Firearms licence - Firearms Act 1973 (WA) - "Outlaw motorcycle gang" member - Whether applicant not "fit and proper person" to hold licence - Whether applicant has genuine reasons for possessing firearms - Whether grant of licence desirable in interests of public safety

Legislation:

Firearms Act 1973 (WA), s 11, s 11(1), s 11(1)(a), s 11(1)(b), s 11(1)(b), s 11(1)(c), s 11(2), s 11(3), s 11(3)(a), s 11(3)(b), s 11(3)(c), s 11A, s 11A(1), s 11A(2), s 11A(2)(c), s 11A(2)(e), s 11A(2)(f), s 11A(3), s 11A(4), s 11B, s 11C, s 12, s 16(1)(a), s 18(1), s 18(4a), s 18(6)
Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)
Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA)

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 29(1), s 32(2)(a), s 32(4), s 62

Result:

Application refused
Decision of Commissioner of Police affirmed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms V Amidzic
Respondent: Mr JF O' Sullivan

Solicitors:

Applicant: Amidzic & Associates
Respondent: State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Pinesales Pty Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 202
Re Bennett‑Borlase SM; Ex parte Commissioner of Police (Unreported; Full Court; 20 June 1997; Library No 970322c)
Re Brown; Ex parte Scudds (1995) 14 WAR 270
Re Cockram; Ex parte Williamson (Unreported; Full Court; 30 November 1994; Library No 940673a)
Re Jones; Ex parte Commissioner of Police [1999] WASCA 246
Tavelli v Johnson (Unreported; SCt of WA (Wheeler J); Library No 960693; 25 November 1966)

Case(s) also cited:

Arcano Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police (1998) (Unreported; Licensing Court of South Australia; Delivered 30 January 1998)
Edward Clouter v Howard John Wignall [1999] WASCA 155
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
Hand v Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club Inc (1991) 25 ALD 667
Howard John Wignall v The Queen, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No 55 of 1992 (Unreported; Full Court; Library No 920410)
McRobert and Commissioner of Police [2005] WASAT 204
Re Barbaro and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 3 ALD 1
Re Williamson and Registrar of Firearms (2001) 64 ALD 245
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70
The Registrar, Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board and Another v Barnett (1997) (Unreported; Full Court Supreme Court of WA; Library No 970426; Delivered 26 August 1997)

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The applicant, Howard John Wignall, was at all relevant times a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club.
In 1999, following an outbreak of hostilities between the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club and the Club Deroes Motorcycle Club and the death of Mr Marc Chabriere, the Western Australia Police confiscated a number of firearms held by members of these clubs.
At the time of confiscation, the applicant held a firearms licence in respect of a number of firearms.
In 2004, the applicant applied for a new firearms licence so that he could, in effect, recover possession of the firearms previously confiscated.
The applicant's application for a firearms licence was refused on behalf of the Commissioner of Police under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA). The applicant then applied to the Tribunal for review of the refusal decision.
On review the State Administrative Tribunal affirmed the decision made on behalf of the Commissioner of Police to refuse the application for a firearms licence and dismissed the review application.
In the light of evidence concerning the applicant's own criminal record, the criminal records of a number of persons who are members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club, the culture of "outlaw motorcycle gangs" like the Coffin Cheaters and recent incidents involving violence and the use of firearms in the Perth metropolitan area by persons said to be members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club, the Tribunal concluded that:
•it was not desirable in the interests of public safety that the applicant be issued with a firearms licence; and
•in the circumstances, the applicant was not a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence, however "fit" he might be technically to handle a firearm.

Issues

The key issues in these proceedings are whether
•the applicant is a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence pursuant to the provisions of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) in respect of the following firearms:
-Marlin .45/70 Rifle Lever Repeater Serial No 18077407;
-Brno .22 Hornet Rifle Bolt Repeater Serial No 36284;
-Boito 12G Shotgun Double Barrel serial no 419117;
-Elgamo .177 Rifle Air/Gas Serial No 2064242; and
-Ruger .22 Rifle Bolt Repeater Serial No 70093008.
•the applicant has a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing the firearms; and
•the grant of a licence is desirable in the interests of public safety.

Facts

The applicant has been a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club since 23 December 1986.
Within Western Australia the Coffin Cheaters have "chapters" in various localities.
The applicant was a member of the Coffin Cheaters Perth chapter from 1986‑1998; the Broome chapter from 1998‑2005; and for some months passed has been a member of the Mandurah chapter.
The applicant first obtained a firearms licence under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) (Firearms Act) when he was 16 years of age. He held it continuously until the licence was revoked by letter on behalf of the Commissioner of Police dated 24 May 1999, at which time the applicant was licensed in respect of the firearms listed earlier.
Over the years since 1980, the applicant has been convicted of a number of offences. The offences (not including any offences under the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) and the sentences received are set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Convictions of Howard John Wignall

Date of Conviction	Offence	Sentence
19/05/1980	Disorderly conduct	$50 fine
17/09/1980	Disorderly conduct	$30 fine
08/09/1981	Disorderly conduct	$400 fine
25/06/1982	Common Assault	$80 fine
14/06/1991	No Motor Driver's Licence/Driving under suspension	$300 fine, disqualified from holding driver's licence for 12 months
	Obtaining Motor Driver's Licence while disqualified	$50 fine
	Wilfully Mislead a Police officer/ person (7 counts)	7 x $50 fine
	Driving under suspension (2 counts)	$300 + $400 fines, disqualified from holding driver's licence for 12 months
Using False Licence (2 counts)	2 x $50 fine
14/11/1991	Possession of Cannabis	$100 fine
08/04/1992	Attempt to Defeat/Pervert the Course of Justice (2 counts)	count 1 – 3 years imprisonment concurrent count 2 – twelve months imprisonment cumulative
	Possession of Cannabis with intent to sell or supply	2 years imprisonment
	Possession of LSD	6 months imprisonment concurrent

Total 4 years imprisonment
29/01/1997	Possession of Cannabis	$200 fine
29/01/1997	Possession of a smoking implement	$100 fine
17/04/1997	Possession of Amphetamines	$200 fine
05/02/1999	Unlawful Possession of Protective Vest	Spent Conviction – Released without sentence
28/02/2000	Possession of Cannabis	$600
	Sell/Supply Cannabis	$600
	Smoke/Use Cannabis	$300
	Possession of an Offensive Weapon	$250
09/04/2001	Breach of Bail	Released without sentence
27/07/2001	Possession of Cannabis	$800 fine
27/07/2001	Possession of a prohibited drug	$200 fine

The applicant also has a large number of traffic infringements and convictions.
On 24 May 1999, as noted, the applicant's firearms licence was revoked under the Firearms Act. This happened at a time of apparent conflict between members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club and some other motorcycle clubs, as detailed later in these reasons. The applicant re‑applied for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act on 28 October 2004, but his application was refused on 20 December, 2004. He now seeks a review of the refusal decision.

Contentions of the Commissioner

The Commissioner contends that, as a matter of law, the Tribunal in review proceedings cannot grant an approval to issue a firearms licence:
•unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm, and that particular kinds of firearm sought can be reasonably justified: Firearms Act s 11(1)(a), s 11A(1) and (3);
•if it is of the opinion that the issue of the licence is not desirable in the interests of public safety: Firearms Act, s 11(1)(b); or
•if it is of the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence: Firearms Act, s 11(1)(c).
The Commissioner further contends that the circumstances set out in s 11(3) do not limit the grounds on which the Tribunal may refuse to approve the grant of a licence on the ground that the applicant is not a fit and proper person: Re Jones; Ex parte Commissioner of Police [1999] WASCA 246.
The Commissioner says in essence that by reason of:
•the applicant's commission of a number of offences and his conviction of many of those offences;
•his membership of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club;
•the applicant's awareness of, and consultation about, incidents that culminated in the fatal shooting of Marc Raoul Lucien Chabriere, a member or a close associate of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club on 14 October 1998; and
•false statements contained in his application for the firearms licence the subject to these proceedings,

the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and it is not desirable in the interests of public safety for him to be granted a licence.

The Commissioner further contends that given:
•the nature of the violent confrontation between the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club and the Club Deroes Motorcycle Club (Club Deroes) that is illustrated by the incidents that culminated in the fatal shooting of Chabriere;
•the potential for violence between the two clubs to be repeated; and
•the continuing recent involvement of members of the Coffin Cheaters in violence involving firearms,
it is not desirable in the interests of public safety for members of the Coffin Cheaters, including the applicant, to be licensed to hold firearms.
The Commissioner also contends that it is for the applicant to produce evidence that he currently has a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm, and that the particular kinds of firearm sought can be reasonably justified.

Contentions of applicant

The applicant contends that whether or not a person is "fit and proper" must be assessed by reference to the particular context in which the test is being applied rather than in the abstract.
The applicant says the issue is whether or not he is a "fit and proper" person for the specific purpose of holding a firearms licence at the present time having regard to the purposes of the Firearms Act and the statutory regime in place for the licensing of firearms.
The applicant further contends that the matters relied upon by the Commissioner to the effect that the applicant is a member of the Coffin Cheaters, that he has criminal convictions, that other members of Coffin Cheaters have various criminal convictions, and that in 1998 there is said to have been hostilities between members of Coffin Cheaters and another motorcycle club, are not determinative of the application.
In particular, the applicant contends that it does not necessarily follow from his Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club membership and the fact that he has criminal convictions, that he is not a "fit and proper" person to hold a firearms licence. He says it is necessary for the Tribunal to consider the whole of his circumstances.
To the extent that the Commissioner relies on matters going beyond the applicant's mere membership of the Coffin Cheaters and criminal convictions, the applicant says it is necessary to look to the substance of those matters and consider -
• whether or not they bear upon the "fitness and propriety" or character of the applicant at all; and, if so
•assess what weight if any should attach to them.
The applicant says the revocation of his firearms licence in 1999 was based upon the application of a general policy developed by the police with respect to "bikies" rather than a proper consideration of the merits of the applicant's case to retain his firearms licence, notwithstanding the matters relied upon in formulation of that general policy.
The applicant further says the respondent's refusal to issue him with a firearms licence in 2004 was a re‑application of the same general policy with respect to "bikies".
The applicant says the Commissioner failed to have any or sufficient regard to the following relevant factors in assessing his "fitness and propriety" to hold a firearms licence:
•the applicant did not participate in any of the offences said to have been committed in the course of the inter‑club hostilities of 1998 nor was he ever alleged to have so participated;
•the applicant played no role whatsoever in any events said to have given rise to the alleged hostilities of 1998 or at any other time nor is it alleged that he did;
•the applicant played no role in any liaison between police and other Motorcycle Clubs that may have taken place in 1998 or the years following in connection with the alleged hostilities;
•none of the alleged offences of 1998 involved the use of licensed firearms;
•the applicant did not reside at Perth during the period of the hostilities and in particular resided at Broome during the period 1998‑2005;
•the applicant is the custodial parent of his daughter aged 10 years, the child's mother having relocated to New South Wales when the child was still an infant;
•the majority of the applicant's criminal convictions were recorded during the period when he held a firearms licence without incident;
•the applicant's criminal convictions do not disclose a predisposition to violence;
•the applicant has no convictions for any offence involving the use of a firearm or weapon or relating to the mishandling or misuse of a firearm;
•the applicant has no convictions for offences committed jointly or in the company of any other member of a motorcycle club;
•the circumstances that are said to have existed in 1998 and which are said to have given rise to inter‑club hostilities between the Coffin Cheaters and Club Deroes no longer exist.
The applicant contends that he is no more or less "fit and proper" now than he was in 2004, or in 1998, or at any preceding time when he held a firearms licence without incident.
The applicant contends that on all the evidence the Commissioner's determination that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence is effectively and in substance a determination that the applicant is, in some general moral sense, not "fit and proper" without paying due regard to the specific purpose for which the test is to be applied.
Consequently, the applicant contends that the Commissioner has in substance failed to address whether the applicant is a "fit and proper" person to hold a firearms licence and instead has purported to demonstrate that:
•the applicant is not "fit and proper" in some broader moral or abstract sense; and/or that
•members of motorcycle clubs (that is, "bikies") cannot be "fit and proper" persons to hold a firearms licence because of the perceived "meaning" and incidents of such membership.

