Su v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

[2023] NSWCATAD 43

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Su v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 43

Hearing dates:

8 February 2023

Date of orders:

24 February 2023

Decision date:

24 February 2023

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

S Montgomery, Senior Member

Decision:

The decision under review is affirmed

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – firearms licence – refusal - whether holding firearms licence contrary to the public interest

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997

Firearms Act 1996

Mental Health Act 2007

Cases Cited:

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657

Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50

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

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] 297 ALR 225

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28

Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28

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

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Dan Su (Applicant)
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Representation: Counsel:
J Park (Applicant)

Solicitors:
Juris Cor Legal (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2022/00268131

Publication restriction:

Section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 applies to those paragraphs of these reasons identified as [Not for publication]. The information contained in those paragraphs is not to be disclosed other than to the Respondent without further order of the Tribunal.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an application by Mr Dan Su (“the Applicant”) for review of a decision by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (“the Commissioner” or “the Respondent”). The delegate’s decision was to refuse the Applicant’s application for a category AB firearms licence and a Probationary Pistol Licence under the Firearms Act 1996 (“the Firearms Act”).

2. The decision to refuse the Applicant’s licence application was affirmed on internal review. The Internal review reasons stated that the delegate considered that it was not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence because of prior criminal history, his driving record and his mental health.

Issue for determination

3. The Tribunal is to determine whether the correct and preferable decision is to refuse the Applicant’s firearms licence application.

4. This determination requires consideration of whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence.

Applicable legislation

5. Section 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (“the ADR Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to an application for review of a decision of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review. The Tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to a number of firearms licensing issues conferred by section 75 of the Firearms Act. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction includes review of decisions by the Commissioner to refuse an application for a firearms licence.

6. This application is made under section 75 of the Firearms Act and the ADR Act.

7. The Firearms Act sets up a scheme to license people to possess and use firearms. One of the underlying principles of the Firearms Act is to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms. Section 3(1) provides:

(1) The underlying principles of this Act are:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and

(b) to improve public safety:

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

(c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms.

8. The Commissioner, and therefore the Tribunal, has discretion in regard to the issues to be decided in this matter. The Firearms Act provides no guidance on how that discretion should be exercised. However, in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] 297 ALR 225, the majority of the High Court stated at paragraph [67]:

[W]here discretions are ill-defined (as commonly they are) it is necessary to look to the scope and purpose of the statute conferring the discretionary power and its real object. The ordinary approach to statutory construction, reiterated in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [[1998] HCA 28] requires nothing less. ...

9. Section 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act prescribes that a firearms licence must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.

10. Section 11(7) of the Firearms Act provides that the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if she considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

11. Section 22 of the Mental Health Act 2007 (“the Mental Health Act”) provides:

22 Detention after apprehension by police

(1) A police officer who, in any place, finds a person who appears to be mentally ill or mentally disturbed may apprehend the person and take the person to a declared mental health facility if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that--

(a) the person is committing or has recently committed an offence or that the person has recently attempted to kill himself or herself or that it is probable that the person will attempt to kill himself or herself or any other person or attempt to cause serious physical harm to himself or herself or any other person, and

(b) it would be beneficial to the person's welfare to be dealt with in accordance with this Act, rather than otherwise in accordance with law.

(2) A police officer may apprehend a person under this section without a warrant and may exercise any powers conferred by section 81 on a person who is authorised under that section to take a person to a mental health facility or another health facility.

12. Section 81 of the Mental Health Act provides:

81 Transport of persons to and from mental health facilities and other health facilities

(1) The persons listed below may take to or from a mental health facility or another health facility any person who is authorised by this Act to be taken, or transferred, to or from the facility--

…

(c) a police officer,

...

(2) A person authorised by this Act to take a person to or from a mental health facility or other health facility may--

(a) use reasonable force in exercising functions under this section or any other provision of this Act applying this section, and

(b) restrain the person in any way that is reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

...

The public interest

13. The term “the public interest” has been discussed in many cases. In Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657, the Industrial Relations Court stated at 681:

The purpose of the reference to "public interest" is to ensure that private interests are not the only matters taken into account; to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the Commission's consideration. The effect of the reference is to amplify the "scope and purpose" of the legislation.

14. In Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16 at paragraph [33] the Appeal Panel said 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.”

