Taylor v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

[2025] NSWCATAD 257

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Taylor v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 257

Hearing dates:

13 October 2025

Date of orders:

21 October 2025

Decision date:

21 October 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member

Decision:

(1)   Decision under review affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (CAT Act), the publication of the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4 is prohibited.

(3)   Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal.

(4)   Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential hearing of these proceedings, including confidential exhibit CR4 and any evidence given during the confidential hearing, is prohibited and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked “[Not for publication]” are not to be published or released to the applicant.

Catchwords:

LICENSING – firearms licensing – licence refusal – public interest – criminal and traffic history – incorrect information in applications.

Legislation Cited:

Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316;

Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42;

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16;

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

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60;

Esterman v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATAD 70;

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

Joseph v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCA 31;

Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117;

Keegan Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145;

Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCA 368;

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

McDonald v Director-General, Social Security [1984] FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354;

Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10;

Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10;

Umbaca v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 380;

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

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Zachary B Taylor (Applicant)

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (Respondent)

Representation:

Applicant (self-represented)

Solicitors:
Hall and Wilcox (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/00193845

Publication restriction:

See above.

reasons for decision

1. The applicant Mr Zachary Taylor applied to this tribunal on 21 May 2025 for review of a decision by the respondent Commissioner on 20 May 2025 to refuse his application for a category AB firearms licence.

2. On 23 January 2023 the applicant had applied for a category AB firearms licence, not having previously held a licence. That application was refused on 16 March 2023 because of concerns about his recorded criminal history and a 2023 dispute with one Terry [surname] (who was at one stage incorrectly believed to be a relative of the applicant’s) in the course of which he had allegedly threatened to assault Terry. He had also given an incorrect answer to a question about criminal history in the licence application. He applied for an internal review of that decision, but the refusal was affirmed on 10 May 2023.

3. He applied for a category AB licence again on 10 April 2025, which was refused on 12 May 2025 (exhibit R1, pp 31 – 33) on the grounds of his criminal and traffic history and because he gave false or misleading information in his licence application, leading the respondent to conclude that there were serious concerns regarding his ability and intention to abide by the law, specifically in relation to his ability to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms without compromising public safety.

4. He sought an internal review of the refusal, which affirmed the decision on 20 May 2025, and the following day the applicant applied to this tribunal for administrative review. The matter came on for hearing by AVL on 13 October 2025. At the conclusion of the open hearing, a confidential hearing was held for the purpose of receiving confidential evidence.

Applicable legislation

5. Under s 11(7) of the Firearms Act 1996, the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

6. Section 70 of the Act prescribes that a person must not, in or in connexion with an application under the Act or regulations, make a statement or provide information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

The evidence

7. The respondent did not call oral evidence but instead relied on the documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibits R1 and R2).

8. The applicant did not lodge a witness statement, but did file a document comprising representations of fact as well as material by way of submission (exhibit A1). In it he said he had sought and obtained information about Terry [surname] in the local taxi driving community because of verbal threats he had received from Terry. He had then replied with threats over the telephone, for which Terry had reported him to Albury police. He had then himself reported to the police station.

9. He had felt the situation was odd as he did not think he could be the only person this could have happened to because of Terry. He was informed by drivers Mark [surname] and Fred [surname] that Terry had previously been placed on an AVO for death threats and the matter had proceeded to court. He had also rammed another local cab in a dispute.

10. He is not related to Terry and has never met him or seen him in person. He has no feelings of malice towards him and regrets reacting to his threats over the phone. He apologized to the officer in person at Albury police and was very remorseful for what he said over the phone. There is no property dispute between himself and Terry, as the litigation relates to his brother, his lawyers and Terry.

11. The applicant says he is a fit and proper person, owning and operating his own tiling business (Taylor’s Protiling) and has been in the industry for 11 years. He has always been employed, and when not working spends time with his two children and going to the gym. He does not drink alcohol or do any drugs at all. He has his own home and can store firearms correctly. He is very remorseful about his criminal history in his youth and asks that his age at the time should be taken into consideration.