Evidence called by the Commissioner

The Commissioner called a number of witnesses to give evidence about the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club, of which the applicant is a member, and also to testify to the applicant's conduct that the Commissioner believes should lead the Tribunal to refuse the application for a firearms licence.
To the extent that the evidence refers to persons who are not parties to this proceeding and have not been required to participate in the proceedings, their full names are not used in these reasons and each is simply referred to by letters of the alphabet chosen randomly by the Tribunal. In some cases it is also appropriate not to mention their names because of ongoing criminal proceedings.
Police Superintendent George Loverock gave evidence about the nature of Motorcycle Clubs that Police categorise as "outlaw motorcycle gangs". He included in this description the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club, the Club Deroes Motorcycle Club, God's Garbage Motorcycle Club and Rebels Motorcycle Club. Superintendent Loverock explained that he had gained knowledge of these motorcycle gangs in the course of his duties through intelligence reports, interviews with members and past members, and direct information gained from intelligence, surveillance devices and informants. In March 1998, as a result of intelligence gathered and incidents reported he directed staff to commence monitoring information gathered on the criminal activities of those motorcycle clubs that the Police consider to be "outlaw motorcycle gangs" within Western Australia.
Superintendent Loverock said that from his understanding of outlaw motorcycle gang culture he believed that the Western Australian based clubs he mentioned have adopted the outlaw motorcycle gang culture that evolved with the advent of clubs that identified themselves as "outlaw motorcycle gangs" in the United States of America in the late 1940's. Evidence he gave concerning the activities and culture of motorcycle clubs in Western Australia was based on his experiences up to around 1999/2000. In the relevant period he had direct responsibility in respect of a number of incidents involving members of relevant Motorcycle Clubs, the last of which was an incident involving the fatal shooting of Marc Raoul Lucien Chabriere and the wounding of Michael Shane Anderson in October 1998.
In May 1998, the police received information that one AB had been assaulted on 23 May 1998 at a tavern in Victoria Park. AB was known by police to be a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club. With another officer, Superintendent Loverock interviewed AB on 2 June 1998. AB accepted he had been assaulted in an incident but otherwise was not prepared to assist the police with their inquiries. He noted that he had a "few bumps here and there, nothing to worry about". Superintendent Loverock noted a cut to his right ear.
Superintendent Loverock with the other officer later spoke to one BC, a member of the Club Deroes Motorcycle Club. Superintendent Loverock said he spoke with BC with a view to attempting to negotiate with him a way to peacefully resolve the dispute between the Club Deroes Motorcycle Club and the Coffin Cheaters. He said when he spoke to BC, BC openly displayed a hatred for the Coffin Cheaters. BC expressed the view that Coffin Cheaters wanted Club Deroes to "fold as a club" whereas the members of Club Deroes wanted to be "left alone to do our own thing".
In the course of discussions with BC, Superintendent Loverock learned that an issue of contention between the two clubs was that one CD had been taken on by the Coffin Cheaters following his ejection as a member of Club Deroes. BC expressed the view that CD owed Club Deroes $10 000 and that Coffin Cheaters were protecting him; and there would not be any issue if the $10 000 were paid up.

BC suggested that the police officers should speak with another person, DE.
Soon after Superintendent Loverock and another police officer met with one EF, a Club Deroes member, who confirmed the conflict between Coffin Cheaters and Club Deroes was over moneys owing to the club by CD, who was now believed to be a patched member of Coffin Cheaters.
A little after that Superintendent Loverock spoke with DE a member of Club Deroes. He was advised by DE that Club Deroes could look after themselves and would confront the Coffin Cheaters if challenged. He also said Club Deroes had no intention of meeting with the Coffin Cheaters and the issues between them could be resolved by CD paying his debt.
A little while later, one FG, a member of the Club Deroes Motorcycle Club was seriously assaulted. At that point Superintendent Loverock commenced Operation Goliath.
Superintendent Loverock then spoke to one GH, a member of the Coffin Cheaters. He was told by GH that the conflict between Club Deroes and Coffin Cheaters dated back 20 years and was not about to subside. He was told it would only come to an end with the crushing of the Club Deroes. Superintendent Loverock advised GH that he wanted to attempt to make a peace deal between the two clubs but was told that such a deal would be ineffective.
Superintendent Loverock then met again with DE. He discussed the possibility of a mediated a peace deal. He was told that such a proposal would need to go before all the Club Deroes members.
Superintendent Loverock then attended at the Coffin Cheaters clubhouse in Bayswater where he spoke to one HI, a member of the Coffin Cheaters. He informed HI of the proposal to hold a peace deal under mediation and was told that Coffin Cheaters would consider a meeting if Club Deroes agreed.
On Thursday 18 June 1998, Superintendent Loverock again met DE who informed him that members of Club Deroes would be prepared to meet a similar number of members of Coffin Cheaters under mediation in an attempt to resolve the ongoing conflict.
Superintendent Loverock then attended the Coffin Cheaters clubhouse and again saw HI, who told him that as Club Deroes had agreed to a meeting he would put the proposal to members of the Coffin Cheaters who were a democracy where all members had to vote on all matters. The next day Superintendent Loverock was advised by HI that the meeting would take some time.
On 25 June 1998, Superintendent Loverock spoke to HI, AB and GH at the Coffin Cheaters clubhouse. AB read a prepared written response to the effect the Coffin Cheaters did not have a problem with the Club Deroes but they were not prepared to meet with the Club Deroes under police mediation.
Superintendent Loverock then met with DE and advised him of this outcome. He then met with BC. BC told him that the feuding would continue and that there would never be an agreement between the two parties and that if there were any agreement it would need to be witnessed by an independent party.
On 7 July 1998, Superintendent Loverock met with one IJ and one JK. IJ informed him that he had been a member of the Club Deroes but had left and was now a member of the Rebels Motorcycle Club. He told Superintendent Loverock that he had left the Club Deroes because of the dictatorial leadership portrayed by BC. He was well aware of the feuding between the Club Deroes and Coffin Cheaters and stated that the Rebels had nothing to do with the issue and no interest in it.
On 15 July 1998, one KL, a member of the Club Deroes was seriously assaulted. Superintendent Loverock attended the place of the apparent assault and identified a large pool of blood and a blanket. He phoned BC and spoke to him in the company of another police officer. BC informed him that whilst the Club Deroes had been willing to negotiate with the Coffin Cheaters, the assault upon KL had caused a change to their position. BC informed Superintendent Loverock that if KL died the police could expect an all out war.
BC further informed Superintendent Loverock that he had been told that the Coffin Cheaters members had each been given the name of a Club Deroes member and that Coffin Cheater member was responsible for "taking that Club Deroe out".
Superintendent Loverock then spoke with HI, GH, MN and LM at the Coffin Cheaters clubhouse, knowing each of them to be a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club. He asked what they knew of the incident involving KL. According to Superintendent Loverock, HI said that:
"[You are in debt why have you come around here accusing us.] The Deroes have many enemies just look at the f……. idiots. Why are the police getting involved you don’t worry when it's one of us that gets beaten up by them".
Superintendent Loverock replied:
"Well you blokes have f….. up twice now. First you threaten workers, members of the public, with a shotgun and now you have bashed a bloke in his driveway. Isn't there an unwritten law with you blokes that you don't take your trouble to the home and you only get even in the streets?"
HI said:
"Yeah I am sorry we have f….. up it won't happen again"
LM then said:
"Tell them that we will meet them and sort it out"
GH said:
"Shut up you blokes. There will be no meeting, everyone hates them c…. It won't be finished until they're crushed."
The next day, Thursday 16 July 1998, Superintendent Loverock caused Operation Goliath to be re-named Operation Gallipoli.
On 28 July 1999, Superintendent Loverock oversaw a crime scene examination and commencement of the investigation into the apparent drive‑by shooting of CD, the previously mentioned member of Coffin Cheaters. An examination at the scene revealed that four shotgun blasts had been fired in the street but a vehicle had been hit by the fire. Four empty shot gun shells were lying in the middle of the road.
Superintendent Loverock then attended at Coffin Cheaters clubhouse and spoke with HI, AB, LM and one MN. Superintendent Loverock said HI said:
"Why don't you go and hassle them dogs [referring to Club Deroes Motorcycle Gang Members] like you hassle us after something happens to one of them. They shot one of us and you do nothing but hassle us."
LM said:
"You c…. can f… off we will sort this out ourselves. You can tell them c… they're f……".
When Superintendent Loverock requested to enter onto the premises to view CD's vehicle, MN told him he needed to obtain a warrant.
On Tuesday 4 August 1998, Superintendent Loverock spoke to one NO, a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club. He confirmed that the two clubs were feuding and the feuding had reached a point of no return and would conclude with the crushing of the Club Deroes. NO did not accept the Coffin Cheaters were responsible for anything but when asked by Superintendent Loverock "But what about the two bashings?", NO replied:
"Yeah you told us that we went overboard with the first and we accept that."
On 6 August 1998 Superintendent Loverock spoke to CD. CD confirmed that he had been shot by a member of the Club Deroes. He was a passenger in a vehicle which was being driven by a member of the Club Deroes. CD later provided him with a name of a person who he saw shoot him and the person who he believed was driving the vehicle. Superintendent Loverock said CD told him that he knew the Club Deroes were going to kill him and had taken the steps to make a will.
Superintendent Loverock said CD also told him that he was now a member of the Coffin Cheaters and had to abide by their rules and couldn't give evidence in Court no matter what had happened to him. He said that if he gave anyone up, whether it be a Coffin Cheater or a Club Deroe, he might as well throw in his colours because he would have broken the rules and trust of his brothers. He then removed a ring from his finger and threw it across the room. He started to cry and said:
"I'm not worthy of wearing this or my colours, I shouldn’t even be talking to you. You cannot tell anyone I've spoken to you."
When Superintendent Loverock asked about the possibility of retribution, he said CD indicated that "they tried to kill a Coffin Cheater what do you want us to do, let them kill us. Those c… are dead". Superintendent Loverock then made arrangements to meet CD at another place on another date.
On 12 August 1998, Superintendent Loverock with another police officer attended on FG, a member of the Club Deroes. He admitted he was a current member of the Club Deroes and that the Club Deroes were feuding with Coffin Cheaters but was unable to say what the feuding was really about.
On 20 August, Superintendent Loverock spoke again with BC who made it clear there was no solution to the conflict.
On 4 September 1998, Superintendent Loverock received information that an alleged assault had taken place in Court 37 of the Central Law Courts in Perth and that members of Club Deroes and Coffin Cheaters were involved. As a result, he, with another police officer, then met with one OP, a known associate to members of Club Deroes and long standing friend of BC. He asked OP what had happened in Court 37 and was informed that he had no complaint to make and he could take care of his own problems. He denied that he had been the subject of an assault whilst sitting in Court 37, even after Superintendent Loverock had told him that police officers had told him people had witnessed LM striking him.
On 23 September 1998, Superintendent Loverock attended another crime scene examination and commenced an inquiry into a drive‑by shooting where shots were fired at a house occupied by IJ, a member of the Rebels Motorcycle Club and past member of Club Deroes. An examination at the scene revealed that a number of shots were fired from a shotgun, small calibre firearm and a high powered firearm. He spoke to IJ who refused to assist police in respect of the shooting.
On 6 October 1998, Superintendent Loverock again spoke to FG. FG stated that if he did know who was responsible for assaulting him he could not give them up because it was club policy that nobody gave anybody up for anything. He also informed Superintendent Loverock that he believed there would be continued retribution because KL was an older, well‑liked member and had been beaten very badly. He also said that because he had been in hospital since his assault he had no contact with club business and even if he was aware of anything he would not tell the police.
On 7 October 1998, Superintendent Loverock spoke with KL. KL admitted that he was a long time member of Club Deroes and there was likely to be no end to the feuding. He confirmed that BC was the main power behind the club and demanded complete loyalty to the club. He stated he was prepared to give a statement of what had happened to him on July 15 1998, but was unable to identify any person. He also stated that no matter what the police did, feuding would continue and there was no way the police could stop it. He told Superintendent Loverock that he believed that people would start getting killed and that the police would have to accept that. He informed the Superintendent that things had changed within the bikie scene over the past 20 years and that drugs were a big influencing factor amongst the younger members.
On 13 October 1998, Superintendent Loverock attended a crime scene examination and commenced an enquiry into the shooting of one PQ, a member of Club Deroes. He saw a white Toyota vehicle that had three gun shot blasts to the driver's side and one to the rear. One of the gun shot blasts had entered through the back of the driver's seat which was covered in blood. The examination of the immediate area located four expended shotgun shells in bush near the commencement of the on ramp to the Roe Highway from the Maida Vale Road overpass.
On 14 October 1998, Superintendent Loverock attended a location in Kurnall Road, Welshpool, where he assisted in directing staff at the crime scene of a drive‑by shooting where two members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club had been shot. Marc Raoul Lucien Chabriere had been fatally wounded and Michael Shane Anderson had received wounds to his right arm.
Following these incidents, Operation Gallipoli was increased in size to form a preventative arm of the Operation. The charter of Operation Gallipoli was to proactively police all outlaw motorcycle gangs in Western Australia through an overt police presence.
Superintendent Loverock told the Tribunal that it was his considered opinion that through this strategy the Western Australia Police Service has been able to prevent any further acts of open violence on members of the Coffin Cheaters or Club Deroes Motorcycle Club members. He also holds the view that, without these constant preventative methods, the feuding between these gangs would escalate to further violent confrontations. As a result of the preventative methods implemented as part of Operation Gallipoli some 165 firearms were seized, 230 arrests were made of members, nominees or associates of the clubs concerned.
Superintendent Loverock also told the Tribunal that he was of the belief that the murder of Chabriere and the shooting of Anderson was not the final episode in the feuding between Coffin Cheaters and Club Deroes.
Superintendent Loverock expressed the view that the Western Australian based motorcycle clubs have adopted the outlaw motorcycle gang culture that evolved with the advent of outlaw motorcycle gangs in the United States in the late 1940's. He has learnt that under this culture loyalty to the club and to members of the club is of upmost importance. The brotherhood within the club is maintained to such a degree that any breach of loyalty is met with violence which could result in grievous bodily harm or death. Club members adopt a code of silence with respect to club and criminal matters. Although members have autonomy to act outside of club business, any matters of club business can only be actioned with the sanction of the club. Any action that impacts upon one member is deemed to be the responsibility of the club. They have a motto of "All for one and one for all".
Superintendent Loverock said he was aware that persons within such clubs holds specific positions and perform specific functions. He was aware that Coffin Cheaters had an intelligence cell that gathered intelligence on other motorcycle club members and on police officers.
He also understood that decisions within such clubs are democratic and voted on by members. Decisions when made must however be adhered to by all members. The failure to follow rules and breaches of them are met with disciplinary action.
Superintendent Loverock said he was also aware that Club Deroes have in the past evicted members from their club and have maintained a club strength of approximately 30 to 35 members. They have, though, since 1997 been recruiting members because of an ongoing feud with the Perth‑based Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club.
He said the Coffin Cheaters, by contrast, have a larger membership than Club Deroes and are not as keen to evict members from their club. The Coffin Cheaters do however have a mentor system whereby members who are deemed to be a risk to the club are placed under the responsibility of a nominated member.
Superintendent Loverock accepted during cross‑examination by counsel for the applicant, that during the periods of Operation Goliath and Operation Gallipoli:
•he did not have any contact with the applicant;
•he understood that the applicant was located in Broome at the time leading up to Operation Gallipoli and when Operation Gallipoli was put in place; and
•that the firearms recovered in some raids and policing at the time were all unlicensed, and some did not have identification numbers.
Police Superintendent Ferdinand Gere was also called by the Commissioner to give evidence. He joined the Western Australia Police Service in 1973 and has over 30 years of experience predominantly in the organised crime environment. During his career he has undertaken investigations of "various outlaw motorcycle gangs" and has gained an understanding of their history and culture. These gangs include Hells Angels, Bandidos, Outlaws, Coffin Cheaters, Gypsy Jokers, Club Deroes, Rebels and God's Garbage.
He has also undertaken a wide variety of duties including:
•monitoring of listening devices within premises occupied by gang members;
•interviewing and charging gang members with criminal offences;
•debriefing associates who wanted to assist police;
•managing the purchase of illicit narcotics and firearms from gang members and associates;
•participating in a significant number of visitations to gang houses and premises occupied by members during the execution of search warrants;
•giving evidence in Court against members of gangs;
•coordinating and managing major investigations into more serious criminal activity involving gang members; and
•the coordinating and managing a collaborative approach and implementing a zero-tolerance policing model on criminal and social behaviour by gang members during club runs.
In 1998 Superintendent Gere took control of the Organised Crime Unit and the management of Operation Gallipoli.
Superintendent Gere has conducted numerous hours of research on the global aspect of outlaw motorcycle gangs including material to be found in libraries, from international investigators, videos and the internet. He has also attended and made presentations at a number of international conferences dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs.
Superintendent Gere explained to the Tribunal that:
•outlaw motorcycle gangs commenced in the late 1940's in the USA with membership made up from returned servicemen who were combatants in World War II;
•the rules and regulations implemented during this era continue into today's environment;
•these rules are specific to each gang and are of a similar nature and are strictly enforced. In some cases the rules are more stringent than community rules and regulations;
•every gangs' rules he has seen it clearly indicates that the gang, the rules and elegance to each member are a priority over all other rules be it a community or statute;
•punishment for breaches of gang rules can range from fines to serious assaults and in some cases death;
•each gang usually has a 10‑15% membership of its membership that are career criminals that are usually unrestrained with about 30‑40% being committed to the gang. The remaining 40‑50% draw limitations to criminal activity and are somewhat restrained;
•some of the gang mottos include:
"two can keep a secret if two are dead", "God forgives outlaws don't", "respect few fear none", "don't f… with a Cheater".
•whilst most of the criminal activity is insular gang members use each other to enable facilitation of criminal offences and to provide alibis and the ability to launder money through legitimate businesses owned by other gang members;
•all gangs are male macho dominated with no female membership admitted;
•the majority of gangs obtain respect through enforcement and use intimidation to resolve any issue;
•whilst female company is always available male companionship is highly regarded and takes precedence; and
•support from each gang member is always available and is usually the most stringent rule of mutual respect and in some cases they are prepared to die for their fellow brothers.
Superintendent Gere said that in Western Australia the police consider that there are five outlaw motorcycle gangs:
•Club Deroes
•Coffin Cheaters
•God's Garbage
•Gypsy Jokers
•Rebels
He said the Coffin Cheaters are one of the oldest gangs in Western Australia having commenced in December 1970.
Superintendent Gere explained the advancement of such gangs by reference to a five‑level evolution matrix that had been developed by an international law enforcement agency. This matrix commences at the basic level 1 and moves through to the highest level being 5. Within this evolution matrix the Coffin Cheaters are regarded as being at level 5. Some of the key factors of the level 5 of evolution include:
•members operate on an insular basis and do not require club sanction as long as it falls within the club constitution rules and there is no disrespect;
•propaganda and political lobbying increases;
•increase in legitimate businesses;
•attempt to be accepted by society as legitimate business entrepreneurs; and
•increased level of corporate style infrastructure.