15. In Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50 at paragraph [23] Deputy President Hennessy stated:

“There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these discretions [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.”

16. This approach has been applied consistently in matters where the reviewable decision is to refuse to grant a licence. That is, the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act.

17. Section 3 of the Firearms Act emphasises that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Thus, it is the community’s interests which take precedence over the private interests of an individual. In Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28 at paragraphs [27] – [28] Deputy President Hennessy said that in terms of public safety:

“27 …The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that Mr Ward 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.”

18. Ward v Commissioner of Police dealt with the issue of whether the applicant was a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence, but the comments have been held to apply to the public interest test as well: Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales [2017] NSWCATAP 206, at paragraphs [130] – [134].

19. The question of risk is not, however, to be approached in an absolute or mechanistic way, but in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character, and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 at paragraphs [64] – [66].

20. In determining this issue, 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 considered. Minimal, fanciful, or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration: Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 at paragraph [32].

21. The Respondent has lodged a bundle of documents pursuant to section 58 of the ADR Act. Section 58(1)(b) of the ADR Act requires the administrator whose decision is the subject of an application for review to lodge with the Tribunal, within 28 days after receiving notice of the application, a copy of every document or part of a document that is in the possession, or under the control, of the administrator that the administrator considers to be relevant to the determination of the application to the Tribunal.

22. The Respondent applied to the Tribunal for an order under section 59(1) of the ADR Act that it not be required to lodge a copy of certain documents (“the Confidential Material”) with the Tribunal and for orders under sections 49 and 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (“the Tribunal Act”).

23. The Tribunal made the orders under section 59 of the ADR Act and section 64 of the Tribunal Act in relation to the Confidential Material. As a consequence, the Respondent was not required to lodge some material on which the Commissioner relies, and the Applicant has not been given a copy of that material. Some of the Confidential Material has been admitted into evidence in the substantive matter and I have taken that material into account.

The material before the Tribunal

24. As noted, the Respondent relies on a bundle of material filed pursuant to section 58 of the ADR Act (“the section 58 documents”). This material includes a number of records held in the Respondent's electronic database ("COPs"). The Respondent relies on records showing the Applicant’s criminal history and traffic record. The Respondent also relies on open and confidential statements provided by Senior Constable Todd Moxey dated 3 February 2023. Senior Constable Moxey annexed additional material to his confidential statement and the Applicant has not had access to that material.

25. The Respondent’s solicitors also provided written submissions.

26. The Applicant relies on his own statement dated 20 January 2023; a psychological report dated 21 December 2022 from Mr Jon Dormond, a Psychologist of New Vision Psychology. He also relies on material provided to the Respondent in support of his October 2021 request for internal review of the decision to refuse his applications. That material comprised a letter from the Applicant's solicitor dated 12 October 2021, a medical Discharge Summary from Prince of Wales Hospital, and two general references. The Applicant attended the hearing and was cross-examined. The Applicant’s counsel also made submissions.

The Respondent’s case

27. As noted, the Applicant has applied for a category AB firearms licence and a Probationary Pistol Licence. He has applied to the Tribunal for external review of the refusal of those applications. As noted, the Respondent relies on the section 58 documents. This includes a number of records held in COPs.

28. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's criminal and traffic history raises serious concerns about his ability and intention to abide by the law.

Criminal history

29. The Applicant has the following criminal offences recorded against him:

1. Goods in custody suspected of being stolen, Sutherland Local Court, 10 January 2005, Community Service Order, 100 hours; and

2. Shoplifting <=$2,000, Burwood Local Court, 4 February 2003, Fine: $400.

30. In relation to his criminal record, the Applicant’s evidence was that in his youth he associated with gangsters and others who were not good influences. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was an adult at the time of the offences.

31. The Applicant accepts that these were offences of dishonesty but submitted that they were not violent in nature.

Traffic history

32. The Applicant has the following traffic offences recorded against him:

1. Negligent driving (no death or grievous bodily harm), Downing Centre District Court, 15 April 2014, Fine: $800;

2. Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period, 2nd offence, Downing Centre District Court, 15 April 2014, Fine: $1,500 & Disqualification: 2 years;

3. Drive motor vehicle under influence of alcohol, 1st offence, Downing Centre District Court, 15 April 2014, Fine: $1,500 & Disqualification: 2 years;

4. Drive with middle range PCA, Downing Centre Local Court, 7 October 2009, Fine: $750 & Disqualification: 6 months;

5. Drive on road while licence suspended, Downing Centre Local Court, 10 October 2005, Dismissed section 1O; and

6. Drive on road while licence suspended, Burwood Local Court, 5 August 2005, Dismissed section 10.

33. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's traffic history demonstrated a lack of regard for public safety by not adhering to road rules and placing others in the community at risk.

