Young v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

[2025] NSWCATAD 200

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Young v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 200

Hearing dates:

01 August 2025

Date of orders:

11 August 2025

Decision date:

11 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member

Decision:

(1) Decision under review set aside.

(2) A category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the applicant.

(3) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (CAT Act), the publication of the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5 is prohibited.

(4) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal.

(5) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential hearing of these proceedings, including confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5 and any evidence given during the confidential hearing, is prohibited and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked “[Not for publication]” are not to be published or released to the applicant.

Catchwords:

LICENSING – firearms licensing – licence refusal – applicant’s domestic arrangements – public interest.

Legislation Cited:

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

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316;

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

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

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 5;

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

EJU v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 270;

GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2024] NSWCATAP 88;

Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 210;

Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 127;

Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCA 366;

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

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

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

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

Treyvaud v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 317;

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

Texts Cited:

N/A

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Mr Joseph Young (Applicant)

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

Representation:

Self-Represented (Applicant)

Solicitors:
McCullogh Robertson Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00442453

Publication restriction:

See above.

reasons for decision

1. The applicant Mr Joseph Young applied to this tribunal on 26 November 2024 seeking administrative review of a decision by a delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant’s application for a category AB firearms licence. That decision was affirmed following an internal review on 6 November 2024 on the ground that the reviewing delegate could not be satisfied that the applicant would personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his domestic circumstances, and also on the ground of public interest.

2. The respondent’s position was that the applicant’s association with Jade Young, whose conduct involving domestic violence (through coercive and controlling behaviour towards his ex-partner, the applicant’s mother, “JM”) was the subject of adverse findings in the Jade Young decision cited below, was relevant to the tribunal’s determination of the correct and preferable decision in the present proceedings.

3. These proceedings follow separate proceedings involving the applicant’s father, Jade Young. They consisted of proceedings commenced by Jade Young seeking administrative review of the respondent’s refusal in September 2022 to grant his application for a firearms licence. That decision was affirmed by the tribunal on 26 August 2024 in Young v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 253 (“Jade Young decision”) and by the Appeal Panel in Young v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2025] NSWCATAP 83 (“Jade Young appeal”).

4. The matter came on for hearing in this tribunal on 1 August 2025. Following the open hearing, a confidential hearing was conducted for the reception of confidential evidence.

Applicable legislation

5. Section 11(4)(a) of the Firearms Act provides that “a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of: (a) the applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances….”

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

7. The issues in this application are thus whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his domestic circumstances, and whether the issue of a licence to the applicant would be contrary to the public interest. The applicant’s fitness and propriety to hold a licence were not disputed.

The evidence

8. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence but instead relied on the documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibits R1 and R2), and on cross-examination of the applicant.

9. The applicant did not lodge a witness statement as directed by Little SM on 26 March 2025 but tendered a document titled “Response to s 58” (exhibit A1) which contains a mixture of representations of fact and submissions.

10. Insofar as the document deals with matters of fact, the applicant states that he is a hard-working young man who carries high morals and integrity in relation to himself and the public. He seeks a firearms licence for recreational hunting, and has an approved membership in the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA). He also seeks to engage in target shooting and has an SSAA membership to carry out target shooting and sporting shooting through their organization. He also seeks to engage in vermin and pest control for primary producers as a source of income for himself in substitution for his other employment.

11. He had held a junior firearms permit, passing all the tests for long arms and pistols, including the optional adult test at the time. His father ensured that he consistently practised safe firearms use at all times and would attend at the gun club shoots on weekends. He says he is very capable in the handling and safe storage of firearms and the maintenance that comes with them. He has even won awards at the club for his use of firearms in target shooting. He enjoyed going to the range with his father and all the other club members as it was a good outdoor sport as well as supporting the local gun club. Over his years of holding a permit he has never had any issues with safe handling or storage of firearms as he carries himself as a capable person fit and proper to hold a firearms licence.

12. His father has never attempted, and would never operate or try to be in possession of a firearm without the correct licences and permits to do so. The Commissioner believes that he would not be able to prevent access to those firearms by his father due to his domestic circumstances. He states that he is a young man who was fully capable of exercising continuous and responsible control over firearms. He lives at a different address 30 minutes away from his father and is fully independent in life now, without his father. There would be no possible way for his father to access firearms, which would be stored at a completely different address, having keys to the house, room and safe with locks and that his father would not have access to.