Superintendent Gere said the Coffin Cheaters are a "1% Outlaw Motorcycle Gang" and fully patched members wear the diamond 1% patch on the colours to clearly outline their status.
The Tribunal was told that the 1% symbol followed an event in 1947 in Hollister, California, USA when a member of the Booze Fighters Motorcycle Club made the headlines with an exaggerated news story (that was later made into the well‑known 1953 movie, "The Wild Ones"). The American Motorcycle Association wrote an article in their magazine shortly after this to differentiate themselves from the minority groups, stating:
"99% of all of their members are law‑abiding citizens and only 1% are 'outlaw'".
This then began what is known today as the "1% Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs".
Superintendent Gere identified a photograph of a Coffin Cheaters' jacket with a patch. He said the picture depicted the colours. He said the only person who would wear a full patch – that is the top rocker, the bottom rocker and the colours – is a fully patched member. On the front of the vest colours is the 1% patch. There are patches on the side which depict various aspects specifically of the Coffin Cheaters club.
Superintendent Gere referred the Tribunal to an article written by an alleged 1% outlaw gang member which indicated that those who are less informed see only the surface of things. What a 1% member sees is the vigilance of mutual support. The potential dangers of invoking a response from a well‑organised unit that travels in numbers and are always prepared for confrontation is not well known outside the gangs. However, each 1% member clearly knows that "no one can provoke one club member without having to answer to the entire club". The type of respect that this generates is one that is born out of fear.
Superintendent Gere said that currently Coffin Cheaters are believed to have approximately 60 fully patched members and additional probationers, or "noms", in Western Australia, with members in Bayswater, Beaconsfield, Mandurah, Bunbury, Geraldton and Port Hedland.
Coffin Cheaters also have several chapters in the State of Victoria and are known as a national outlaw motorcycle gang, which is reflected on their colours.
Superintendent Gere said that in 2003, the Coffin Cheaters Australia (CCA) patched the Forbidden Few outlaw motorcycle gang, Norway Chapter, following 12 months of probation status. They became fully patched members in September 2004. In 2004, the Coffin Cheaters Australia gang also patched over the Wizard outlaw motorcycle gang Norway chapter who became fully patched members in 2005.
The Coffin Cheaters gang according to Superintendent Gere, are the first Australian gang to reach international status.
Superintendent Gere also said significant information has been received on the gang's increased connection to organised crime figures and businesses, particularly within the night life precinct.
Superintendent Gere told the Tribunal that all such gangs have a strong propensity for collecting and using both legal and illegal firearms, and that during his career he has witnessed the seizure of hundreds of firearms from these gangs, including the Coffin Cheaters. He says the culture of the majority of these gangs clearly indicates their passion for the continual possession of firearms and other forms of weapons.
Superintendent Gere said that during the three month period in 1998 during Operation Gallipoli the police executed some 44 warrants and seized 50 unlicensed firearms including pistols, shotguns, rifles and two machine guns. Also seized were 16 000 rounds of ammunition, ten sticks of powdered gel and an array of weapons.
In a subsequent operation, called Operation Zircon, some 28 firearms and 3 773 rounds of ammunition were seized, at a time when outlaw motorcycle gangs were aware of the fact that they would receive significant police attention.
Superintendent Gere told the Tribunal that, since Operation Gallipoli, the Western Australia Police Service has embarked on a three‑pronged approach in reducing the impact of outlaw motorcycle gang criminal activity in the community. This has been done through -
•the removal of easy access of firearms to members and close associates of such gangs;
•the formation of the Gang Response Unit; and
•a zero tolerance approach to any criminal activity.
Superintendent Gere says that whilst this approach has not eradicated all criminal behaviour or acts of violence by such gangs or their members it is considered that continual disruption and dismantlement has enabled the reduction of violence and reduced the risk of possible injury to innocent people.
In cross‑examination Superintendent Gere agreed:
•that the zero tolerance policing approach extended so far as to cause the gangs response unit to be informed if a member of a Motorcycle Club is stopped in a traffic type context, as this is part of a non‑stop process of intelligence gathering;
•this form of zero tolerance policing occurs whether there are actual incidents to do with inter‑club hostilities or not;
•the zero tolerance is a concerted and comprehensive campaign of police attention to ensure that people comply with the current laws of the land;
•that the phenomenon of Motorcycle Club is actually an area studied overseas and locally;
•to the best of his knowledge he had not ever been to the applicant's home in the context of a search being conducted or anything like that;
•that to the best of his recollection he could not recall ever having any interaction with the applicant, at least not on a one to one basis. There were occasions when he was in charge of a particular area that the applicant was one of the specific targets. However he did not have any conversations with the applicant;
•he had never been to premises that the applicant either occupied or was in charge of in relation to the inspection of the firearms cabinets;
•that the wholesale revocation of firearms licences in 1998 or 1999 was one of the initiatives taken to reduce the conflict that was then currently happening. While he was not involved in making that decision at the time it was certainly something he would have done if the decision had been his.
Senior Constable Trevor Robert Alford was also called by the Commissioner. He is attached to the Gang Crime Squad. The mission of the Gang Crime Squad is to reduce the impact of gang related activities on the community of Western Australia.
Senior Constable Alford said that on 17 February 2005 he assisted in the execution of a search warrant at the Coffin Cheaters clubhouse located at 60 Tuckey Street, Mandurah. During the search he took a digital photograph of a set of pigeon holes utilised for the storage of mail for members of the gang and businesses associated with the club. One of the pigeon holes was labelled "Howie" and another had another nickname. He has come to understand that those names referred to the applicant and one QR. He has come to understand that the applicant and QR were known to be members of the Broome chapter of the Coffin Cheaters before relocating to Mandurah.
In April 2004, Senior Constable Alford searched the Western Australia Police criminal record database and located a criminal record of the applicant and some 42 other persons who were then known members of the Coffin Cheaters motorcycle gang. He produced the criminal records of these persons to the Tribunal. On 14 December 2005, the Tribunal made the following order:
"The Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 62 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), that, apart from the names of the applicant and police officers mentioned, the names of individuals that appear in (i) paragraphs 9 and 15 of the statement of Senior Constable Alford, which is exhibit G, and the statement of Superintendent Loverock, which is exhibit E, and (ii) the documents numbered 20 to 33 of exhibit D, not be published."
The Tribunal confirms this order which continues to apply.
The Tribunal further orders that the names of the persons who have been referred to by the pseudo‑initials are not to be published for the reasons given earlier.
In late March 2005, Senior Constable Alford searched the Western Australia Police offence report database and located six reports of personal violence alleged to have been committed by the applicant between 1991 and 2002, even though the matters had not resulted in convictions. He produced those reports to the Tribunal.
Senior Constable Alford also said that on 23 January 2005 an incident occurred at a night club in Northbridge involving a known member of the Coffin Cheaters motorcycle gang and another person who was a known member of a street gang. That person was alleged to have been shot several times by the other person after allegedly being stabbed by him.
Senior Constable Alford said that later on the same day another known Coffin Cheater member, RS, was alleged to have gone to Royal Perth Hospital and assisted his fellow club member to remove gunshot residue from his hands. RS has been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice as a result of this incident, and (at the time of the hearing in the Tribunal) was awaiting trial on this charge.
Senior Constable Alford said on the same date an incident allegedly occurred at a night club in Subiaco involving two other known Coffin Cheater members GH and one ST. An argument occurred between a group of friends that GH had been drinking with, and another group. Believing that a fight might occur between the two groups due to the incident in the night club in Northbridge earlier that night, the club member allegedly produced a handgun and fired it into the ceiling of the premises. He then left the building and attempted to throw the handgun into a public bin before running from the scene. The handgun bounced off the lid of the bin and landed on the sidewalk where it was picked up by an off‑duty police officer. That police officer was then tackled by another Coffin Cheater member who attempted to take the handgun from him. The officer was assaulted by that member in a struggle after he had identified himself as a police officer.
The Coffin Cheater's member was subsequently charged and convicted of being in possession of a firearm without a licence in aggravating circumstances and for unlawfully discharging the firearm in a manner likely to cause fear to members of the public. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment for these offences.
The other member was subsequently charged with assaulting the police officer. At the time of the hearing in the Tribunal he was awaiting trial on that charge.
In cross‑examination, Senior Constable Alford confirmed that he was in Broome in 2003 when the Coffin Cheaters had their national run from Broome to Darwin. He went to Broome specifically for that purpose. The police monitored the run. The applicant was then a member of Coffin Cheaters in the Broome chapter. The only other member Constable Alford knew of at that time as a member of the Coffin Cheaters in Broome was QR.