Incident on 15 October 2013

34. Senior Constable Moxey gave evidence, supported by the Respondent’s records, that on 15 October 2013, the Applicant was located by police sitting on the edge of a cliff at Jacobs Ladder behind a safety fence (“the 15 October 2013 incident”).

35. Senior Constable Moxey’s evidence is that the Applicant was sitting with his feet dangling off the cliff edge. When police attempted to speak with the Applicant, he initially ignored them. He then shuffled closer to the edge of the cliff. Eventually the Applicant walked over to police who grabbed him by the arm to prevent him escaping and assisted him over the fence.

36. The Applicant denied that he was suffering any mental health condition at the time of the 15 October 2013 incident, and said that it was all a misunderstanding.

37. As a result of this incident, the Applicant was scheduled under section 22 of the Mental Health Act.

38. Senior Constable Moxey completed a document in relation to the Applicant’s scheduling at the time of his admission to Prince of Wales Hospital. That document is in evidence. Senior Constable Moxey’s notes record that the Applicant was located sitting on the cliff edge at Jacobs Ladder. He was talking on the phone and appeared upset. When Police made contact, he moved closer to the edge. The Applicant said to police that he was thinking of hurting himself and that’s why he was on the cliff edge.

39. In his evidence before the Tribunal Senior Constable Moxey also noted that at the time the Applicant was crying.

40. Senior Constable Moxey created the following entry in the COPS database:

About 12.30 am on 15th October 2013 the POI crossed to the incorrect side of the fence at Jacobs Ladder between sign post number 11 and 12. The POI sat on the cliff edge with his feet hanging off the cliff and spoke to his girlfriend on his mobile phone.

A short time later police arrived at Jacobs Ladder and saw the POI sitting on the cliff edge speaking on a mobile phone. Police attempted to speak with the POI however he ignored them and continued to speak on the mobile phone. Police attempted to make contact with the POI a second time and he looked directly at police and shuffled his bum forward towards the cliff edge.

A few moments later police established communications with the POI and were successful in talking him to come back to the correct side of the fence.

About 12.53 am on the same day Ambulance 438 from Paddington attended and conveyed the POI to Prince of Wales Hospital where police admitted the POI under section 22 of the mental health act

41. The Prince of Wales Hospital Discharge Summary relating to this incident states:

Daniel's girlfriend is verbally abusive, stalking behaviour and threats to shame him if he leave her. Daniel has been using ETOH to manage emotions and difficulties. He saw ACS and accepted advice about psychological input, D&A info, relationship counselling. Daniel was struggling with cultural pressure and saving face within the family, he denied clinical depression or further suicidality.

Daniel was able to distance himself from his girlfriend and was looking into discussing psychological referral through a GP. Last contact with Daniel indicated no further mood disturbance, denied poor coping, denied ETOH misuse or safety issues. He agreed to see a GP but stopped answering ACS calls and a letter was sent

42. The Respondent notes that the Discharge Summary confirms that the Applicant was found sitting on a cliff at the gap. Further, the report refers to the Applicant's use of ETOH to manage his emotions and difficulties. This has not addressed in the Applicant's statement or in the report from Mr Dormand.

43. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's statement also contradicts submissions made by his solicitor in support of the internal review request. In a letter dated 12 October 2022, the Applicant's solicitor noted that when police attended at Jacobs Ladder on 15 October 2013 the Applicant had 'edged away' from them. The Applicant's solicitor wrote:

The police have further raised concerns concerned an event in 2013 where the applicant was found sitting on a cliff at Jacob’s Ladder while speaking on the phone. When police surrounded him suddenly, he was shocked and instinctively edged away. However, the police at the time took this mean that he was trying to exercise self- harm and transported him to Prince of Wales hospital.

44. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not been candid in relation to the circumstances of what transpired on 15 October 2013. It is submitted that the Applicant's version of events should not be accepted in light of the evidence of Senior Constable Moxey.