13. The Commissioner is concerned that he would allow access to his firearms to Jade Young, and access to the premises where they would be stored. He is, however, an independent person and not controlled or intimidated by his father, and he certainly has no intention of doing so. His father’s case was under appeal [at the time of the statement] and it would be nonsensical for him or any individual to try to access firearms while they were not legally permitted to, unless the individual was classified as a criminal or proven to have criminal intention. In that case the matter would have been heard in a criminal court and involve criminal charges.

14. His father’s matter, however, is a civil matter and faces no solid evidence that he is criminally minded, therefore there would be no reason to assume that the intentions of the individual were criminally minded, without evidence of that. The applicant would be a capable of preventing the access and use of firearms to unauthorized individuals himself, and call local authorities to assist in the event of someone trying to access his firearms. His roommate works an opposite roster to him, and therefore he starts work and finishes before his roommate goes to work, so there is very little time the house his unattended. If any issues arose, the police station is less than five minutes away

15. He is committed to maintaining open and transparent communication with the authorities and is willing to provide regular updates and reports on his firearms use and storage to ensure continuous compliance with safety regulations. The contention that his father would want access to firearms without holding the correct licence is speculative and there is no evidence to support it. It is based on the conjecture that his father controls and intimidates him into doing things, which is a quite outlandish presumption to make in regards to grown adults who live separately and are not dependent on each other. His father has shown no intentions of becoming in possession of firearms while not permitted to do so or trying to engage in coercive and controlling behaviour towards the applicant.

16. He seeks a licence partly to carry out vermin and pest control for primary producers as a source of income. Many primary producers are not able to access firearms for a variety of reasons such as age or health, do not wish to endure the responsibilities of carrying a firearms licence and cannot carry out vermin and pest control themselves. Issuing him with a licence would enable him to provide vermin and pest control services to local primary producers, supporting their livelihoods and contributing to the local economy.

17. Cross-examined by Mr Roberts on behalf of the respondent, the applicant said he is now aged 19 and obtained his minor’s permit when he was 12. The permit required him to use firearms under supervision, which was provided when he went shooting with his father and at the range. He had applied for a firearms licence as he had received letters notifying him that his minor’s permit would be expiring.

18. He gave his address as [9 E Street], where he had been renting when he made the application at the start of 2024. He still lives there, with Sean Winkler and Sean’s father. Before 9 E Street his address had been at his father’s property but he had often been staying with friends. He had last been at school in 2023, for Year 12. He had used the address of his father, and sometimes stayed there during the school week. He had changed his address to 9 E Street close to the time of his application.

19. His father still lives at the property, which is about 30 minutes away, and he visits him approximately once a month. His father had helped him to move to 9 E Street but does not visit him there. In July 2024 he had not owned any firearms and had not been planning to buy any. If granted a licence he would arrange safe storage facilities at 9 E Street.

20. In his application (exhibit R1, p 32) he had stated that he was the owner of the rural land on which he would be shooting, but wrote to the registry (id., 37) amending his application as that was a mistake, but he had permission to shoot on his father’s land. His father had provided him with a letter of authority dated 28 July 2024 (id., 37) at his request. He does not have any other letters of authority, but his friend Tracey, who owns a property at Pulganbar, has said she would supply one when he obtains a licence (exhibit A2).

21. He had been enrolled at Southern Cross University for a period, and planned to resume his studies there as he needed a tertiary transition qualification in order to undertake studies in law, which is his longer-term goal. He works at Bunnings hardware where he has a guarantee of 25 hours of work per week. He also works part-time as a traffic controller for Altus, a company providing traffic control services. He had completed one shift last week. If he were able to use firearms for vermin control for property owners, he would relinquish one of his other positions.

22. He had not given target shooting as a reason for his application, but does enjoy it and had joined SSAA for target shooting after his initial licence refusal. His father knows about the application but he barely sees him. It had been over a month since he had seen him, though they can text once or twice a week. His mother, JM, is overseas and is currently occupied as a Channel swimmer. The applicant was not aware whether she had actually completed a swim across the English Channel. When she is in Australia she lives at Griffith.