12. In oral evidence in chief he said that he had telephoned Terry as he had accused the applicant’s grandfather of raping his (Terry’s) mother, with whom his grandfather had lived for 10 years, although not in a de facto relationship. He had responded by saying he would “get” Terry. There is a property dispute before the courts, but it does not relate to the applicant.

13. Cross-examined by Ms Harradine on behalf of the respondent, the witness said he had previously lived in Queensland until December 2022, and had not returned to Queensland since. He acknowledged that he had been found guilty in December 2015 of supplying methamphetamine and other drug offences. He admitted he had a lengthy traffic record, including four violations in New South Wales since July 2022, the latest occurring in September 2025, but said three of those matters were cautions only, and only two had resulted in fines.

14. The 20 August unsecured load case had been withdrawn. He had been cautioned for having incorrect plates on his vehicle. It was registered and insured at the time, and he held the appropriate licence, but on that day he had not affixed the new plates. He agreed that he had driven with a partly unsecured load, but did not think it fair to bring up a caution.

15. He said that event report E 182941502 (exhibit R2, p 4) was incorrect in that he had not been issued with an infringement notice, which had been revoked by mail. He had telephoned the police about it and the officer had apologized for her error. He believed the officer would if asked support his account.

16. He acknowledged the two speeding violations in Queensland in 2022 (exhibit R1, p 87) but said he had thought it was over six years ago. No infringement notice had been issued. His attention was drawn to his letter to the firearms registry dated 16 March 2023 (id., 18) in which he had stated “In the last 7 years I have had minimal driving infringements” when in fact he had accumulated 12 contraventions between 2016 and 2023. He agreed, but said that was minimal as it amounted to less than two contraventions a year. A lot of people would have that.

17. In relation to his drug offences, the witness acknowledged that drugs constituted a risk to the community, but said the offences dated from 2013, 12 years ago. It was not easy to read his record and he was remorseful about his behaviour. He agreed that speeding, running red lights and the like also cause a risk to the public, but said that he had no violations for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs or dangerous driving. Most of his speeding contraventions had been for driving less than and 12 km/h over the limit.

18. Asked whether he considered that any speeding constituted a risk to the public, he said most drivers would have one or two infringements a year and that everyone makes mistakes. As regards his most recent offence, on 3 September 2025, he had received an infringement notice for exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h and under in a school zone (exhibit R2, p 10). He said he had not been aware that it was a school zone, he had been driving a rental car and did not normally come that way and the school zone was 6 km long. He had apologized to the officer.

19. In response to a question about why he kept speeding, he replied that everyone has infringement notices and he had made a mistake in a rented car. He takes safety seriously and the cautions he had received in the last two years arose because of the surrounding circumstances.

20. Ms Harradine then turned to his licence applications. In the 23 January 2023 application form he was asked “At any time within the past 10 years have you been convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales or elsewhere?” (Exhibit R1, p 9), to which he had answered “No”, which he admitted was false.

21. In his 10 April 2025 application he had again answered “No” to the same question (id., 26), although he had two offences in 2016. He had also answered “No” to the question “Have you ever had an application for a licence or permit refused under the Firearms Act 1996?”, which was incorrect. He said he had ticked the boxes wrongfully but had been advised by a firearms safety officer to do so in relation to the second application. In relation to the first application he had thought his offences were over 10 years previously, as he had been unaware that the relevant starting date was the court date, not the offence date. He had mostly understood the other questions correctly.

22. It was put to him that he had given false information in order to have his licence application approved, to which he replied that if he had ticked the wrong box that was correct. He had done so under guidance, although he admitted that it was his responsibility to complete the application correctly. He had advised other people not to accept that kind of advice from the particular firearms safety officer.

23. He agreed that he had no immediate need for firearms and would be able to reapply in the future. There were just a few traffic matters with which he did not agree, but he accepted his criminal history from 2013.

Applicant’s submissions

24. In oral submissions at the hearing the applicant submitted that in the respondent’s last refusal letter (actually the internal review reasons, exhibit R1, p 6) the respondent had indicated that his application could be approved once the dispute about his grandfather’s property had been resolved. But as he was not a party to those proceedings, the result of the case would not affect him.