Evidence called by the applicant

The applicant Howard John Wignall gave evidence. At the time of the hearing he was 43 years of age and resided at South Yunderup, near Mandurah. He has full custody of his 10 year old daughter. He and his daughter's mother were married for about 12 months before they separated and she moved to New South Wales, where she now lives. She visits her daughter a couple of times each year. There are no other children. The applicant said that he has a girlfriend with whom he has been in a relationship for about five years and she has three children of her own.
The applicant was born in England and adopted out to a family with whom he moved to Western Australia when he was still a baby. During the past few years has he tracked down his birth mother and discovered that he has a natural brother and sister. He has visited England with his daughter a number of times since to keep in contact with his birth family. He has not tracked down his biological father but he is trying to do so.
The applicant manages a business "Kimberley Fuel Injection" in Broome. Prior to that he held various other management positions as well as spending time adding to his bird collection.
Up until about 1998 he had lived in Perth for most of this life, but then relocated to Broome. He lived in Broome from 1998 until early 2005 when he moved to South Yunderup. He said he moved from Broome for the sake of his daughter's education.
The applicant attended primary school in Cannington and then the Guildford Grammar School before leaving school in Year 10. He then went to "Tech" to study photography, but then started work as a machinist.
The applicant joined the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club on about 23 December 1986. At that time there were only 15 club members and they shared a mutual interest in motorcycles and mateship.
The applicant says the club has expanded since then with a larger number of members and chapters in various parts of Australia and, more recently, overseas.
The applicant says he has never hidden the fact of his club membership and has tattoos of the club name on his forearms which are easily read.
He acknowledges that other members of the Coffin Cheaters have various criminal convictions. However, he is not aware of the details or circumstances of all of those convictions, nor is it his practice to go around asking members such information.
So far as the hostilities between the Club Deroes and Coffin Cheaters in 1998 is concerned, he says he was living in Broome during the period there was reported to have been a "bikie war" in Perth but he is aware of the various allegations concerning the incidents said to have occurred. He states he was not personally involved either directly or indirectly in any of those incidents. Nor is he aware of the identity of the perpetrators of any such incidents other than what has been reported in the media and idle gossip that he may have heard from time to time.
The applicant says the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club has meetings from time to time and members sometimes vote on things; for example, the acceptance of new members.
The applicant says that he has never attended a club meeting at which incidents of violence against members of other clubs have been discussed. He has never had meetings or conversations with police officers about the supposed "bikie war" or any of the incidents that allegedly formed part of it. The applicant says if other of the club's members have done so it was not at his request or direction or with his knowledge or consent.
When the applicant moved to Broome he says he started up a Coffin Cheaters chapter and was in charge of it. Other than that he does not have and has not held any particular office or position of authority within the club. He says the Broome chapter no longer exists and only ever had a few members at any given time.
In respect of his criminal convictions the applicant says he does not believe that any of them prove that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
He says his convictions in 1980 and 1982 for "disorderly conduct" and "assault" all had to do with altercations and a fight in a pub.
He says the false motor vehicle driver's licence and misleading police offences in 1991 related to a time when he had lost his licence for demerit points and bought a fake motor vehicle driver's licence which he then used when subsequently pulled over by police.
When the police found that he had a second fake motor vehicle driver's licence they checked back to all the times he had produced it and charged him with each incident separately which is why there seem to be so many convictions.
The applicant says when he was young and got his first motorcycle he admits he was a bit foolish and had poor regard for traffic rules. He says when he lost his licence for demerit points he was almost always speeding.
The applicant says he remembers ordering fake licences by telephone and paying about $100 for each one and nominating the name he wanted it in. He remembers asking for it to be in the name of "John Robert Salisbury" which he made up having been in Salisbury Street, Bedford where he made the call.
He says most of his drug offences such as the first one in 1991 were for small quantities of cannabis. By that he means a few grams for personal use.
He says his convictions in April 1992 came about when he was charged with possession of two LSD trips and some cannabis. He says what happened was that whilst he was in the police car after being arrested for three Lb (pounds) of cannabis one of the officers told him that if he paid him $15 000 the cannabis charge would go away. He was already facing a minor charge of possessing two trips of LSD.
He says he agreed to pay the money although he didn't have it at the time so the officer gave him a couple of weeks to obtain it. When he had the money he rang the police officer and they went to meet at a café so that he could pay them. However, he was arrested and charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
He spent 13 months in jail as a result of those offences.
In 1994 he was convicted of 'failing to stop' which was for being the motorcyclist at the head of a line traffic leaving the Bindoon Rock Festival in circumstances where the line of traffic did not stop at a police road block. No one else was charged.
In 1997 he says he was convicted for possessing small quantities of cannabis and a smoking implement which is what he used to smoke cannabis.
In 1997 he was fined $200.00 for possessing less than one gram of amphetamine.
In February 1999, he was convicted of possessing a bullet proof vest. He had the jacket for about seven years and it had been seen by police who raided his house in the years before, but it had never been seized or even the subject of comment.
In February 2000, he committed further cannabis offences and was fined $600.00 for possessing about 15 grams of cannabis, $600.00 for "rolling a joint for someone else and passing it to them" (sell/supply) and $300.00 for using or smoking the cannabis himself.
At the same time he was fined $250.00 for possessing a "weapon" which was actually a pair of knuckle dusters. Again, this was an item that had been seen at his home on previous occasions when police have attended and had not been taken or been the subject of comment.
He says that there is also an additional cannabis charge where the paper work was lost. Subsequently it was found and he was then charged with breaching bail because he did not attend Court on the relevant date. When the circumstances were explained to the Magistrate he was not penalised.
The cannabis charge finally resulted in an $800.00 fine in July 2001 for possession of cannabis and an amount of cocaine that he then possessed. He thinks the quantity of the cannabis was about 1 kg and the cocaine something like 0.2g.
He says he was introduced to cannabis when he was about 15 years of age and would describe himself as an occasional user. He says he is not dependent on it or on any other drug.
He says he has used cocaine and amphetamine very occasionally on a social basis.
He says he drinks alcohol socially and has never used alcohol or any drugs whatsoever on occasions when he has used firearms.
He says he is aware of the obvious necessity for anyone using firearms to be completely sober.
The applicant says that he has become increasingly responsible and aware of his duties as a parent over the years. He is aware of how his conduct could impact on his daughter and be a negative influence in her life and he thinks that has been a big factor in the tapering off of his convictions.
He says none of his criminal convictions are for offences committed together with other members of the Coffin Cheaters; or involved the use of a firearm or weapon.

