Chamoun v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 113

1. The Applicant also gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The Applicant's evidence included that:

(1) His family visited him in 2022 and 2023 "quite a lot" but that they had not visited since 2023 as they had grown apart. He accepted that during the execution of the search warrant on 21 December 2021, he still had a bedroom at his parents' home despite having acquired and moved to the rural property.

(2) He admitted that he still saw them approximately twice a month (approximately once very two weeks) but that these visits occurred in Sydney at his parents' home and not on his rural property. In response to questions that he still appeared to maintain a close relationship with his parents, the Applicant indicated that it depended on what was meant by "close" and that it was not the case that they were involved in every bit of his life.

(3) In 2022, he helped his father with renovations at the back of a property in Croydon out of which his father run an automotive business. This was for "about a month" and he stayed with is partner in Sydney during that time. However, during re-examination, the Applicant accepted that he stayed with his parents on occasion in 2022 which was on a random basis like, for instance, if his partner was away. He indicated that in 2023, he had stayed with his parents around 15 times.

(4) He was employed as a National Facilities Manger which included to manage residential blocks with the bulk of the property in Sydney. He commenced that role on 29 August 2022 which required about 40 hours of work a week. In answer to how he was able to undertake that role from his rural property, the Applicant indicated that he needed to travel to Sydney but that a lot of the administration could be done while at the rural property. The Applicant informed the Tribunal that he comes to Sydney two or three times a week. In re-examination, it was indicated this was three times a week.

(5) In December 2024, the Applicant became a Building Manager but that when he came to Sydney for that role, most of the time he would drive back to the rural property rather than staying in Sydney. However, if he did stay, he stayed with his partner.

(6) While he was in Sydney, family friends looked after the livestock who have similar businesses, and he was not aware that any of these friends had a criminal history.

(7) With respect to the joint that was found in his bedroom at his parent's property, he informed the Tribunal that he had friends over a few years prior and had put it in the drawer and had not thought about it again. He said he had cooperated with the police and had told them about ut.

(8) He would abide by any conditions applied to his licence such as that the firearms stay on his rural property and his parents cannot attend that property. He would tell his parents they could not come to the rural property if that was necessary. He described the detached garage that he intended to safely store his firearms as no one else would have access and he also intended to install motion detection senses. A photograph of the shed was admitted into evidence.

1. The Tribunal has considered the concept of 'the public interest' in a number of decisions. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 at [25] the Appeal Panel stated in regard to a decision to refuse to issue a security industry licence:

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

1. The Applicant's evidence is that he seeks a firearms licence as a primary producer to deal with vermin on his property that are negatively impacting his operations. I find that his reason for a firearm is genuine. However, private interests such are not the only matters considered. The interests of the whole community are matters for consideration: Comalco at 681. As the Tribunal has observed many times, the 'public interest' allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of the Applicant. These 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, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16 (Constantin); Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; (1991) 1 VR 63.
2. In Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 at [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances and that only real and appreciable risk needs to be considered. The overriding concern of the public interest in this context is the maintenance of public safety. Any real and appreciable risk to public safety cannot be outweighed by the Applicant's interest in holding a firearms licence.
3. In this case, the Respondent raises the following as creating a real and appreciable risk to the public:

(1) The Applicant's conduct relating to possession of cocaine and his driving record, which indicates a disregard for rules directed to public safety. To this may be added the discovery of "half a joint" as described above which was raised during cross-examination; and

(2) the risks arising from the applicant's close association with his parents.

1. First with respect to the factual allegations, I find that the Applicant was an honest, forthright witness whose intention was to assist the Tribunal. He gave evidence that the cocaine that was discovered on 21 December 2021 did not belong to him. That assertion was consistent with the seizure report and the body worn footage which support that the drug was found in the main bedroom belonging to the Applicant's parents. Given the totality of the evidence, I am unable to draw any adverse inferences because of its discovery as I am not satisfied that it belonged to or was possessed by the Applicant or he otherwise had any knowledge of it prior to the police discovering it at the residence.
2. Additionally, with respect to the Applicant being charged with possessing a prohibited drug in 2020, which occurred some five years ago, I accept the Applicant's evidence that he regretted his actions, had taken full responsibility, pleaded guilty and has been committed to abstinence since that time supported by the Applicant's willingness to undertake a drug test. Accordingly, I give this incident little weight in assessing the Applicant's attitude, as it is currently, towards regulatory regimes designed to protect the public.
3. With respect to the traffic infringements and the discovery of "half a joint" in a drawer which the Applicant described as being from a year earlier, while I accept that an individual's conduct and compliance with regimes designed to protect the public may be relevant to a consideration of a person's risk to the public if allowed to possess a firearm, I accept the Respondent's contention that in this case, the evidence did not rise high enough to draw that conclusion.
4. However, in the context of this case, the conduct of the Applicant's parents is a highly relevant factor in determining whether the Applicant may personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms: see also Emery v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 122. There is no basis for differentiating between conduct of the Applicant themselves and conduct of another which may impact on public safety in the context of a firearms licence given the breadth of the discretion and the overriding object of public safety: Tolley v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 149 at [31] (Tolley).
5. The Tribunal has held that even when there is no evidence that an Applicant has personally engaged in criminal activities, he or she could come under pressure to make guns or ammunition available to criminals or criminal organisations if they remain associated with such persons or organisations: Adams v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 194, at [90]; see also El Saadi v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 336; Hamid v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 43; Dalziell v Commissioner of police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 79; El-Chamy PSM v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 24.
6. In Tolley, the applicant's son had been charged with supplying commercial quantities of drugs and other offences and was in custody awaiting sentence. The Police concern in that matter was that the son may put pressure on his father to access his firearms.
7. Similarly, and more recently, in Ryan v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 23 (Ryan) the applicant's partner of 8 years had been the subject of a number of Police reports concerning drugs, break and enter, aggravated robbery, assault, consorting, stalk/intimidation, and at the time the applicant's firearms licence was revoked, was subject to a Community Correction Order. In the decision, it was found that there was reasonable cause to believe that the applicant's partner may take advantage of their relationship and therefore the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over her firearm. These matters involved a criminal history of the applicants' son/partner, and in both Tolley and Ryan the concern was the potential pressure that might be applied to the applicant in relation to access to firearms.
8. Accordingly, the conduct of the Applicant's parents and their criminal history is of direct concern to the issuing of a firearms licence.
9. While I accept that the Applicant's interaction with his parents has reduced because of him acquiring the rural property, the Applicant comes to Sydney two or three times a week, associates with his parents from time to time and stays with his parents at their residence albeit on an irregular basis. According to the Applicant, in 2023, he had stayed with his parents around 15 times. I find that the Applicant has a close relationship with his parents. Given the familial relationship, there is a risk that the Applicant's parents may seek to influence the Applicant or pressure him to provide them with his firearms if he were permitted a firearms licence. The Applicant's parents have engaged in criminal conduct which demonstrates a disregard of the law.
10. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
11. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
12. In this case, I am satisfied that a real and appreciable risk to public safety has been established because of the Applicant's association with his parents: Hamid v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 43 and Dalziell v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 79.
13. As I have found that there is a risk that the Applicant's parents may seek to influence the Applicant or pressure him to provide them with his firearms if he were permitted a firearms licence noting that the Applicant's parents have engaged in criminal conduct which demonstrates a disregard of the law, I further find that these risks cannot be safeguarded by placing conditions on the licence.
14. The information, including that provided in the confidential material, is sufficient, in my view, to establish a real and appreciable risk to public safety. Consequently, I find that, at this time, it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence

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.