25. His criminal offences had occurred a long time ago and he was remorseful about them. He is now looking after his two children and running his business and would be able to store firearms safely in his own home. As regards traffic violations, he has had 10 years without being placed on a good behaviour condition. Over the last 7 years he has had less than two contraventions a year and the fact that they had mostly resulted in cautions showed that they were not severe. In fact he had gone for 3 years with zero violations, although he drives 80,000 to 90,000 km a year in his business. The main reason for his licence refusal is the incident with Terry, which was an altercation on the telephone. He had apologized to the police officer and no further action had been taken.

Consideration

Approach

26. Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) the tribunal’s role is to determine whether, having regard to the underlying facts in the matter and the applicable law, the Commissioner’s decision is the correct and preferable one. The tribunal is to review the merits of the original decision and is required to consider the evidence available at that time, together with any other or later material, so as to affirm the original decision, vary it or set it aside: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77.

27. The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the CAT Act (s 30) and the Firearms Act, including the Commissioner’s refusal of a licence or permit: s 75(1)(c). An internal review was applied for and duly determined (ADR Act s 55(3)). The tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Commissioner’s decision is correct: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357.

28. Clear guidance as to how the Act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistently with that approach, s 11(3) states that a 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.

29. The standard of proof applying in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, the balance (preponderance) of probabilities. These are not adversarial proceedings. There is accordingly, no burden or onus of proof on either party (Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10, [28] – [34]) and the standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42, [89] – [91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10, [10] – [12]. They do, however, provide guidance for the tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Public interest

30. The ground on which the respondent relies is that it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence. The “public interest” factor allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. They may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16.

31. The underlying principles of the Act as stated in s 3(1) stress the overriding need to ensure public safety. The tribunal is required to exercise its discretion in determining licensing reviews in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50, [23]. The applicant’s personal interest in retaining his licence is subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety.

32. As the Court of Appeal observed in Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCA 368, [1], the power to grant an application under the Firearms Act places significant emphasis upon the need to control risks to public safety, with the concomitant need to assess the trustworthiness of an applicant. Similarly, in Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 the tribunal stressed that public safety is to be given paramount consideration.

33. Tribunal decisions have pointed out that the question of potential risk to public safety is not to be applied in an absolute manner, 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, [64] – [66].

34. Thus, in Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110, [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that “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”. Risk to the public includes, of course, risk to the applicant himself: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117, [74].

Drug offences

35. On 10 December 2015 at Townsville Magistrates Court, Queensland, the applicant was found guilty without conviction and fined $2500 for supplying methylamphetamine and possessing a dangerous drug (testosterone) and possessing anything used in the commission of a crime (exhibit R1, pp 16, 20). A search of the applicant’s dwelling at Laverack Barracks, Townsville, located six clear glass bottles containing various amounts of brown liquid. The applicant acknowledged ownership of the items and said that the liquid was propionate, a form of testosterone and said he had injected the substance two or three times a week.

36. Examination of the applicant’s mobile telephone showed a number of text messages exchanged with a person named “Drugo”, including a message relating to the trade of “another ball”. Police believed the term “ball” was used among drug users for a quantity of methylamphetamine (id., 47 – 53).

37. On 11 December 2015, he was found guilty without conviction and fined a total of $3500 for failing to properly dispose of a needle and syringe, failing to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of a syringe or needle, possessing utensils or pipes etc. that had been used, possessing property suspected of having been acquired for the purposes of committing a drug offence, possession of property suspected of being the proceeds of an offence under the Drugs Misuse Act, possessing property suspected of having been used in connexion with the commission of a drug offence and contravening a direction or requirement (id., 16).

38. The offences came to light on 9 March 2013 when police executed a search warrant on an address in Annandale, Queensland. While police were at the premises, two vehicles were seen to stop outside and police spoke with two individuals, one of whom was the applicant. A search of his backpack revealed a box containing 1.72 g of “a crystalline substance”, a set of scales, a mobile telephone and $314.