The applicant says he first had a firearms licence when he was about 16 years of age.
He says he enjoys shooting and has used firearms in Broome for the purposes of vermin control on the property where he kept birds. He also used firearms for pig hunting and recreational shooting on "friends" properties in the Kimberley.
The applicant says he has always maintained a gun cabinet as required by the law and has never provided or been asked to provide access to his firearms to any other person, including any members of the Coffin Cheaters.
The applicant says he has always complied with the rules as to the safe storage and use of firearms, and has always taken seriously his responsibilities as the holder of a firearms licence.
The applicant says he is aware that having a firearms licence means the police can come into his home without a warrant at any time to inspect his gun cabinet to ensure his firearms and ammunition are properly kept.
The applicant says he has never been accused of or convicted of any offences to do with using a firearm improperly or not properly securing or keeping firearms.
He admits that he can be argumentative at times however, he would not describe himself as a violent or aggressive person or someone who does not take seriously the rules to do with the use and keeping firearms.
In relation to the matters about which Senior Constable Alford gave evidence, matters which had resulted in no findings of guilt or complaints not being proceeded with, the applicant referred to the circumstances that arose at Broome. One was a complaint that he had spiked a drink. It was false. There was another case where he was accused of assaulting a friend of a member in Broome. He said there was no fight, although he had disagreements with him. As to an incident at the Bayswater Hotel in Perth, the incident involved an altercation with the ex‑husband of his current partner. He says this person "jumped him" from behind and started into him. He then defended himself.
As to the recent alleged incidents in Perth nightclubs involving a Coffin Cheaters member, the applicant said the only knowledge he had of them was from newspapers and television. He acknowledged that he knew the persons named in reports, although he did not know that one of them was a member of the Perth chapter.
The applicant explained that when he was living in Broome he was living there almost continuously but would come down to Perth about once every three months.
In relation to a document produced on behalf of the Commissioner that appeared to be a constitution or set of rules for the Coffin Cheaters club, the applicant recognised it and thought it could have been around for years. However, it was not a document that he had any cause to look at on a regular basis. He did not think it was around when he first joined the Coffin Cheaters. It would have been created some time after that. He thought it might have been created four, five or six years or more later.
The applicant said that until his firearms licence was cancelled in 1999, the police had visited his home on the execution of search warrants quite a few times, no question about his use of firearms licence had ever been raised with him by police.
He made reference to the Ruger .22 rifle as being one he used for vermin in the country.
When the public gun buy back scheme operated he handed back a pump action semi‑automatic 22. He then bought a double‑barrel shotgun, the Boito and the Brno .22 hornet.
He explained the Elgamo .177 is an air rifle. Because he was a bird dealer and breeder for nearly fifteen years he would use it to shoot rats and other vermin in the bird cages. The applicant said that at one stage he had about 300 different varieties of birds in East Cannington where he then lived.
In Broome, all the firearms were appropriately housed in a cabinet in the bedroom of his property where he lived.
As to the Marlin .45/70 he acquired that to shoot pigs on stations in the Kimberleys.
As to the 1% badge, the applicant said it could mean different things to different people: "You could interpret it as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in the biblical way". His own interpretation, however, was that, "We are 1% of society that still consider ourselves free Australians".
In cross‑examination the applicant said:
•he was shocked and upset when his firearms licence was cancelled and the firearms were taken from him at "gun point with a big pile of coppers telling me they're going to take them whether I like it or not";
•in November 2004 he re‑applied for a firearms licence and did a written test and scored 20 out of 20;
•that he considered himself fit and proper to hold a firearms licence particularly as none of the offences involved the use of firearms or breaches of the Firearms Act 1973;
•that he imagined it would be necessary for a person applying for a firearms licence to know how to use them and know the laws. If you were just a good citizen and you did not know the laws that would not be enough;
•he also believed that, additional to having knowledge about guns, you need to demonstrate by reference or other aspects of your life that you a fit and proper person – rather than simply proving you have no gun related offences;
•that so far as his overall character is concerned it should be judged by reference to the "factual entirety" and not hearsay;
•he does not believe that any of the offences reflect on his suitability to hold a firearms licence;
•that he could bring up many examples of police officers "whose absolute conduct is atrocious, but are still carting a firearm around";
•that if he were a person who is an habitual double‑parker does not mean that he should not have a firearm;
•that he would describe himself as "an honest person"; he feels he's always been an honest person;
•as to the false motor vehicle driver's licence conviction he considered that simply opportunistic conduct;
•he did not think that the driver's licence offences were indicative of any dishonesty on his part. Rather they were a matter of having to drive and being under suspension and not being so smart at the time.
The applicant was cross‑examined closely as to his conviction and imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice and the account of it that he had given the Tribunal. He accepted that he had appealed against the sentencing decision. He felt it was too high. He did not appeal against the conviction itself. The applicant was referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to his failed sentencing appeal where the Court expressively noted that:
"Whilst the applicant was on bail in respect of this offence, he obtained possession of 1.27 kilograms of cannabis and arranged for it to be delivered in a metal airfreight box to the airport. The consignment aroused the suspicions of the airline staff and this resulted in its being seized. The applicant, when it had not arrived at its destination, enquired in respect of it and this led to his arrest. He originally denied having any knowledge of the container. The investigating officers put to him evidence they had in their possession and this resulted in his admitting his involvement. He then suggested to the two officers who had apprehended him that they should have the cannabis for themselves. The offer was rejected and the applicant then offered them $15 000 in cash if they did not arrest him or investigate the matter further. The officers feigned interest and made arrangements for one of them to be fitted with a tape recording device. They then interviewed the applicant, who again offered them $15 000 against their dropping the investigations."
When asked if these were not the true facts, the applicant said that they were the not. He accepted, however, that he did not contest those facts on the appeal.
The applicant was asked why he answered "No" to the question on the firearm licence application form, which asked:
"Has a licence for a firearm held by you anywhere ever been revoked or cancelled, or have you ever been disqualified for holding a licence for a Firearm?"
The applicant said there were two reasons why he said "No". At the time he had forgotten or did not remember that his firearms licence had been revoked. He only remembered the firearms being taken from him. He also asserted that he phoned the person in the firearms branch who said the licence had not been cancelled and it was only just not paid.
The applicant was then cross–examined about his answer to the question "Have you been convicted of any offences anywhere including traffic?" He indicated that he had not. The applicant said he must have read or interpreted the question incorrectly, because he thought they had meant "pending" charges. The applicant said that he had not intended to mislead in answering that question and observed:
"Oh, look, are you suggesting that a Coffin Cheater of 19 years with a criminal record in a small town like Broome, who personally knows all the police officers, would actually really believe that he is going to mislead police and tick that and try and say that I haven't got a – haven't got any charges? It's ridiculous, it's ridiculous. They know exactly what's going on."
The applicant was also cross‑examined about his possession in 1998 of a bullet proof vest. It was put to the applicant that he carried the bullet proof vest to Perth during the so called "bikies war". He accepted that when he visited Perth from Broome, he apprehended some fear that something might happen to him. He said:
"I'm a Coffin Cheater. Just because I've chosen not to be involved in it personally doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not a target."
Nonetheless the applicant agreed that when he was questioned by police at the time he explained that the jacket was simply for "cold nights".
The applicant was also cross‑examined about his possession of a knuckle duster in 2000. He explained the purpose of the knuckle duster was "probably quite a few things, but they were only made out of plastic and I probably only used them for things like breaking ice". He said he had had it through several police raids and always it had been handed back to him. He accepted the knuckle duster could be used as a weapon, but remarked that "So could a torch or a lot of other things, if you are that way inclined".
In relation to criteria for membership of the Coffin Cheaters, the applicant said:
"The criteria is that we don't like junkies. We don't like people that are dishonest. We certainly don’t like paedophiles. All those sort of insipid parts of society we won't accept. We won't accept anybody that uses needles. That's our criteria."
In cross‑examination, the applicant accepted that a person with an extensive criminal record would not necessarily be excluded from membership. He said:
"If they've got a criminal record, it would be through their own personal choice anyway, and how they conduct themselves as a member of the club could be completely different to how or what they do in their own personal lives or how they have been in the past."
The applicant confirmed that he did not make it his business to enquire into the activities of other members and said that would be a "very very rude thing to do".
The applicant emphasised that having a criminal record was not going to affect one's propensity to be a member anymore than if a person did not have one:
"It's a bit like if you haven't got tattoos, that's okay, and if you have, that's fine too. That's your personal choice."
The applicant accepted that a member was expected to be loyal to his fellow brothers, but:
"Only to the extent where if you agree if what is going .. if someone's doing something that you don’t think right, you don’t have to be loyal at all. You can stand right up and tell them that you don't think it's right and that they should stop doing it. Everything's personal choice."
Accordingly, the applicant said it would not bother him that members of the club may have drug convictions for cocaine, amphetamines, LSD.
However, he said it would bother him that some may have been convicted of rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault of a public officer, assault occasioning bodily harm.
As to a particular matter of a rape conviction of one Coffin Cheater member, he said the trial was well before he had become a member and the sentence had been served for the mistake. He added: "The club was a completely different club and that sort of behaviour has become unacceptable". He also said that some nominee club members - "noms" - had been asked to leave the club for manhandling women because it is not acceptable.
As to another member's conviction of aggravated assault on a public officer, the applicant said:
"Well that's extremely acceptable, because public officers assault us constantly. We are constantly being badgered and assaulted, our children and our homes. So at the moment I - - they are just another gang in blue."
Of the police generally, the applicant observed:
"I do believe there are probably a hell of a lot of police officers in there that are in there to actually make the world a better place and I respect them completely, but there are a hell of a lot of officers that are in there to line their own pockets, that are drug dealers and that are thugs themselves, and it's very hard to respect somebody like that."
When asked whether a member of the club who had been involved in aggravated assault of a policeman would be removed from the club, the applicant answered:
"I'm saying I don’t know about it, but I'm saying if there was any altercation between any of our members and a police officer, it would be straight out in self‑defence, and it would only be out of full‑on provocation. And, then as a man sometimes you have to stand up for yourself. Just because they're wearing a blue uniform doesn’t make them right."
The applicant said he did not necessarily respect members of the Coffin Cheaters who were thugs and sold and supplied drugs. He said:
"There are a hell of a lot of people in my club now that I don’t agree with what they do, but that's up to me. It's not up to me to go in there and stop them."
The applicant agreed however that at the moment he still retains his membership with Coffin Cheaters. He said:
"The views have passed my mind before and it is upsetting to see that some things don’t go your way, but after I've been here the length of time I have, I try my best to advise people in what is good conduct and what is bad conduct and, you know, I think sometimes by staying, I can help, rather than just throw me hands up and leave …
The Coffin Cheaters are like my family. That's what they were when I joined. When I joined with those few guys, I had a very small family and there are blokes that have been in there with me for all those years and they're like my family, but your family makes mistakes and you have to treat them the same way as you would if your family made mistakes."
But when the applicant was pressed about whether the police should be involved when any form of violence broke out between different motorcycle gangs, he stated:
"Well obviously there'd be levels of violence that I would agree on that statement and levels of violence that I wouldn't agree on, you know. Obviously when people have been murdered and grievous bodily harm involved in things, well police will need to be involved, but if someone's had a little bit of a stoush at a pub and there've got a fat lip, I don’t really think that it's worth dragging the cops in there, no."
The applicant was then cross‑examined about a number of provisions or rules in the document produced on behalf of the Commissioner (Exhibit H) that appeared to be a Coffin Cheaters club and rules document. Under the heading "Security Council": clause 5 provides:
"Where the full club declares a state of emergency they will only impart information to members and security officers of other chapters on a need to know basis."
The applicant was unable to say what a "state of emergency" might constitute. He denied, however, that the fact that there might be hostilities between one gang and another gang would be a state of emergency. He also suggested that a state of emergency might include things like when a chapter was not going well and wanted to close down or members were leaving. He thought this might be a security issue:
"…because we value our brothers and if…they've got a problem or something that we can help and we …rather than just leave them and be tossed aside, we try and work through their problems, being an emergency or not. If it's an emergency, we try and deal with it quicker."
Under the heading "The Executive" cl 5 of this document further provides:
"It is the Executive's responsibility to determine who should liaise with other outlaw clubs on different issues and must choose those delegates."
The applicant accepted the use of the expression "outlaw club" indicated that the Coffin Cheaters consider themselves to be such a club. He acknowledged it was a phrase that served to distinguish his club from the motorcycle riders association or things like that. He did not, however, accept that it was a phrase which represented a propensity on behalf of the club's membership to engage in more unlawful conduct than the average motorcycle club.
Under the heading "Party Man", cl 6 of this document provides:
"Any Member is responsible for caring for his Brothers (sic) well being".
The applicant accepted that there is such an obligation and that the fact that one of the members may be engaged in criminal activity would not necessarily be enough for expulsion from the club; it would depend on what he was doing wrong. For example if it were paedophilia, he might be ejected "or worse."
In another document (part of Exhibit H), entitled "Constitution" the preamble, or lead‑in words, state:
"The Coffin Cheater Motorcycle Club is a Brotherhood of Men, wherein it is taken as given that all are equal in that every man is an individual, with each able to develop his own individuality so long as he abides by the structure which has been set in place by the Club and the rules, policies, morals and ethics which are laid down under this Constitution."
The applicant said that he agreed with that statement: "You are expected to abide by rules even if you do not agree with them". He thought you could leave or you could say no. He emphasised the right of members to develop their own "individuality". The applicant said that the Constitution document did not say anywhere that if a member does not agree with the rules he cannot say so or that he has to be involved in something that he does not agree with or agree on.
In relation to his explanation about what the 1% patch referred to in the Constitution meant, the applicant said:
"I guess what we mean is freedom to develop ourselves as we feel fit."
When asked whether this meant, notwithstanding that, this may involve some breach of the law, he said:
"Well…because if it involved some breach of the law then you are going to have to, one, either accept that you're doing that and there is going to be some sort of law‑breaking retribution sort of thing or not."
The applicant was asked whether the whole notion of being an "outlaw" was being above the law, he answered:
"No. It's accepting the laws that we believe are ethically correct."
He added that it would be up to the individual "Whether they think it's ethically correct and whether they want to abide by it or not". He added "But they're not expected to not abide by the law".
The Constitution under the heading "The Patch & Colours" cl 8 provides:
"Any member going to prison must hand his Patch and all Club property, regalia and paraphernalia, which must be safeguarded by the Club until his release."
When asked whether that indicated it was an "occupational hazard" going to prison whilst being a member of the club, the applicant answered:
"I should imagine it would be a hazard of anybody that wants to break the law, regardless of whether they're in a night club or a bowling club."

