunal cast doubt on whether the Applicant’s ‘genuine reason’ expressed in his 2017 application as “recreational hunting/vermin control” is, in fact, genuine.

43. The Applicant’s complaints and claims against the Respondent and other external organisations involved in his workers compensation claim may or may not be justified. The principle expressed by the Applicant to be pursuit of his workers compensation and associated claims, procedural fairness, accuracy in documentation, access to information and resolution of his grievances does not justify a failure to comply or cooperate with the necessarily strict obligations and requirements of the firearms licensing system. Whilst the Applicant has rights to pursue his workers compensation entitlements and access to information under the GIPA Act, firearm possession and usage is a privilege, not a right or entitlement.

44. One of the Applicant’s numerous complaints about the Respondent’s licencing processes was their requirement for him to obtain a report from a psychiatrist answering specific questions regarding his risk to public safety. He considered this requirement to be unfair in circumstances where obtaining a psychiatrist’s report was difficult, expensive, and was “only triggered” by an unfairness in his workers compensation proceedings. Whether or not this requirement was, in fact, unfair to the Applicant – in substance or procedure – the Respondent is enabled by the Act and its expressed object and principles to require it as a condition to the determination and granting of the Applicant’s firearms licence application.

45. Although he does not pose a risk to public safety, public safety is not the only matter for which the public interest is concerned, as noted in Constantin. Public confidence in the administration of the licensing system is a significant public interest concern, as the establishment of an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms, and the strict requirements relating to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and supply of firearms are expressed as objects of the Act. Granting a firearms licence to an individual seeking that licence, even in part, for the purpose of demonstrating or addressing a perceived injustice does not and would not give the public confidence in the administration of the firearms licensing system.

46. For the reasons expressed above, I find that the Applicant’s real reasons for seeking a firearms licence are not a ‘genuine reason’ within the meaning of the Act. I also find, of primary importance, that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to be granted a firearms licence.

Orders

1. The reviewable decision 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: 19 December 2018