45. It does not appear that the Applicant followed up the Prince of Wales hospital recommendation of counselling.

Mr Dormand’s report

46. Mr Dormand’s report indicates that the Applicant attended one psychological session. The Respondent submits that the report should be rejected and/or given no weight as it is in contradiction with the Applicant's own evidence that he did not attend any mental health sessions as he was not diagnosed with any mental health issues.

46. Mr Dormand’s report also states:

“Mr. Su reported that he has no mental health history and no criminal history.”

48. Furthermore, the Respondent submits that Mr Dormand’s report:

1. was prepared solely on the basis of a single meeting with the Applicant for the purposes of the Applicant's firearms licence application; and

2. is based on the history given by the Applicant.

49. The Applicant’s criminal history consists of at least ten charges, for which he was found guilty of eight offences and convictions recorded for six offences. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant has not been charged with any criminal offences since 2014.

50. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

51. The Respondent submits that in the circumstances it is not in the public interest that the Applicant holds a firearms licence. Based on all of the above matters, it is submitted that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision to refuse the Applicant’s licence application.

The Applicant’s case

52. The Applicant provided a statement dated 20 January 2023 in which he addressed some of the issues that the Respondent has raised.

Criminal history and driving record

53. The Applicant conceded that in his youth he associated with individuals who were a bad influence. He described some of those associates as ‘gangsters. He said that most of those individuals have moved overseas. In relation to his criminal history he stated:

Most of my criminal history is from when I was aged 20-22 and had yet to reach a stage of maturity. The people I was spending time with were not good influences and I did not have a clear aspiration in life.

However, I have turned a new leaf since 2014 and have not had troubles with the law.

54. In relation to the earlier offences, his evidence was that his companions were a bad influence. He was unable to name any of those companions. He said that he only associated with them for a couple of years, and he no longer keeps in touch with any of them. He said that he ceased associating with them because he kept getting into trouble.

55. The Applicant’s evidence was that in 2005 he went overseas for six months and in that time he realised that the associates were a bad influence on him and so he ceased contact with them.

56. He does not dispute the details of his driving record. In his evidence before the Tribunal, he conceded that in 2013 he was charged, and he was subsequently convicted, with a number of traffic offences including negligent driving; driving a motor vehicle during a disqualification period, and driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol. He accepts that at the time he was 30 years old.

The 15 October 2013 incident

57. In relation to the 15 October 2013 incident, he stated:

On 15 October 2013 I went to … a party.

I recall that it was very loud at the party and I wanted to go somewhere quieter to call my girlfriend at the time.

I travelled to the gap and saw there was a cliff area that was fenced off.

The fence was not very high so I climbed over and sat at the edge of the cliff.

As it was very dark at the time, I could not see how high the cliff was.

I made a phone call to my girlfriend and approximately 10 minutes later, I was confronted by many police officers yelling and pointing their torches at me.

I was immediately extremely shocked as I was not expecting to see police officers in the middle of the night.

I quickly finished the call with my girlfriend to tell her that the police had arrived.

I recall that I then had a conversation with the police to the following effect

Police: Come back over from the ledge.

Me: OK.

I further recall that two police officers came to grab and lift me to their side of the fence.

Once I was over the fence the police then had a further conversation with me to the following effect:

Police: What were you doing over there?

Me: I was making a phone call to my girlfriend.

Police: We were alerted by the sensors that somebody had climbed over the fence to the other side. We just need to ask you some questions. Were you under pressure?

Me: Yes.

Police: We will need to take you to the hospital and you will need to stay for a check-up.

When I told the police that I was under pressure what I had meant was that I had felt pressure from their presence. I also further complied with the police without asking questions because I was concerned that I would get into trouble for sitting on the ledge.

The police took me the Prince of Wales Hospital and left me there with a doctor.

I recall having a conversation of the following effect with the doctor.

Me: Why am I here? I am unsure why they brought me here.

Doctor: we just need to do a check-up of you. You need to stay overnight but you can leave tomorrow.

The doctor asked me some questions what was going on in my life and then discharged me at around 7 am. I was referred to Croydon Health Centre for further check-up.

I was provided a discharge summary which allocated me a low-risk status for suicide, harm to self, harm to others, harm from others and absconding.

I did not continue to attend any mental health sessions as I was not diagnosed with any mental health issues.

To date I have never been diagnosed with any mental health issues and consider myself to have stable mood and coping mechanisms in response to adversities.