The applicant accepted that when he was in the car with Mr Drew in late October 1998 it was about the time that he had come down for the funeral of Mr Chabriere, which was on 22 October. He agreed that he probably rang Mr Drew before the Perth visit and told him that he was coming down for that funeral. He said he did not indicate to Mr Drew that he was concerned for his safety. Even though he had brought the vest with him he did not communicate any sort of concern for his own safety to Mr Drew.

Tribunal's Findings

The licensing of firearms is controlled by the Firearms Act in this way:
•The licences that may be issued under the Act include a Firearm Licence which entitles the holder to possess, carry and lawfully use the firearm named and identified in that licence, and ammunition for that firearm: s 16(1)(a).
•A person who wishes to apply for a licence or a permit under the Act shall make application in the prescribed manner and shall pay the prescribed fee: s 18(1).
•Before granting or issuing a licence, permit or approval to a person under the Act the Commissioner is to ensure that, for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether the person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence, permit or approval -
(a)reference has been made where practicable to relevant criminal records held by the police forces in this State and elsewhere in Australia;
(b)if there is any apparently reliable indication that the person may not meet standards of mental or physical fitness referred to in s 11(3)(b), sufficient evidence has been provided to the Commissioner to satisfy the Commissioner that the person does meet those standards; and
(c)if there is any apparently reliable indication that for any other reason the person may not be a fit and proper person to hold a licence, permit, or approval, sufficient evidence has been provided to the Commissioner to satisfy the Commissioner that the person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence, permit, or approval. s 18(4a).
•If the Commissioner is satisfied that -
(a)requirements of s 18 have been satisfied;
(b)there are no grounds upon which the application ought to be refused; and
(c)in the case of an application for the first issue of the firearm licence to a person, a period of at least 28 days has elapsed since the making of the application and the applicant has, under subsection (6a), confirmed the desire to proceed with the application;
the Commissioner is to enter the prescribed particulars in a Register to be compiled and maintained for the purpose, and issue to the applicant a licence or permit under this Act: s 18(6).
•The Commissioner cannot grant an approval or permit or issue a licence under the Act to a person if the Commissioner is of the opinion that -
(a)to do so would be contrary to s 11A or regulations under s 11B or 11C;
(b)it is not desirable in the interests of public safety;
(c)the person is not a fit and proper person to hold the approval, permit, or licence: s 11(1).
•Where the Commissioner is satisfied that a person has a history of, or a tendency towards, violent behaviour, the Commissioner may take it into account in deciding whether that person is a fit and proper person to hold an approval, permit, or licence: s 11(2).
•The Commissioner has a sufficient ground for forming an opinion that a person is not a fit and proper person to hold an approval, permit or licence under this Act if the Commissioner -
(a)is satisfied that at any time within the period of five years before the person applies for the approval, permit or licence -
(i)the person was convicted of an offence involving assault with a weapon;
(ii)the person was convicted of an offence involving violence;
(iii)the person was convicted of an offence against this Act;
(iv)a violence restraining order was made against the person;
whether in this State or in any other place;
(b)is satisfied that the person fails to meet standards of mental or physical fitness that the Commissioner considers to be necessary for the person to hold the approval, permit or licence; or
(c)suspects, on the basis of their intelligence report or other information held in relation to the person, that the person is a threat to public safety: s 11(3).
•An approval or permit cannot be granted, and a licence cannot be issued, under the Act to a person who, in the Commissioner's opinion has not been shown to have a genuine reason for requiring or possessing the firearm or ammunition for which the approval, permit or licence is sought: s 11A(1).
•A person has genuine reason for requiring or possessing a firearm or ammunition if and only if -
(a)it is for use by the person as a member of an approved shooting club and the person is an active and financial member of the club;
(b)it is for use by the person as a member of an organisation approved under this paragraph;
(c)it is for use in hunting or shooting of a recreational nature on land the owner of which has given written permission for that hunting or shooting;
(d)it is required by the person in the course of the person's occupation;
(da)in the case of prescribed paintball gun, it is required by the person to conduct or engage in paintball in accordance with this Act;
(e)it is to form part of a genuine firearm collection or genuine ammunition collection;
(f)it is for another approved purpose: s 11A(2).
•A person does not have a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm or ammunition of a particular kind unless the Commissioner is satisfied not only as to the person's reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm or ammunition but also that the particular kind of firearm or ammunition can be reasonably justified: s 11A(3).
•The reasons described in s 11A(2)(e) are not genuine reasons for acquiring or possessing a firearm or ammunition under a licence other than a firearm collectors licence or an ammunition collectors licence: s 11A(4).
•Approval cannot be given under s 11A(2)(f) to the possession of a firearm or ammunition for the purpose of personal protection.
•Unsafe or unserviceable firearms are affected by s 12.
•If a person is refused a firearms licence, he or she can seek review of the refusal decision in the State Administrative Tribunal: s 22.
The nature and purpose of review proceedings, and the question of any formal 'onus' of proof has been discussed by the Tribunal in Pinesales Pty Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 202 at [43]-[46]. In short, the hearing is de novo, or afresh, so additional material to that placed before the original decision‑maker may be adduced in evidence: State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 27(1). The task of the Tribunal is to make the "correct and preferable" decision: s 27(2). In that way, no party bears any formal onus to prove any facts. However, in some circumstances one or other party may bear a practical onus to prove facts in issue.
Additionally, the Tribunal in exercising its task to make the correct and preferable decision, will consider all credible, relevant and significant information before it, to use Brennan J's classification in Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 628-629. In this regard, the Tribunal is not bound to consider only evidence or information that conforms with the rules of evidence or the Evidence Act 1906 (WA): see State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, s 32(2)(a). The Tribunal is able to inform itself as it sees fit: s 32(4). Moreover, the Tribunal is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, a "facilitative, not restricted" requirement (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 at [49] per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J).
In the circumstances of this case, all this means that the Tribunal can properly regard the evidence adduced on behalf of the Commissioner in these proceedings, notwithstanding that some of it may be indirect or hearsay evidence or information that does not or would not fully satisfy the "opinion rule" as it governs expert witnesses. The material the Tribunal has received is relevant and credible and so should properly be taken into account by the Tribunal.
The Commissioner says that before the Tribunal may grant a firearms licence in review proceedings it is necessary for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal of the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act and that the onus is on the appellant to adduce the necessary evidence or information to establish those matters; Re Cockram; Ex parte Williamson (Unreported; Full Court; 30 November 1994; Library No 940673a) at page 11; Re Brown; Ex parte Scudds (1995) 14 WAR 270, 274 and 276; Re Bennett‑Borlase SM; Ex parte Commissioner of Police (Unreported; Full Court; 20 June 1997; Library No 970322c) at page 9. This submission may be accepted, but only to the extent that these authorities emphasise that under the Firearms Act the applicant in review proceedings bears a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal.
As noted earlier, that the Commissioner resists the grant of the firearms licence to the applicant on the grounds that:
•The applicant cannot demonstrate a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing the firearms for which the licence is sought (the s 11A(1) issue).
•The applicant does not have a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing the firearms of the particular kind because the Tribunal on review must be satisfied, when they cannot be, not only as to the applicant's genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a firearm but also that the particular kind of firearm can be reasonably justified (the s 11A(3) issue).
•The grant of the licence is not desirable in the interests of public safety (the s 11(1)(b) issue).
•The applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence (the s 11(1)(c) issue).
The applicant says the central issue is whether the applicant is a "fit and proper" person to hold the licence.
Nonetheless, the Tribunal agrees that on the proper interpretation of the Firearms Act, which makes mandatory the requirement that the specific statutory criteria is satisfied before a firearms licence is issued, each of the issues as identified on behalf of the Commissioner, arises in this case.
As to whether the applicant has a genuine reason for acquiring or possessing a licence for the firearms in question, the applicant in essence relies upon s 11A(2)(c) by saying that the licence is for use in hunting or shooting of a recreational nature on land the owner of which has given written permission for that hunting or shooting. By letter dated 15 July 1997, RE Rothnie of "Mooliabenee Grazing" has consented to the applicant using a firearm on his grazing property. The evidence is that the applicant wishes to shoot, and previously did shoot, vermin, rabbits and pigs on station country in the Kimberleys. He also said in evidence that he would now like to shoot on property near Bindoon - which is the property just referred to.
The Tribunal will, for the moment, assume that the applicant can provide the necessary land owner's consent in order for s 11A(2)(c) to be satisfied. It is not an issue that has been expressly raised on behalf of the Commissioner in the proceedings. Nonetheless, the Tribunal is the substitute decision‑maker hearing this matter de novo under s 27 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, must be satisfied that all the relevant statutory requirements have been met. It is quite clear that Parliament only intends persons to have approvals, permits and licences in respect of firearms if there is strict compliance with the requirements of the Firearms Act.
As to whether the particular kinds of firearms under which the licence would operate can be reasonably justified, as s 11A(3) requires, the evidence of the applicant as to why he needs the firearms leaves the Tribunal some doubt that the Boito double barrel shotgun is required or can be justified. The other firearms, as the applicant explained in evidence, can be used for longer range or short range shooting of pigs, rabbits and other vermin. The air rifle is used for shooting mice in a birdcage. At the least, there seems to be no justification for the double barrel shotgun.
As to the question whether the grant of a firearms licence would not be desirable in interest of public safety, the Tribunal has not been apprised of any intelligence report or other information held in relation to the person that the person is a threat to public safety, for the purposes of s 11(3)(c).
Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has failed to meet any standards of mental or physical fitness that the Commissioner might consider necessary for him to hold a firearms licence.
Nor is there any suggestion that the applicant has, during the five year period preceding his application for the firearms licence, been convicted of any of the types of offences that would bring into play s 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act. He has not been convicted of an offence involving assault with a weapon; or of an offence involving violence; or an offence against the Firearms Act; or the subject of a violence restraining order, whether in Western Australia or any other place.
The question concerning public safety is a more general one that arises therefore under s 11(1)(b). In the particular circumstances of this case, this issue is also related to the question whether or not the applicant is a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence, the criteria referred to in s 11(1)(c).
As we have just noted, in the particular circumstances of this case, the two issues identified by s 11(1)(b) and (c) whether it is not desirable in the interests of public safety and whether the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence for a licence to be issued - are interrelated, although there are distinct issues to be considered in relation to each factor.
The Commissioner contends that, among other reasons, having regard to the criminal record of the applicant, the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
The question of what personal misconduct disqualifies a person from being considered "fit and proper" to hold a licence has been considered in a number of statutory contexts, most often in a vocational regulation context. There are many persons who must hold a licence to work. These cases provide some guidance as to how the "fit and proper" factor is to be interpreted in this particular case, although they are not in any way determinative of the issue.
In Tavelli v Johnson (Unreported; SCt of WA (Wheeler J); Library No 960693; 25 November 1966), Wheeler J had to deal with the relevance of prior convictions in deciding whether or not a person was "fit and proper" to be licensed as a security agent under the Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA) (SRAC Act). At pages 7 9, Wheeler J, with the caution that there can be no inflexible rules and no policy but that the discretion falls to be exercised anew in the circumstances of each application in the light of the statutory framework, suggested that some factors relevant to prior convictions can be listed. Wheeler J suggested that convictions will generally be regarded as more serious in the statutory context if:
•they occur in the course of or relate to carrying out of the proposed licensed occupation;
•they are offences of dishonesty, broadly understood. This is because, at least in the case of the security agents legislation, the Act is concerned with the integrity of the gathering and presenting of material in Court, and that material may be suspect, where the character of the agent suggests dishonesty;
•they occur while the person is the holder of a licence under the Act;
•they are otherwise so serious, either in themselves or as representing a course of disregard for the law, as to reflect particularly adversely on the character of the person committing them.
Wheeler J further suggested, at pages 7 9, that indications that a person may be of good character and a fit and proper person, notwithstanding previous convictions, may be gleaned from the following factors:
•where the person convicted demonstrates genuine remorse and contrition, true insight and understanding of the earlier turpitudes. The understanding demonstrated will generally carry more weight if it can be shown that it is demonstrated by the person's actions as well as by their words;
•if the offences were committed a substantial time ago. One would not suggest, however, that any set period will result in the expunging of the effect of previous convictions on character and much will depend on the additional factors;
•any change in the person's circumstances from the time of the commission of the offences which indicates that the factors giving rise to the offences have been eliminated;
•a person's character generally since commission of the offences, including his lack of offending, age, family support, paid and voluntary work and character references. Character references, however, will often be of more value if it appears from their terms that they were made in full knowledge of the fact of the commission of the offences.
What is sufficiently clear on all the authorities cited to the Tribunal, is the fact that just because a person has been convicted of some offence in the past does not necessarily mean that they are not a fit and proper person to be given a licence under a statutory licensing system. The licensing statute in question would need to state quite unequivocally that a person could never be granted a particular type of licence if they had been convicted of an offence or a particular offence before this result would follow.
In relation to the Firearms Act, as we have seen, s 11(3)(a) expressly provides that the Commissioner, and so the Tribunal on review, has a sufficient ground for forming an opinion that a person is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence if satisfied "that at any time within the period of five years before the person applies for the licence", the person was convicted
•of an offence involving assault with a weapon;
•of an offence involving violence;
• of any offence against the Firearms Act itself.
Section 11(3)(a), therefore, provides some clear intention that the Parliament ordinarily expects the Commissioner not to grant a firearms licence if any of those defined conviction circumstances exists, although it still leaves the Commissioner with a discretion to regard particular circumstances in which the conviction was made.
As we have seen, in the case of the applicant, none of the defined conviction circumstances applies. This suggests that there needs to be some particular disqualifying factor in the other convictions of the applicant that do not satisfy the conviction circumstances described in s 11(3)(a), before the fact of the convictions on their own should result in the applicant not being considered fit and proper by reason of his prior convictions to hold a firearms licence.
Indeed, it might also reasonably be said that, leaving aside s 11(1)(c) which deals with the fit and proper requirement, most, if not all, of the other criteria set out in the Act have to do, directly or indirectly, with either the physical or mental capacity of an applicant to handle a firearm responsibly or safely, and or the propensity of a person to use a firearm for an unlawful purpose.
If this is right, as we think it is, it perhaps suggests that the fit and proper purpose requirement should also be interpreted along similar lines and be seen as a catchall requirement that enables an application for a firearms licence to be refused where there remains a concern that the applicant is not be an appropriate person to hold a firearms licence on responsibility or safety grounds or out of concern for the possibility that the firearms might be used for an unlawful purpose, even though none of the other express requirements of the Firearms Act seem to apply in the circumstances.