35. In the execution of a search warrant a small quantity of a “crystalline substance” was found on a kitchen bench, a 500 g container of methylsulfonylmethane (referred to as “MSM”), an unused syringe, a red straw with white residue on it, a plastic bag containing 1 g of “a crystalline substance”, a wineglass in the freezer containing a “crystalline substance”, and a bong and grinder (id., 57 – 82).

Traffic record

40. The applicant has a very poor traffic record. In Queensland alone he accumulated between 2012 and 2022 by my count some 24 infringements, including unlicensed driving, driving an unregistered or uninsured vehicle, seatbelt offences, a red light contravention, failure to display P plates and a variety of other breaches of licence requirements. He has accumulated 12 speeding violations, the most recent being two in 2022. His licence was suspended on four occasions and he was sent two warning letters.

41. In addition, he has four New South Wales infringements. On 11 July 2025 he was cautioned for displaying misleading numberplates (exhibit R2, pp 1–3), and on 20 August 2025 received an infringement notice for the unsecured load mentioned earlier. An infringement notice against him on 21 August 2025 related that he had been travelling between 120 and 130 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. Asked by police the last time he had ticket, he responded “six plus”, but he had in fact received two tickets approximately three years before in Queensland. An infringement notice dated 3 September 2025 estimated that he had been travelling at 52 km/h in 40 km/h school zone. He informed police that he was not aware that it was a school zone because he did not usually travel that way (id., 10).

21 February 2023 incident

42. On 21 February 2023, Terry [surname] reported to Albury police that he had received a call from the applicant in connexion with a succession dispute involving the applicant’s grandmother’s estate. According to event report E94460880 (exhibit R1, pp 42 – 43) Terry disputed a claim the applicant made in connexion with his deceased grandmother’s estate. Thereupon the applicant was alleged to have become verbally abusive and said words to the effect of “I’ll find where you live, you won’t know when I’m coming”, “I’m going to hurt you, I’ll give it to you”, “I’ll smash you” and other words to the effect that he would assault Terry.

43. Albury police contacted the applicant in connexion with the complaint and asked him to attend Albury police station to discuss it. At the police station he made certain admissions about threatening Terry, but said he would never actually follow through and only said those things in the heat of the moment “as Terry had made outrageous claims that his [the applicant’s] Grandfather raped Terry’s mother”. He agreed that he would not conduct himself in such a manner ever again and would leave the property dispute to the courts. From the report it appears that no further action was taken.

2023 licence application

44. On 23 January 2023, the applicant applied for a category AB firearms licence on the basis of target shooting with a club (exhibit R1, pp 8 – 11). This was his first application. In the form he answered “No” to the question “At any time within the past 10 years, have you been convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales or elsewhere?” (Id., 9). In cross-examination he agreed that the answer was false.

45. That application was refused on public interest grounds because of his criminal history and because of his involvement in the dispute with Terry in February 2023 (id., 15 – 17). The refusal was affirmed following an internal review on 10 May 2023 (id., 19 – 24).

2025 licence application

46. The applicant applied again for a category AB licence on 10 April 2025 for the same reason, target shooting with a club. He answered “No” to the following questions:

• “At any time within the past 10 years, have you been convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales or elsewhere?”

• “Have you ever had an application for a licence or permit refused under the Firearms Act 1996?” (id., 26).

47. As to the first of those questions, the applicant admitted in cross-examination that the answer was false, as he had two traffic offences in 2016 as well as offences of failure to appear in accordance with an undertaking and contravening a direction or requirement, but said he had been advised to answer No by a firearms safety officer, as outlined above. He had not known that answer was false as he had thought that the 10 year period began from the charge date, not the court date. Asked if he had understood the question, he replied that he had “ticked the boxes wrongfully”.

48. As regards the second of the questions quoted above, he initially admitted that the answer was false, as his 2023 application had been refused, and he had known his answer was false. But when he was asked if he had given a false answer for the purpose of obtaining approval for his application, he replied in the affirmative, then added “if [he] had ticked the wrong box”, implying that there was some doubt about whether he had done so. When again asked if he had known the answer was not correct, he replied “I skimmed through it”.