23. He has three siblings, one aged 27 and two girls aged 16, both of whom live at the rural property with their father Jade Young. The applicant gives them a wave when he drives past the property, but otherwise has no contact with them.

24. He is not subject to any control or coercion by Jade Young. He is aware of the findings against his father relating to his behaviour towards his mother but had not supported him in the proceedings. In his written submissions on the s 59 application (part exhibit A2), he had stated that “it wouldn’t be fair to rely on my mother’s word because she lacks credibility. She swore false statements in NCAT before. She’s been caught lying in the past. The Commissioner I think knows this from dad’s hearing”.

25. He had not learned of those matters from his father, but had read the documents for himself. He had never seen any acts of coercion and he had not been coerced into believing that his mother had lied. Her claims about “lime baths” were also untrue.

26. The applicant also tendered letters of support from Sean Winkler and Tracey-Anne Conroy, the contents of which are outlined below. Following the open hearing, a confidential hearing was held in relation to certain confidential evidence.

Respondent’s submissions

27. The respondent tendered written submissions (exhibit R3) which, after giving the background to the application and setting out the applicable law, pointed out that Jade Young has a lengthy history of engaging in threatening, aggressive, abusive, controlling and manipulative behaviour. That included requiring his then partner, JM, to record herself when out of the home, coercing her to retract her statements and give false accounts about the abuse, threatening harm to JM and her reputation, controlling or restricting her relationships with family and friends and controlling her access to money. JM was fearful of him.

28. A domestic incident led to her making a statement to police on 29 June 2004 detailing domestic violence behaviours she had experienced from Jade Young. This led to an interim apprehended violence order (AVO) for JM’s protection and charges of common assault, stalking or intimidating, harassing or menacing and a safe storage contravention. Her evidence was that after a period of time after she had left and returned home, Jade Young began pressuring her to withdraw the 2004 statement, which she did in about January 2005, following which the charges were withdrawn. Her evidence leading to Jade Young’s licence refusal was that, notwithstanding what she had said about the 2004 statement at the time, the contents were true.

29. The couple were involved in a domestic incident on about 5 July 2019 which resulted in JM reporting the incident to police and participating in a recorded domestic violence evidence in chief (DVEC) statement. Jade Young was found guilty of destroying or damaging property and stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear. On appeal to Grafton District Court, the convictions and sentence were quashed.

30. In reaching her conclusions in the tribunal’s Jade Young decision, Senior Member Rogers stated that his coercive and controlling behaviour and his denials and lack of responsibility for it raised real concerns and indicated that he did not demonstrate insight or responsibility for his actions. There was no evidence that his behaviour had been addressed and Rogers SM was therefore concerned that there was “a real and tangible risk that it might be repeated by Mr Young in future intimate partner relationships”, and that such risk was not minimal, theoretical or fanciful.

31. The applicant had indicated that after receiving his licence he wished to consider engaging in target shooting and in generating supplementary income by assisting primary producers in the area who were struggling to keep vermin and pests under control. A property owner in the area had written that she would “be more than happy to engage his services in this manner”. But if the applicant were granted a licence, he would not be permitted to engage in target shooting as his nominated reason, nor could he be employed by property owners for the purpose of engaging in shooting as a business or employment. Consequently his evidence in respect of his intention to use firearms at any property other than Jade Young’s should be given little, if any, weight.

32. His firearms application gave his residential address as 9 E Street, not at Jade Young’s rural property. While there was currently no evidence that the applicant either resides, or intends to reside, at the rural property, the risks associated with his association with Jade Young continue, regardless of the applicant’s living at 9 E Street, because Jade Young still resides at the rural property, the location at which he engaged in various domestic violence incidents, which is only approximately a 30 minute drive from 9 E Street. Further, the applicant had nominated that property as the property at which he intended to hunt recreationally, which indicated that the applicant would be present on that property with firearms.

33. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s living circumstances mean that there is an unacceptable risk to public safety from his use or possession of firearms. Rogers SM in the Jade Young decision had held that “there is a real concern that [Jade] Young may engage in coercive and controlling behaviour in domestic relationships in the future”. If a firearms licence were granted to the applicant, Jade Young would be aware that firearms were present at his property from time to time and he would be able potentially to access those firearms either directly or through the exercise of coercive control over the applicant.

34. The applicant’s evidence about his independence from his father did not alleviate the respondent’s concerns, especially given the tribunal’s findings in the Jade Young decision that Jade Young had “subjected [JM] to coercive and controlling behaviour” during their relationship, which spanned from as early as 2003 until 2019. The tribunal had been concerned that he might engage in further coercive and controlling behaviour in domestic relationships in the future.

27. The respondent submitted that the term “domestic relationships” should be considered to refer also to the applicant and consequently the tribunal should similarly find that there is a real and appreciable risk that Jade Young will engage in coercive and controlling behaviour towards the applicant. At the very least, his potential access to firearms would be a reason for [JM] to be afraid of Jade Young and for the public to lose confidence in the firearms licensing regime.

28. In Treyvaud v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 317 the applicant’s associations with his father, mother and brother, who had criminal histories and interactions with the police, was such that he might not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms. The applicant himself had an unblemished record, as here. The tribunal found that it was not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence.

29. The applicant had relied on GGW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2024] NSWCATAP 88, which had overruled a decision based on family links with an outlaw motorcycle gang (OMCG), on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a continuing association with the OMCG. In the present case, however, there is no evidence that the applicant’s association with Jade Young has ceased and there is evidence that the applicant intends to use firearms on Jade Young’s property. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Jade Young’s behaviour has been addressed. EJU v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 270, also relied on by the applicant, was distinguishable for similar reasons.

30. In addition, the evidence showed, the respondent contended, that the public interest weighed heavily against the applicant being granted a licence in view of Jade Young’s coercive and controlling behaviour, for the same reasons as advanced in relation to whether the applicant could personally exercise responsible control over firearms. The correct and preferable decision was therefore to affirm the reviewable decision.

31. In oral submissions at the hearing the respondent adopted those submissions, stressing that the applicant was still in contact with his father approximately on a monthly basis. The tribunal had found that Jade Young had engaged in threatening and manipulative behaviour towards the applicant’s mother, and the applicant could be coerced also. There was thus a safety issue if the applicant had firearms, notably because his stated reason for holding a licence was to shoot on Jade Young’s land, although he had other reasons as well.

32. The applicant is not himself a rural landholder and therefore has no need for firearms on his own property nor does he have any need for work purposes, although he could obtain some. Nevertheless his interest in having firearms was mainly as a hobby. It was necessary to balance personal needs against the interests of the public. The case was similar to Treyvaud in that there was no issue of fitness and propriety in relation to the applicant. He had indicated that he would be storing firearms at 9 E Street, but he would still be using them on his father’s property.

Consideration

Approach

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

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

43. Clear guidance as to how the Act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistently with that approach, s 11(3) states that a licence must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. Section 11(4)(c) also provides that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant’s intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.

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

Jade Young domestic incidents

45. The respondent had tendered voluminous evidence and submissions in the Jade Young proceedings, which are reproduced in the supplementary s 58 documents (exhibit R2), and relied on that material to the extent that it relates to Jade Young’s conduct. The respondent submitted that the conduct described in that material is relevant to the present proceedings as Jade Young has a lengthy history of threatening, aggressive, abusive, controlling and manipulative behaviour and there are real and appreciable risks associated with the applicant having access to firearms in circumstances where he continues to associate with Jade Young.

46. Specifically, the respondent submitted that Rogers SM’s factual findings in the Jade Young decision should be adopted by the tribunal in these proceedings (exhibit R3, paras 35, 37), a proposition that I accept. The applicant did not contest that approach, his position being essentially that his mother’s evidence lacked credibility and that in any event he was not subject to coercive, abusive or manipulative conduct on the part of Jade Young.