In this case, as a matter of community judgment, the Tribunal would not readily endorse the applicant's assessment of himself as an "honest person". The convictions that counsel for the Commissioner took the applicant to, including those concerning the systematic use of a false motor vehicle driver's licence, and more particularly, his conviction and imprisonment for attempting to pervert the course of justice when he was found to be in possession of a quantity of cannabis by attempting to bribe police officers, shatter any claim that the applicant could make that the community would regard him, generally speaking, as an "honest person".
The Tribunal, as no doubt the whole community, would hope that, in time, the applicant will be able to lay a thoroughly plausible claim to being an honest person, that he truly has rehabilitated his character in that regard; but for the present, at least, it is not possible to draw this unqualified conclusion.
One of the real difficulties in this case, is the continued association of the applicant, as a member of the Coffin Cheaters, with other members of the Coffin Cheaters. The attitudes, ethos and activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs like the Coffin Cheaters and its members, are much more likely than those of other community clubs and organisations - indeed dramatically more so - to lead to confrontations between members of rival groups with attendant violence, and in some cases, death. Ultimately this seems to be a function of the close bond the members of each such gang have with each other - "the Brotherhood" - so that if one member is slighted the slight is felt by the other members of the gang. When the slight is serious, the consequences can be severe. It can reasonably be said that Marc Chabriere died as a result of this type of attitude, this type of ethos.
It is not difficult to understand why the Commissioner of Police ultimately sanctioned the seizure of firearms from members of outlaw motor cycle gangs following the death of Chabriere in October 1998. The Commissioner and his responsible officers recognised that the community simply could not be satisfied that firearms left in the hands of members of such motorcycle gangs would be used responsibly and safely. Indeed, the evidence showed they were used to devastating effect in complete disregard of the right of each person in our community to live their life free from intimidation and threat. For the Commissioner to have left the firearms in the hands of outlaw motorcycle gang members following Chabriere's death, would have involved running the risk of chaos breaking out in the community.
The question of course is what all this has to do with the applicant and his application for a firearms licence in respect to a number of firearms he has historically held but which were seized under the Firearms Act by the Commissioner of Police following the death of Chabriere. We think the answer to that is reasonably obvious.
The applicant has been, since 1986, a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club. He is still a Coffin Cheater's member. While it is true that during the hostilities involving Coffin Cheaters and Club Deroes that resulted in the fatal wounding of Chabriere in October 1998, the applicant was resident in Broome, and with QR, constituted the Broome Chapter - and so cannot be said to have had any direct involvement in those hostilities or the Chabriere incident or the other incidents leading up to it of which Superintendent Loverock gave evidence - the fact is that the applicant was then, and remains on his own evidence an active member of the Coffin Cheaters. He has not chosen to leave the Club or let his membership lapse. Indeed, as he explained to the Tribunal, his personal commitment to the club and its members remains real and strong - they are "family".
While the applicant was resident in Broome during the 1998 incidents, the evidence also shows that when he visited Perth after Chabriere's death, he brought with him a bullet proof vest. While he was uncooperative with the police at the time as to its purpose when he was questioned about it at the Broome airport, upon his return from Perth, in the Tribunal the applicant more or less accepted that he had taken the vest with him in the event that he needed protection. He accepted that, while he had no personal reason to fear any assault because he had not been directly involved in any of the incidents leading up to Chabriere's death, the fact that he was a member of the Coffin Cheaters was enough for him to be concerned for his own safety.
Therein lies much of the difficulty that the Tribunal has with the applicant's current position in relation to his application for a firearms licence. While he remains a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club and has firearms lawfully in his possession pursuant to a firearms licence issued under the Firearms Act and even though he would labour under an obligation to maintain those firearms in a gun cabinet at his premises the Tribunal is left with a real concern that should there be further difficult times between the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club and any rival gangs, or even between the disaffected members of the Coffin Cheaters for one reason or another, by one means or another, any firearms held by the applicant might be put to unlawful purposes. We express that fear, not so much on the basis that we consider that the applicant himself would readily choose to provide the firearms to other club members to effect an unlawful purpose, but because the bond between members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club, of which the applicant is a long time member and remains a committed member, are so strong that other members, in a time of crisis, either might prevail upon him to "do the right thing" or otherwise overbear the applicant and gain access to his firearms.
We maintain this concern even though we accept, on the evidence, that few, if any, of the firearms seized by the police following the death of Chabriere were licensed, and that firearms used in unlawful activities referred to in the evidence of the police officers appear not to have been licensed. The proposition that these things may be so does not give us any particular comfort or confidence. The evidence rather suggests that the members of the relevant outlaw motorcycle gangs at about the time of Chabriere's death had such a cache of unlicensed firearms available to them, that they had no need to resort to licensed firearms. It might be thought to follow that, if the Commissioner has been successful in seizing most or many of the unlicensed firearms previously available to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, there could, in the future, be a greater propensity in a time of crisis or emergency for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs to avail themselves of licensed firearms.
In this regard, we are very mindful of Superintendent Gere's assessment of the attraction members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, like the Coffin Cheaters, have to firearms and the extent to which their members are shown to have been involved in crimes of violence.
To attempt to summarise our views and concerns in this regard, the evidence we have heard about the organisation and operation of outlaw motorcycle gangs such as the Coffin Cheaters, and the personal misconduct and criminal records of many of the members of the Coffin Cheaters, including the applicant, leave us in real doubt that the community would feel safe if the Commissioner, or the Tribunal on review, were to grant the applicant, who is a member of the Coffin Cheaters, a licence to hold a number of - indeed, any - firearms.
That members of the Coffin Cheaters appear to have been involved with the use of firearms in recent nightclub incidents in metropolitan Perth only confirms and adds to our concerns.
To conclude, it is perhaps not to say that the applicant is not a "fit" person to hold a firearms licence, in the technical sense that he can handle a firearm, but it is to say that, having regard to the facts that the applicant -
•is a member of the Coffin Cheaters motorcycle gang;
•has been a Coffin Cheaters' member for a long time and remains so;
•maintains a loyalty to Coffin Cheaters, which club has as members many persons who have extensive criminal records, including for violence; and
•himself has an extensive criminal record, including convictions that must undermine the public's confidence in his general honesty,
the applicant is not a "fit and proper" person to hold a firearms licence and it is not desirable in the interest of public safety that the applicant should hold a firearms licence.
We say this noting that Mr Drew, a person who is not a member or an associate of the Coffin Cheaters on the evidence we have heard, and indeed who is a member of the Australian Defence Force and very familiar with firearms, and who has come to know the applicant over the course of the past 10 years by reason of a common interest in birds as well as guns, considers the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
Our concern, as we have just expressed it, is that the applicant's application and his position as a member of the broader community cannot be looked at in isolation from his membership of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club.
As we say, the Tribunal's concerns in this regard are in no way relieved by the evidence put before the Tribunal about recent Perth nightclub incidents that have involved persons who are also members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club. Incidents such as these simply go to demonstrate that the Coffin Cheaters cannot exactly be compared with a football club, to use an analogy that the applicant suggested when he gave his evidence. Rather, the evidence before the Tribunal tends to suggest that members of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club are more likely than members of other voluntary organisations in the community to involve themselves in activities that disregard the law and involve violence.
In these circumstances the evidence suggests, and the Tribunal finds, that it is not desirable in the interests of public safety that the applicant be issued with a firearms licence. Having regard to the evidence, and the fact that the applicant is and remains a member of the Coffin Cheaters Motorcycle Club, it is also appropriate to find that, by reason of his membership of the Coffin Cheaters, the applicant is also not a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence however "fit" he might be technically to handle a firearm responsibly and safely.

Conclusion and order

For these reasons, the Tribunal considers that the correct and preferable decision in this review proceeding is that the application of the applicant should be dismissed and the decision made on behalf of the Commissioner to refuse the firearms licence should be affirmed.
The Tribunal orders:
1.The decision on behalf of the Commissioner of Police to refuse the applicant's application for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) is affirmed.
2.The review application is dismissed.
3.Pursuant to s 62 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), that, apart from the names of the applicant and police officers mentioned, the names of individuals that appear in (i) paragraphs 9 and 15 of the statement of Senior Constable Alford, which is exhibit G, and the statement of Superintendent Loverock, which is exhibit E, and (ii) the documents numbered 20 to 33 of exhibit D, not be published.
4.That the names of the persons who have been referred to by the pseudo‑initials are not to be published.
I certify that this and the preceding [322] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M L BARKER, PRESIDENT

Details

AGLC: Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206
Case: [2006] WASAT 206
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wignall brought an application for review against the Commissioner of Police, contesting the decision to deny his application for a firearms licence. The Commissioner refused the application based on the applicant’s status as a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang and the conclusion that he was not a "fit and proper person" to hold a licence, lacking genuine reasons for possessing firearms and the grant of the licence not being desirable in the interests of public safety. The court had to determine if the Commissioner's decision to refuse the application was lawful, reasonable, and justified.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the criteria set out in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) for assessing the fitness of an applicant to hold a firearms licence. The applicant contended that the decision was flawed as it did not properly consider the evidence before the Commissioner and was not supported by the material. The court had to examine whether the decision-making process was procedurally fair, whether the Commissioner correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria, and if the decision was open to review on the grounds of unreasonableness or error of law.

In affirming the Commissioner’s decision, the court found that the Commissioner had appropriately exercised his discretion under the Act. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, as his membership in an outlaw motorcycle gang was a significant factor. The court also found that the Commissioner had reasonably determined that the applicant did not have genuine reasons for possessing firearms and that granting the licence would not be in the public interest. The court rejected the applicant's arguments that the decision was flawed, holding that it was lawful, reasonable, and supported by the evidence.