49. In his letter requesting the internal review of his 2025 application, he stated that the 2012 driving offence arose because he had been unaware his registration had expired. The 2013 criminal acts were wrong and highly regrettable, but consideration had to be given to his age at the time (19 years) and that those offences were now historical. The 2015 offence of driving an unregistered vehicle arose because it was an unregistered company van that his boss owned and his licence expired in the same week. He had no intentions of breaking the law, but acted through immaturity and not keeping up-to-date with expirations. He now currently maintains his own company vehicles, ensuring that they are registered, insured and serviced (id., 35).

50. He said that the 2023 telephone call incident resulted from his being verbally abused and threatened by the very person who had made the complaint to police against him. He had responded to the call in the same way as that person had started, resulting in verbal insults being sent back and forth. When Albury police telephoned him about it, he was truthful about the call and expressed immediate remorse by apologizing for his actions. He has absolutely zero history of violent behaviour and has been able to live in the same community as that person without further incident (ibid.).

51. The internal review reasons stated that in addition to the two false answers on his licence application form, the applicant had also given false answers to similar questions in his 2025 P650 application to obtain approval to complete the necessary training requirement for a firearms licence (id., 6) and placed substantial weight on that fact. Although the P650 document does not appear to be among the material before the tribunal, the applicant did not challenge that finding and there is no reason to suppose it to be incorrect. It may be accepted on the preponderance of probabilities.

Evaluation – public interest

52. The applicant is a man aged 33 with two children who lives in southern New South Wales. He has no history of violence or of mental health problems. He says that he does not partake of alcoholic beverages or use drugs.

53. The applicant operates his own tiling business, Taylors Protiling, and in these proceedings tenders eight highly supportive assessments from customers (part exhibit A1), who describe him inter alia as “reliable, efficient and a pleasure to deal with”, “a delightful young man… [who] stuck to his word on when he could start and likely finish the job”, “a great worker… all dealings with him with such a pleasure”, “very professional, super easy to deal with and… did an amazing job”, and “punctual, reliable, hard worker, honest, sincere and down-to-earth”.

54. Customers are equally enthusiastic about the quality and reasonable cost of his work, Russell from Lavington, for example, adding that “Zac did a fantastic job, the tiling is perfect, we will hire Zac for our next jobs. Highly recommended”.

55. The applicant has, however, a substantial criminal history which includes serious findings of guilt for drug misuse and supplying methamphetamine. There is also an offence of failure to appear in accordance with an undertaking on 24 June 2013 (id., 44) and an offence of contravening a direction or requirement, on 11 December 2015 (id., 45).

56. While he was found guilty without conviction for the drug offences, it is well established that the tribunal is to take into account criminal conduct, whether or not that conduct has led to a conviction of criminal offences: Joseph v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCA 31, [62] – [64]. It is the conduct, rather than the conviction, that is of concern to the tribunal: Esterman v Commissioner of Police [2014] NSWCATOD 70, [30].

57. The drug charges are now 10 years in the past and occurred when the applicant was aged 19 and there been no similar charges since then. The applicant contended that the drug matters were now purely “historical”, but when viewed in conjunction with his entire record they retain some significance.

58. Thus, there is the incident on 21 February 2023 concerning the dispute between the applicant and Terry over the telephone in which the applicant made several threats of violence. The applicant submits that he was provoked when Terry alleged that his grandfather had raped Terry’s mother and reacted on the spur of the moment. He apologized promptly to Albury police and vowed never to repeat such conduct again. Any threats of violence are of concern in the context of firearms licensing, though the episode does appear to have been an isolated incident.

59. The confidential evidence must also be considered.

60. [Not for publication]

61. [Not for publication]

62. [Not for publication]

63. [Not for publication]

64. Also relevant is his very poor traffic history, which includes some 24 infringements, including 12 speeding violations in Queensland (two of them in 2022), as well as offences of disobeying red lights, unlicensed and unregistered driving, seatbelt contraventions and administrative breaches. He has had four licence suspensions and two warning letters. While there has been some improvement in recent years, he has had four New South Wales contraventions in 2025 alone. The tribunal has long held that such a traffic record demonstrates a disregard for the law and for regulatory schemes designed to protect public safety: Keegan Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145, [81].