Report 29 June 2004

47. Of the large quantity of evidence against Jade Young relating to domestic abuse referred to by Rogers SM, three particular events are the most significant. The first relates to a report made by JM to police on 29 June 2004 (Young v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 253, [29] – [36]) alleging that she had tried to see some text messages on his telephone as she believed he was having a relationship with another woman. She said that during a struggle over his telephone, Jade Young kicked one leg towards her abdomen twice and on each occasion she moved out of the way.

48. She was pregnant at the time. She alleged that Mr Young then picked up some scissors and went into the bedroom. She thought he would cut up her clothes as he had done that once before. She alleged that she was on the bed with his telephone under her and that he tried to lift her off the phone by the shoulders and the wrists. She alleged that he then pulled her by her hair bun and thrust her head into the bed, putting substantial weight on her head so that she struggled for air. He called her a slut and a whore and the following day used other coarse and insulting language to her. She said he proceeded to call her 80 times during the day and asked her to leave her telephone on as he did not believe she was at work.

49. JM told police that he made such requests on numerous occasions and wanted to know where she was and with whom at almost every minute of the day. Police formed the view that JM had fears for her safety and obtained an interim AVO on 29 June 2004. Mr Young was charged with common assault, stalking and intimidating, and harassing and menacing. Those charges were later withdrawn when JM retracted her complaint and alleged that police had “stood over her and forced her to include invented allegations in her statements against Young”.

Report 5 April 2005

50. On 5 April 2005 JM told police that Jade Young’s sister [“N”] encouraged her to return to Mr Young and that N did so from a script prepared by Mr Young and he was listening to the call on speakerphone. The COPS data base record states that JM said Jade Young had perpetrated sexual assaults on her, including on 4 April 2005. She also alleged that he had threatened to release sexually explicit videos as a means of blackmailing her and threatened to get her in trouble for breaching the document security protocols of her employer at the time, New South Wales Police Force, by bringing and retaining certain material from work at home.

51. She also alleged that he forced her to transfer the registration of her car to him and had threatened to “bash her father’s head in” if he challenged Mr Young about the car. She also said that he had previously said to her that if she left him he would “track [her] down” and would “come and get [her] and the baby” and had threatened to kill her. JM also told police on 5 April 2005 that Jade Young had “forced” her to retract her earlier complaint so that the charges were withdrawn on 13 January 2005 (id., [37] – [45]).

Report 5 July 2019

52. JM reported to police on 5 July 2019 that she had received aggressive telephone calls from Jade Young when she was driving home from Brisbane and left later than expected. She told police she had recorded those calls as it was a common occurrence for her to receive these types of calls from Mr Young. She said that later that evening, when she had returned home, Mr Young became verbally abusive and called her derogatory names. When she took a shower and was in the shower, one of her children asked to use her mobile telephone, and she provided her with the PIN code for it. Jade Young then came into the bathroom, placed the telephone on the step next to the glass of the shower and “stomped on the phone with his right foot”.

53. As he was wearing work boots, the telephone screen cracked JM told police that he said to her “How dare you record my voice without my permission”. When she asked him why he had damaged her telephone, he allegedly replied “How could you record my voice without my permission, you sneaky little bitch?”. He then verbally abused her and said “I’ve got stuff on you that will ruin your career. You’re never becoming a lawyer”.

54. Police attended the house on 6 July 2019. Jade Young was arrested and issued with a firearms suspension notice and his seven firearms were seized. JM provided a domestic violence evidence in chief (DVEC) statement in which she told police she was extremely fearful and intimidated by Mr Young. He was charged with destroying or damaging property and stalking/intimidating with intention to cause fear or physical etc. harm and was convicted and fined in the Local Court and made subject to a 24-month intensive correction order. On appeal to the District Court the convictions and the orders were quashed on 14 September 2020.

Jade Young’s evidence

55. The tribunal then proceeded to consider Mr Young’s evidence that he had joined the army in 1996, served in an elite unit and was responsible for instructing soldiers in the safe use and handling of firearms. His military career ended when he was honourably medically discharged because of knee and back injuries sustained during his period of service.

56. His service had resulted in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms as a result of a training accident and he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2006 or 2007. Medical evidence in 2018 indicated that his PTSD was well controlled. He explained that he had first met JM in 2003 or 2004, when JM was serving as a police officer. He denied allegations of domestic violence or coercive and controlling behaviour and said that he regretted the way he used to speak to her when they would argue. When they argued they would call each other names. The relationship had ended in 2019 (id., [55] – [65]). The tribunal also considered in detail his evidence denying JM’s allegations (id., [66] – [117]).