The court dismissed the review application and affirmed the Commissioner's decision to refuse the applicant's firearms licence application. Additionally, the court ordered that certain names and pseudo-initials used in the evidence not be published to protect the privacy and safety of individuals involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision on behalf of the Commissioner of Police to refuse the applicant's application for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) is affirmed. 2. The review application is dismissed. 3. Pursuant to s 62 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), that, apart from the names of the applicant and police officers mentioned, the names of individuals that appear in (i) paragraphs 9 and 15 of the statement of Senior Constable Alford, which is exhibit G, and the statement of Superintendent Loverock, which is exhibit E, and (ii) the documents numbered 20 to 33 of exhibit D, not be published. 4. That the names of the persons who have been referred to by the pseudo-initials are not to be published.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

MR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206

Most Recent Citation

Mifsud v Chief Commissioner of Police [2017] VMC 5

Cases Citing This Decision

VIZZARI and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] WASAT 144
Citation 1 (Para 3)

…en though none of the other expressed requirements for refusal under the Act seem to apply in the circumstances: see Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [303].…
AT and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] WASAT 128
Citation 2 (Para 8)

…s a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act have been met.[9] [9] Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [282] per President Barker, Member Mansveld and Sessional Member Lord.…
FD and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] WASAT 93
Citation 3 (Para 2)

…ccount of any relevant criteria under the Act in respect of which the applicant bears a 'practical onus'. Also see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206at [279] - [280]…
GORDON and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] WASAT 37
Citation 4 (Para 3)

…relevant criteria under the Firearms Act, in respect of which the applicant bears a 'practical onus'.[21] [21] See Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [279] – [285].…
Dale Hart V Commissioner of Police [2023] NTLC 16
Citation 5

…rlow v Commissioner of Police NSW Police Service [2003] NSWADT257 Elfalack v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 31 Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206…
HAYES and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2023] WASAT 18
Citation 6 (Para 10)

…en though none of the other express requirements for refusal under the Act seem to apply in the circumstances: see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [303].…
LIPPI and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2022] WASAT 72
Citation 7 (Para 8)

…a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act have been met.[92] [92] Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [282] per President Barker, Member Mansveld and Sessional Member Lord.…
JG and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2022] WASAT 65
Citation 8 (Para 8)

…a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act have been met.[23] [23] Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [282] per President Barker, Member Mansveld and Sessional Member Lord.…
DI CHIERA and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2020] WASAT 145
Citation 9 (Para 2)

…e sufficient to displace an expectation arising under s 11(3) (as to which the respondent referred the Tribunal to Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ) at [300]) that the applicant, having been convicted of Relevant Offences, is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence; (f)th…
PUNTER and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2020] WASAT 142
Citation 10 (Para 2)

…ng account of any relevant criteria under the Act, in respect of which the applicant bears a 'practical onus': see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ) at [279]-[285].…
Commissioner of Police v Thayli Pty Ltd [2020] WASC 43
Citation 11 (Para 6)

…son' to be granted a firearms licence). In making this observation his Honour said:[34] [T]he decision of the SAT in Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 contains a detailed review of the elements which, in that particular case, were necessary for the Commissioner to be satisfied that the applicant was…
Roongrote and Commissioner of Police [2018] WASAT 115
Citation 12 (Para 6)

…Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA). Her Honour's observations were applied by the Tribunal in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 and Minniti and Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 223. The Tribunal's application of her Honour's observations in Tavelli in a matter cocnering the…
BLACKMAN and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2018] WASAT 20
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…Security and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA). Her Honour's observations were applied by the Tribunal in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 and Minniti and Commissioner of Police [ 2009] WASAT 223 ( Minniti ).…
KATICH and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2015] WASAT 2
Citation 14 (Para 4)

…s a practical onus on the licensee to demonstrate that it continues to be a fit and proper person to be licensed ( Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [282]).…
POLIZZI and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2014] WASAT 144
Citation 15 (Para 16)

…and Related Activities Control Act 1996 (WA) (SRAC Act). Her Honour's observations were applied by the Tribunal in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 and Minniti and Commissioner of Police [ 2009] WASAT 223 ( Minniti ).…
BROPHO and CITY OF JOONDALUP [2014] WASAT 13
Citation 16 (Para 8)

…In Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [279] and [280] ( Wignall ), Justice Barker noted that relevant and credible evidence may include hearsay evidence. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers the email to be relevant evidence.…
Lloyd and Commissioner of Police [2013] WASAT 162
Citation 17 (Para 11)

…ecurity and Related Activities (Control) Act 1996 (WA). Her Honour's observations were applied by this Tribunal in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 and in Minniti and Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 22 when assessing the relevance of convictions to the fitness of a person to hold a firearm li…
LUDGATE and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2013] WASAT 151
Citation 18 (Para 4)

…ears a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act have been met: see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ) at [282] and Nickels and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASAT 19 ( Nickels ) at [22].…
HULME and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2012] WASAT 126
Citation 19

…er of Police [2009] WASAT 223 Penketh v Commissioner of Police [2010] WASC 254 Turner v Keegan [2001] WASCA 9 Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 Orders: On the application heard before Member Natasha Owen-Conway on 9 March 2012, it is ordered that: 1. The application is dismissed. Summary: Mr Hulme…
AQUILIA and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2012] WASAT 27
Citation 20 (Para 3)

…Counsel for Mr Aquilia referred to the decision of the Tribunal in Wignall and City of Perth [2006] WASAT 206 at [302] and [303], which states as follows: Indeed, it might also reasonably be said that, leaving aside s 11(1)(c) which deals with the fit and proper requirement, most, if not all, of the other criteria…
Minniti v Motor Vehicle Industry Board [2011] WASCA 275
Citation 21

…the law as to reflect adversely on the character of the person committing them. Tavelli was referred to by SAT in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 as a case providing guidance to the question as to whether an applicant for a firearms licence was a fit and proper person to hold the licence.…
MIDDLECOAT and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2011] WASAT 152
Citation 22 (Para 3)

…Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, Tavelli v Johnson , (Unreported, WASC Library No 960693, 25 November 1996) and Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206, cited in Whittaker and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 299.…
FLETCHER and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2011] WASAT 210
Citation 23 (Para 2)

…ears a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act have been met; see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [282].…
JEFFRIES and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2011] WASAT 145
Citation 24 (Para 4)

…icence, bears a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Act have been met: see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ) at [282] and Nickels and Commissioner of Police [2010] WASAT 19 ( Nickels ) at [22].…
JENDRZEJAK and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2011] WASAT 106
Citation 25 (Para 3)

…per person, notwithstanding a conviction under s 11(3)(a)(iii). Section 11(3)(a) was considered by the Tribunal in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [300] ( Wignall ): Section 11(3)(a), therefore, provides some clear intention that the Parliament ordinarily expects the Commissioner not to grant…
Knight v Commissioner of Police [2011] WASC 93
Citation 26 (Para 2)

…By way of counterpoint, the decision of the SAT in Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 contains a detailed review of the elements which, in that particular case, were necessary for the Commissioner to be satisfied that the applicant was a 'fit and proper person' to be granted a firearms licence taking…
SHORE and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2011] WASAT 9
Citation 27 (Para 4)

…50] of Wilson by reference into these reasons. It will be seen that the incorporated paragraphs draw heavily from Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ).…
Minitti v Commissioner of Police [2010] WASCA 198
Citation 28 (Para 2)

…the law as to reflect adversely on the character of the person committing them. Tavelli was referred to by SAT in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 as a case providing guidance to the question as to whether an applicant for a firearms licence was a fit and proper person to hold the licence.…
Penketh v Commissioner of Police [2010] WASC 254
Citation 29 (Para 8)

…e subject of the following observation by the Tribunal, comprising a panel which included the former President, in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [300]: 'Section 11(3)(a), therefore, provides some clear intention that the Parliament ordinarily expects the Commissioner not to grant a firearms…
WILSON and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2010] WASAT 120
Citation 30 (Para 4)

…Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ), a firearms matter decided by a panel presided over by the former President of the Tribunal, Barker J, contains a number of useful observations and references which I am, respectfully, content to adopt for the purposes of this matter. Firstly at [295]…
NICKELS and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2010] WASAT 19
Citation 31 (Para 19)

…ears a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of s 11 of the Firearms Act have been met: see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [282].…
MINNITI and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2009] WASAT 223
Citation 32 (Para 7)

…eview is governed by, amongst other things, s 27 and s 29 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act (2004) (WA). In Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [279] to [282] ( Wignall ), the Tribunal made some observations about the exercise of the Tribunal's review jurisdiction in cases like this. The T…
PENKETH and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2009] WASAT 174
Citation 33 (Para 4)

…e subject of the following observation by the Tribunal, comprising a panel which included the former President, in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 at [300]: Section 11(3)(a), therefore, provides some clear intention that the Parliament ordinarily expects the Commissioner not to grant a firearms…
Whittaker and Commissioner Of Police [2008] WASAT 299
Citation 34 (Para 7)

…Also of some relevance to this matter are the findings of this Tribunal in Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ). At [314], the Tribunal there said (emphasis added): To attempt to summarise our views and concerns in this regard, the evidence we have heard about the organisation and operati…
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and STEWART [2008] WASAT 126
Citation 35 (Para 5)

…fit. As such, the Tribunal can properly regard evidence produced that may be indirect or hearsay information (See Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ) at [279] ‑ [282] and s 32(2)(a) and s 32(4) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).…
PALMER and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2008] WASAT 313
Citation 36

…A and Commissioner of Police [2005] WASAT 121 Grover v Commissioner of Police [2005] WASC 263 Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206…
Anderson and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 75
Citation 37

…Re Jones; Ex parte Commissioner of Police [1999] WASCA 246 Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206…
O'DWYER and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2008] WASAT 33
Citation 38 (Para 2)

…it. As such, the Tribunal can properly regard evidence produced that may be indirect or hearsay information (see Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 ( Wignall ) at [279] - [282].…
Como and Commissioner Of Police [2008] WASAT 1
Citation 39

…Wignall and Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206…
BERRY-PORTER and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2007] WASAT 212
Citation 40 (Para 2)

…ceedings, bears a practical onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the relevant provisions of the Act have been met: (see Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206 [279]‑[285]).…
Mifsud v Chief Commissioner of Police [2017] VMC 5
Citation 41 (Para 13)

…ding; Minitti v Commissioner of Police [2010] WASC 198, Tavelli v Johnson 25 November 1996 WASC – (Unreported) and Wignall v Commissioner of Police [2006] WASAT 206, which provide some guidance, noting that Western Australia has a statutory requirement that the applicant be a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a gun l…

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

PINESALES PTY LTD and COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2006] WASAT 202
Citation 1 (Para 3)

…proceedings, and the question of any formal 'onus' of proof has been discussed by the Tribunal in Pinesales Pty Ltd and Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] WASAT 202 at [43]-[46]. In short, the hearing is de novo , or afresh, so additional material to that placed before the original decision‑maker may be adduced i…
McROBERT and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2005] WASAT 204
Citation 2

…John Wignall v The Queen, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No 55 of 1992 (Unreported; Full Court; Library No 920410) McRobert and Commissioner of Police [2005] WASAT 204 Re Barbaro and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1980) 3 ALD 1 Re Williamson and Registrar of Firearms (2001) 64 ALD 245 Sobey v Commercia…
NAFT v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCAFC 254
Citation 3 (Para 4)

…and the substantial merits of the case, a "facilitative, not restricted" requirement (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 at [49] per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J).…
Clouter v Wignall [1999] WASCA 155
Citation 4

…Ltd v Commissioner of Police (1998) (Unreported; Licensing Court of South Australia; Delivered 30 January 1998) Edward Clouter v Howard John Wignall [1999] WASCA 155 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 Hand v Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club Inc (1991) 25 ALD 667 Howard John Wignall v The Queen, Supreme Court Crimina…
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21
Citation 5 (Para 4)

…the Tribunal is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, a "facilitative, not restricted" requirement (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 at [49] per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J).…
George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26
Citation 6

…8) (Unreported; Licensing Court of South Australia; Delivered 30 January 1998) Edward Clouter v Howard John Wignall [1999] WASCA 155 George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 Hand v Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club Inc (1991) 25 ALD 667 Howard John Wignall v The Queen, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No 55 of 1992 (Unreported;…
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81
Citation 7 (Para 4)

…and preferable decision, will consider all credible, relevant and significant information before it, to use Brennan J's classification in Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 628-629. In this regard, the Tribunal is not bound to consider only evidence or information that conforms with the rules of evidence or the Eviden…

AI Chat coming soon