65. The applicant sought to diminish the significance of his traffic record, contending that many of the matters had resulted only in cautions. But, as was explained above, it is the conduct that the tribunal is required to consider, not only the legal outcome. The applicant also argued that his record averaged out at less than two contraventions a year and that most drivers would accumulate similar totals. Further, he had not incurred any charges for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or driving in a manner dangerous. Nevertheless, his attitude to regulations designed to protect public safety is unacceptably casual.

66. The most serious matters in his recent record, however, are the instances in which he has supplied false or misleading information in or in connexion with a firearms licence application. In his 2023 firearms licence application he stated that he had not been convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales or elsewhere in the past 10 years (i.e. between 23 January 2013 and 23 January 2023). That was false, as he had convictions in April 2016 and August 2016 for driving an unregistered vehicle and driving without a licence.

67. In his 2025 licence application he again stated that he had not been convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales or elsewhere within the past 10 years (i.e. between 10 April 2015 and 10 April 2025). He also stated that he had never had an application for a firearms licence refused. He gave similar replies on his 2025 P650 application for approval to complete the necessary training requirements for a firearms licence. Given his convictions in 2016 and the refusal of his firearms licence application in 2023, those answers were incorrect.

68. The public interest includes ensuring the integrity of the licensing and registration scheme for firearms, as referred to in s 3(2) of the Act. The integrity of the scheme depends on applicants providing true and correct information in, or in connexion with, firearms licence applications. That is the reasoning behind s 70 of the Firearms Act, which imposes severe penalties for the provision of false or misleading information. The applicant’s incorrect responses in his 2023 and 2025 licence applications and his P650 application constituted a breach of s 70 and support the view that it would not be in the public interest for him to hold a licence.

69. These were not isolated incidents but were repeated on three separate occasions. They tend to indicate a propensity to provide inaccurate and dishonest information to advance his own interests. The applicant did not deny that his answers were false, nor did he claim to have misunderstood the questions. He appeared to seek to diminish their significance, however, by admitting only that he had “ticked the boxes wrongfully”, as if he had merely made a minor clerical error. He also stated that he had been advised to answer “No” to the relevant questions by a firearms safety officer, and had done so even though he knew his answers were false. He acknowledged, however, that it was his responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information he supplied.

70. As the respondent contended, the applicant’s failure accurately to disclose his past convictions raises serious concerns as to whether he can be relied upon to uphold the legislative scheme within which he would be required to operate as the holder of a licence. The effective operation of the licensing scheme requires applicants to provide true and correct information that can be relied upon by the Firearms Registry. That is particularly so where the information relates to a person’s criminal history, which is crucial to key factors taken into account by decision-makers in determining a licence application.

71. The applicant’s failure correctly to disclose the first refusal decision also supports a finding that it would not be in the public interest for him to hold the licence. If he had provided a truthful answer that he had previously been refused a licence, the respondent would have been concerned to consider the reasons why any previous applications had been refused and whether there had been any relevant change in the applicant’s circumstances. It is not relevant that such information might otherwise have been available to the respondent: Umbaca v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 380, [73].

72. The applicant’s criminal history, and in particular his recent conduct of providing false information in two firearms licence applications and a P650 application, lead to the conclusion that it would not at present be in the public interest for him to hold a licence. The respondent pointed out that he will be able to reapply in the future, but if he does so he will need to take scrupulous care to provide accurate information in his application and related documents.

73. On all the open and confidential the evidence as it stands at present, it would not be in the public interest a firearms licence to be issued to the applicant, and I so find. The decision under review must be affirmed.

Orders

1. Decision under review affirmed.

2. Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (CAT Act), the publication of the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4 is prohibited.

3. Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibit CR4, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal.

4. Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential hearing of these proceedings, including confidential exhibit CR4 and any evidence given during the confidential hearing, is prohibited and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked “[Not for publication]” are not to be published or released to the applicant.

**********

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: 21 October 2025