57. JM’s credibility was in issue in the Jade Young case, and the applicant’s response to the tribunal’s findings about his father’s behaviour towards her was that she had given false evidence on multiple occasions and could not be believed.

58. He said he had not witnessed any acts of domestic violence or abuse by his father, which is possible, as the worst incidents (those in 2004 and 2005) took place before he was born or very soon afterwards. It is also possible that he was not present at the time of the 2019 incident. Nevertheless, it is necessary to set out the tribunal’s findings about JM’s credibility and account of events:

Assessment of Ms Millar’s credibility and account of events

175. The question of [JM]’s credibility clearly arises in this case. She retracted her 2004 statement to Police to the effect that she had been assaulted by Mr Young on 28 June 2004. She gave evidence in the Local Court that she did not have fears and the charges were withdrawn.

176. [JM] later told Police on 5 April 2005 that Mr Young had perpetrated sexual assaults on her and threatened to release sexually explicit videos and to report her to her employer. She said he had forced her to transfer the car to him and threatened to assault her father if she challenged him about the car.

177. [JM] later gave false evidence to the ADT about the alleged domestic abuse.

178. Mr Cranney challenged [JM]’s evidence about the alleged abuse, pointing out that [JM] had knitted Mr Young a pillow, attended a debutante ball and sat opposite him at that event and also cross-examined him directly in family law proceedings. He also queried why she had not raised allegations earlier or spoken to others about the abuse she alleged was happening.

179. I had the benefit of seeing Mr Young, [JM] and Ms Agustin give oral evidence and respond to probing under cross-examination. I found [JM]’s evidence compelling. She gave detailed evidence about the types of conduct she said Mr Young has subjected her to. I found her description of Mr Young telling her over and over that no-one would believe her and that Mr Young would be nice then nasty then nice again to have the ring of truth. I also found her evidence about being fearful but deciding to return to the relationship convincing.

180. I am comfortably satisfied that Mr Young subjected [JM] to coercive and controlling behaviour. The evidence was overwhelming to that effect. I found Mr Young’s suggestion that [JM] wanted to blame him for the fact she had made recordings at work because she was facing disciplinary issues at work to have no factual basis. I also found his suggestion that [JM] fabricated text messages to be implausible.

181. I also do not accept that [JM] was motivated to lie about the abuse because she is jealous that Mr Young had sole custody of the children and she was jealous of his relationship with the children.

182. I accept [JM]’s evidence that she was coerced by Mr Young to retract her statements and give false accounts of what occurred.

183. I reject the argument that [JM]’s decision to cross-examine Mr Young in family law proceedings or sitting opposite him at a debutant ball means she was not fearful of him.

184. In circumstances where I am satisfied that Mr Young subjected [JM] to coercion and control, her behaviour should be viewed in this context. The fact she knitted Mr Young a pillow and she returned to the relationship is entirely consistent with the nature of such a relationship. The fact she did not report what was happening to her is also consistent.

59. The tribunal described the evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour by Jade Young as “overwhelming” and made the following findings of fact, which I accept:

Findings of fact

187. I am satisfied that during his relationship with [JM], Mr Young subjected [JM] to coercive and controlling behaviour. I am satisfied that:

1. Mr Young required [JM] to record herself when out of the home

2. Mr Young coerced [JM] to retract her statements and give false accounts about the abuse

3. Mr Young threatened harm to [JM] and her reputation

4. Mr Young controlled or restricted [JM]’s relationships with family and friends

5. Mr Young controlled [JM]’s access to money

6. [JM] was fearful of Mr Young.

Character evidence

60. A character reference dated 10 March 2025 from Sean Winkler (exhibit A3) relates Mr Winkler’s friendship with the applicant, which began in year 9 of high school and speaks highly of his integrity and generosity. As the applicant’s fitness and propriety to hold a licence are not in issue in the present proceedings, that evidence need not be set out in detail. The letter also explains, however, that in September 2023 Mr Winkler faced a challenging housing situation as his step-grandfather, with whom he was living, was suddenly hospitalized after a fall, forcing Mr Winkler to find alternative accommodation. Jade Young had kindly offered him a place to stay on his property, and provided him with meals and did not charge rent. He gave him a safe place until he could secure his own accommodation.