58. In his evidence before the Tribunal he continued to dispute the version of the incident that Senior Constable Moxey gave.

Mr Dormand’s report

59. Mr Dormand is a Registered Psychologist who the Applicant consulted for the purpose of a mental health assessment in the context of his application for a firearms licence. The Applicant attended for assessment by Mr Dormand in December 2022.

60. In his report dated 21 December 2022, Mr Dormand noted:

Mr. Su’s results of ‘Normal’ across all the DASS-21 scales of ‘Depression’, ’Anxiety’ and ‘Stress’, indicate that he is currently experiencing normal levels of depression, anxiety and stress, that is, within the mean for the population. This result is an indication that Mr. Su is currently experiencing positive mental health.

61. Mr Dormand referred to the information that the Applicant had provided in relation to the 15 October 2013 incident. He reported:

Mr. Su stated that the Croydon Clinic called him a few days after the incident as a follow up. Mr. Su stated that, he was unsure whether he was obliged in some way to attend this clinic after the significant involvement of police and the hospital on the night of the incident. He consequently attended the Croydon Clinic for one session and reported that a psychologist there assessed him as no risk of self-harm and in no need of further sessions.

Mr. Su reported that he has no mental health history and no criminal history. He has stable full time employment ... Mr. Su stated that his friends sometimes go hunting as a leisure activity, and he would like a firearms license so he can join them.

62. Mr Dormand concluded:

On consideration of Mr. Su’ DASS-21 results, his reported current mental health, and his presentation at assessment, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mr. Su’s mental health is not currently an impairment to his decision-making capacity. He presents in positive mental health.

His current mental health does not present any concerns outside of those applicable for the general public, relevant for his application for a firearms license.

63. In his evidence before the Tribunal, the Applicant denied that he told Mr Dormand that he did not have a criminal record.

64. Mr Park submitted that the Applicant is capable of complying with the firearms legislation. He is a hard-working man, with close ties to the community and a stable family. In regard to the Applicant’s criminal history, he submitted that the offences were not major and that the last incident was in 2013. He submitted that the Applicant has rehabilitated and moved on.

65. In regard to the Applicant’s mental health, Mr Park conceded that there are inconsistencies in the evidence and he accepted that the Respondent’s evidence would be preferred in relation to the 15 October 2013 incident. However, he submitted that the Applicant has no mental health issues. In the alternative, he submitted that even if there were mental health issues in 2013, there are no longer any issues.

66. He submitted that the Tribunal should find that there is no risk to the public if the Applicant has access to firearms.

Discussion

67. This is a matter which concerns the public interest and specifically whether it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence.

68. The Respondent has raised a number of issues of concern. I have considered each of those issues and I have formed the view that the decision under review should be affirmed.

69. There is conflicting evidence in regard to the 15 October 2013 incident. In the circumstances, I agree that the contemporaneous records are to be preferred to the Applicant’s recollection of events.

70. Mr Dormand’s report clearly states that the Applicant was experiencing positive mental health. However, as has been noted, that report is based on the Applicant’s self-reporting and its accuracy relies on the accuracy of the information that was given. The report appears to support the contention that the Applicant is no longer experiencing mental health issues. However, there must be some doubt in that regard as the report states that the Applicant “reported that he has no mental health history and no criminal history.”

71. The Applicant’s driving record is also noteworthy. As has often been observed in decisions of this Tribunal, both the traffic laws and the firearms provisions are designed with the aim of ensuring public safety. I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant’s driving record suggests a lack of responsibility in adherence to the law and a disregard for public safety.

72. Nevertheless, I note that the Applicant has no recorded offences since 2014. His traffic record is incident free in recent times. This may suggest that the Applicant has taken responsibility for his behaviour and changed his driving habits.

73. Notwithstanding that apparent change in the Applicant’s behaviour, in my view, material contained within the confidential material on which the Respondent relies is of greatest significance.

74. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

75. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

76. I understand that the Applicant does not have access to the confidential material. I have nevertheless considered that material and I have decided that it should be given significant weight.

77. In my view, the confidential material leads me to the conclusion that at this time it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to be granted a firearms licence. I am not satisfied that there is virtually no risk to the public in the Applicant having access to firearms.

78. In these circumstances, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the Respondent’s decision.

Order

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 February 2023