61. In December 2023, Mr Winkler resigned from his part-time job at Coles, and Jade had assisted him in finding new employment. During that time they became like family to him, with Jade assuming a fatherly role. They continued to invite him on trips and he was always happy to join them. He occasionally visits Jade’s property to lend a hand with various tasks. Both Jade and Joseph remain valued friends and he is always pleased to see them or engage in conversation. It will be obvious, therefore, that Mr Winkler’s reference is as supportive of Jade Young as it is of the applicant.

62. In a reference dated 13 March 2025, Tracey-Anne Conroy, who operates a 3500-acre cattle property, narrated that she had engaged in discussions with the applicant about future employment. The applicant had been brought up in a rural environment and is extremely keen to engage in employment in that field. He would be employed on a contract basis. To fulfil that role, having a firearms licence would be beneficial. Ms Conroy states that she struggles to understand the rejection of his licence application as he has no prior convictions or criminal record. He is a young man who is looking at ways to help the local community, not to hinder them.

63. Ms Conroy explained that as landholders they currently have an ongoing problem with wild dogs, feral pigs and rabbits, all of which need eradicating. They are is currently struggling in finding the resources or people to assist with controlling that problem. If the applicant were to obtain a licence, she would be more than happy to engage his services in that manner, and would imagine various other landholders would as well.

Confidential evidence

64. [Not for publication]

65. [Not for publication]

66. [Not for publication]

67. [Not for publication].

68. [Not for publication

69. [Not for publication]

70. [Not for publication]

71. [Not for publication]

Evaluation – domestic circumstances

72. The respondent submits that the circumstances in which the applicant lives mean that there is an unacceptable risk to public safety from his use or possession of firearms. The evidence relied on in support of that proposition includes the following:

• Jade Young still resides at the rural property that he owns, which was the scene of his domestic violence incidents;

• the property is only approximately 30-minute drive from 9 E Street, where the applicant lives;

• the applicant nominated Jade Young’s rural property as the property at which he intended to hunt recreationally, which indicated that the applicant would be present on that property with firearms;

• his father Jade Young was found by the tribunal to have subjected JM to coercive and controlling behaviour and there was no evidence that his behaviour had been addressed. In the Jade Young decision, the tribunal held that “there is a real concern that [Jade] Young may engage in coercive and controlling behaviour in domestic relationships in the future” (at [206]);

• Jade Young was held not to be a fit and proper person to be issued with a firearms licence;

• the applicant sees his father up to once a month and they text each other approximately weekly.

73. [Not for publication]

74. Notwithstanding the applicant’s submission that JM’s evidence lacks credibility and that he has never personally witnessed any coercive, abusive or aggressive behaviour on his father’s part, and Sean Winkler’s highly favourable description of Jade Young’s general behaviour and character, I agree with Rogers SM that the evidence in support of her findings of fact is “overwhelming”.

75. On the basis of the evidence, including the confidential evidence, the respondent contends that therefore the applicant would lack the ability to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms as Jade Young would be aware that firearms were present at his rural property from time to time and would potentially be able to access those firearms, either directly or through the exercise of coercive control over the applicant. Further, the applicant would be using firearms on his father’s property, unless he could obtain a letter of authority from some other landholder.

76. The respondent relied on Treyvaud, in which the key issue was not the applicant’s character, but his associations with his father, mother and brother, and particularly the conduct of his father and brother, who had criminal histories and an adverse history of interactions with the police, his brother serving a jail sentence at the time. That, the tribunal found, raised concerns that his associations with, and proximity to, his father and brother were such that he might not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms.

77. The facts of Treyvaud differ materially from those in the present case, however. In that case the applicant lived on his parents’ seven-acre property and although he had plans to move to another property, which he owned, it was not a current or imminent change of address. The applicant saw his father almost every day, either at their place of work (which was the farm where firearms were used) or at his residence, where he regularly visits or stays over at his mother’s adjacent dwelling. His brother was incarcerated, but as he had only ever lived and worked at the property, there was a real possibility that his parole conditions would include living and working at the property. That meant that he could be present at the place of intended firearm storage or usage or both.

78. In this case, the applicant’s unchallenged evidence was that his firearms would be stored at his residence, which is 30 minutes away from Jade Young’s property, and that only he would have the keys to the storage and the house. He has Ms Conroy’s assurance that she will supply him with a letter of authority to shoot on her cattle property, and he would thus not be restricted to shooting on his father’s land. (The respondent points out that under the licence for which he has applied, he would not as matters stand be permitted to engage in pest control shooting as a business or as an employee.) He held a minor’s permit from the age of 12 without incident and is now an award-winning member of SSAA

79. The applicant lives independently of his father and is not controlled or intimidated by him and has an unblemished record. He currently works at two jobs and has longer-term plans to return to his studies at Southern Cross University, with a view ultimately to studying law. Having had the benefit of observing the applicant giving evidence, I find that his demeanour is that of an intelligent young adult of firm character who has concrete and achievable goals for the future and is unlikely to be influenced by any attempts at coercion or manipulation by Jade Young.

80. Referring to Rogers SM’s expressed concern that Jade Young “may engage in coercive and controlling behaviour in domestic relationships in the future” (at [206]), the respondent submits that the term “domestic relationships” should be considered also to refer to the applicant and that there is a real and appreciable risk that he might be subject to coercive and controlling behaviour by his father. In my view that might be a reasonable construction if the respondent had adduced probative evidence of extensive contact or interactions, as in Treyvaud. That is not the case here, however, where the evidence describes little more than casual contact once a month or less, as well as some mutual texting.

81. The applicant sought support in the Appeal Panel’s decision in GGW, which reversed a decision (of mine) affirming licence refusal to an appellant who had been a member of a motorcycle club until about the early 1990s, and his brother was a continuing full member of the club. The brother lived 550 km away from the appellant. The Appeal Panel found that “The concerns expressed by the Tribunal…about the brother’s continuing Nomads full membership and observed willingness to resort to intimidation do not provide a sound evidentiary basis for a finding of real and substantial risk” (at [49]).

82. The tribunal’s concerns about the appellant’s earlier OMCG membership were also an insufficient basis for the finding of risk in circumstances where the tribunal found that the appellant was now a productive and law-abiding citizen (at [50]). In the present case there is even less probative evidence giving rise to such a concern, and the respondent’s assertions on the point should be regarded as speculative or hypothetical.

83. On the basis of the open and confidential evidence I find that while there would be a possible risk to public safety if Jade Young were to have access to firearms, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his domestic circumstances or way of living.

Public interest

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

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

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

87. Tribunal decisions have pointed out that the question of potential risk to public safety is not to be applied in an absolute manner, but in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97, [64] – [66].

88. Thus, in Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110, [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that “In determining this issue it is my view that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account. Minimal, fanciful or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration”. Risk to the public includes, of course, risk to the applicant himself: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117, [74].

89. The respondent submitted that the public interest weighed heavily against the applicant being granted a licence. In view of the evidence of Jade Young’s coercive and controlling behaviour, and the submissions made in relation to the s 11(4)(a) issue, it was apparent that the applicant’s possession and use of firearms would be entirely at odds with public protection, public safety and public confidence in firearms licensing.

90. The applicant is not a primary producer and has no immediate personal or work need for a firearms licence. Nevertheless, on the basis of all the evidence and the findings on the s 11(4)(a) issue, there are insufficient grounds for exercising the discretion in s 11(7) in favour of refusing to issue a licence to the applicant. The decision under review is set aside and a category AB firearms licence is to issue to the applicant.

Orders

1. Decision under review set aside.

2. A category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the applicant.

3. Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (CAT Act), the publication of the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5 is prohibited.

4. Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5, or matters contained in the confidential material and confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal.

5. Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential hearing of these proceedings, including confidential exhibits CR4 and CR5 and any evidence given during the confidential hearing, is prohibited and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked “[Not for publication]” are not to be published or released to the applicant.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar