Chen v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

RELEVANT FACTS

1. The following documentary evidence is before me:

• Documents provided by the respondent in accordance with s58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act ('the s58 documents');
• The firearms licence history for Mr Chen which states that he was first issued with a firearms licence on 3 May 2013; his licence was suspended on 29 July 2013; the suspension was lifted on 11 September 2013 then re-instated on 13 December 2013, prior to the licence being revoked on 13 March 2014;
• Mr Chen's criminal record, which discloses that he was charged with common assault on 29 July 2013 but that the matter was dismissed when no evidence was offered in support of the charge;
• A series of COPS events records for Mr Chen including a narrative of events for 29 July 2013; details on a interim apprehended violence order made against Mr Chen on 9 August 2013; details in relation to a report made to police on 10 October 2013 with the note 'no offence detected'; narrative of police attendance on Mr Chen on 13 December 2013;
• Statements by Constable Candice Prain, Constable Lee Chadwick and Senior Constable Paul Egan. Each of the police officers also gave oral evidence in these proceedings;
• Two statements by Acting Inspector Andrew James;
• A statement by Sergeant Lukas Sywenkyj;
• A statement by council worker, Mr Steve Snook;
• Statements by Mr Chen and by his wife, Ms Casidhe Jessamine Lee. Both Mr Chen and Ms Lee also gave oral evidence in these proceedings;
• A receipt for the purchase of meat, dated either 3.12.2013 or 13.12.2013 at 11.57am.

1. It is the respondent's case that the domestic circumstances between Mr Chen and Ms Lee are such that it is not presently in the public interest for Mr Chen to hold a firearms licence. In support of this contention, the respondent relies on events said to have occurred on the 29 July 2013, 10 October 2013, 13 December 2013 and 15 February 2014.

29 July 2013

1. It is not disputed that Mr Chen and his wife, Ms Lee, were married in 2013, shortly before Mr Chen was issued with a firearms licence.
2. Similarly, it is not disputed that on 29 July 2013, Ms Lee called 000 to request an ambulance. It is also agreed that the ambulance service contacted the police to attend the couple's home.
3. When Constable Prain attended the couple's residence later that day, she took a statement from Ms Lee which she recorded in her police notebook ('the notebook entry') and which Ms Lee then signed. When taken to the hospital, Ms Lee consented to be photographed.
4. According to the notebook entry, because Mr Chen was running late to go out, Ms Lee slapped him across the back. Mr Chen then said to his wife: I don't like the way your [sic] talking, if you don't change the way your [sic] talking I will punish you…get your mum here then, and I will beat you.
5. According to the notebook entry, Ms Lee then stated: He said to me 'you don't think I'm afraid to beat you…[he] was following me closely behind whilst I was walking, at this time I threw my glasses off from my face onto the ground near the dining table to avoid more hurt if he beat me…..[He] said to me 'I will hit you cause you threatened me'…I was in the chair, curled up to the right hand side of the chair to protect myself. He grabbed my hair by my ponytail with his left hand so my face was facing him, and he punched me to the left side of my face using his right hand. I felt immediate pain to my left eye. I said to him after he hit me, 'Oh I will do whatever you want, if you want a divorce I will do it.
6. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Constable Prain stated that when she attended the house on 29 July 2013, she noticed that Ms Lee had some redness to her cheek. She confirmed that Ms Lee had spoken of her husband having punched her.
7. In a letter to the Tribunal dated 10 October 2014, Ms Lee said that she had told the 000 operator that her husband had accidentally touched her eye and that she couldn't see clearly but she was okay.
8. In the letter, she wrote that: I was misleading to sign a statement with false words. When Constable Prain and Constable Woods ask me for statement, my emotion is not stable…After a while Leading Senior Constable Woods changed the way Constable Prain asked, he asked me 4 or 5 time in different ways with the meaning of: he punched you on the face? I said, 'no, he suddenly hurt/beat me (I mean he accidentally touched me when he wanted to attract my attention). Then he repeated again and again finally I said one 'yes' so he organised the sentences and let constable write down. After that, he asked me to read and sign. I said my English not very good I don't' know some of the words, he told me it is ok if I want to change (or add) something I could go to police state later. He let me sign other forms to take my photos of my face I refused because I can't understand those details in the forms at all! He said that is good for my husband and good for me if I give him permit. So I signed everything he asked me to sign. I regret for that false words as 'punch' is not the truth. If constable prain remembered clearly, I repeated hurt, beat, hand touch but I never said 'PUNCH' ever….If my husband punched me I would be bleeding as I encouraged him to do a lot of gym exercise to build his muscle.
9. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Lee agreed that she had telephoned 000 for an ambulance on 29 July 2013. She denied making the call because she felt she was in danger, telling the Tribunal that she would routinely call an ambulance for minor matters, even for a cold. She denied that her husband had punched or beat her and told the Tribunal that because of her limitations in English, she was unaware of the differences between the words 'to hit' and 'to touch.' She told the Tribunal that her husband had grabbed her so he could talk to her. She agreed that she had touched her husband on the back to get his attention but denied slapping him.
10. She agreed that she had let the police officers into her house and that she had been crying and distressed when they arrived. She denied using the word 'punch' when speaking to the officers about what had happened. She agreed that she had signed a consent form to allow photographs to be taken of her in the hospital but now regrets having signed the form. She hadn't wanted the ambulance to take her to hospital but was advised that there was no option because the police had been contacted. She agreed that she had signed the entries in Constable Prain's notebook in relation to the incident on 29 July 2013 but said that she had been unable to read Constable Prain's handwriting.
11. She told the Tribunal that she had removed her glasses not because she was scared her husband would hit her but because she was crying and didn't want to see him. She denied that her husband had punched her but agreed that he had held her by the shoulders to try to talk to her. She denied telling Constable Prain that her husband had punched her. She agreed that she was scared at the time because she was afraid her husband would punish her by not talking to her.
12. In his letter to the Tribunal dated 9 October 2014, Mr Chen denied having been violent towards his wife. In an earlier letter addressed to NSW Police Force Firearms Registry and dated 20 April 2014, Mr Chen explained the events that took place on 29 July 2013: I did make my wife unhappy in the morning as she wanted to go to woolies and I wanted to stay at home for computer games. She went out for a few minutes then came back and started endless complaining about me. She also mentioned that my mum didn't like her blabla…The only thing I could do was keeping silent and continuing my game while she is talking to me. She asked me some silly questions like 'don't you love me' 'will you choose your mum or me' 'why don't you beat me in front of my mum.' I said 'yes' to every single question, I thought she would shut up if she got all my answers…She also threw her phone in my desk when I was playing…She asked me to stop playing games and talk to her seriously. Then she started acting Mrs. Smith and threw her specs on the floor then called me Mr Smith (From our favourite movie Mr and Mrs Smith). She made me both funny and annoying so I let her sit down and grab her shoulder told her how much I love her and told her don't care about my mother's judgments. Then my wife like a child who finally attracted mum's attention and started crying heavily and doubting how much I love her and said my finger her eyes when I grab her shoulder. She even asked me to drive her to see GP. I told her don't waste public resource I believe it wasn't anything serious. Then she called ambulance and police came too.
13. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Chen agreed that his wife had been annoying him at the time. He agreed that he might have told his wife that he didn't like the way she was talking to him. He agreed that he might have told her he would 'punish' her but stated that he had said it in a half-joking way rather than in a threatening manner. He agreed that he might have said 'yeah, yeah' in response to her question as to whether he would beat her in front of her mother but told the Tribunal that he wasn't really listening to what she said and was simply answering 'yes, yes' to anything she said. He agreed that he had grabbed his wife by the shoulders and had shaken her. He denied punching her.

10 October 2013

1. On 10 October 2013, a call was made to Lifeline by a woman claiming she had been assaulted by her husband. Lifeline contacted the NSW Police Force. According to the COPS event sheet generated in relation to the incident, the call was made to Lifeline from Ms Lee's mobile phone.
2. Ms Lee requested documents from Lifeline in relation to the call made however no documents were produced to the Tribunal.
3. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Lee denied calling Lifeline on 10 October 2013 and Mr Chen denied hitting his wife on 10 October 2013.

13 December 2013

1. On 13 December 2013 at around 2pm, police attended the residence of Mr Chen and Ms Lee following complaints, allegedly by the manager of the unit block, of yelling, screaming and door slamming from the residence. The COPS event sheet states that 'Police were called at 1.40pm 13 December 2013 by [name deleted]…after hearing screaming, shouting and doors slamming at the above location.'
2. According to the statement by one of the police officers, Senior Constable Paul Egan, Mr Chen let the officers in. Mr Chen told the officers that his wife had taken the car (a Toyota) at about 11am in order to go shopping. He described a small laceration to his head as being 'old.' He denied having had an argument with his wife.
3. On the dining room table was a woman's handbag, which contained a wallet and keys including a Toyota car key. Two mobile phones were also in the dining room.
4. According to Senior Constable Egan, who provided a statement and gave oral evidence before the Tribunal, on leaving the apartment building, he saw a resident in the complex, Ms Diana Chen, who later provided a statement, part of which provides as follows: I see a young girl very quiet, long hair, very nice, she Chinese she live here in unit. I not know which unit. I see this girl more than 20 times. Today may 1.35pm Friday 13 December 2013 I was parking my car in my garage, she nearly crash my car. She running. I see she crying, red eyes, red marks on arms, neck, face. I say 'who punched you.' She say my husband he punched me, she was shaking. She say 'my husband no let me out. He locks in room.' She want to go. I say I take to Police Station she got into my car. I drive off slowly I ask again 'what happened to you' 'my husband he punch me.' I took her Lakemba Railway Station. She say 'he my husband, I no want problem.' She got out Railway Station and she go.'
5. According to his statement, as Senior Constable Egan was speaking to Ms Diana Chen, Mr Chen walked past him carrying a black plastic bag and some shoes. When Senior Constable Egan queried him about this, Ms Chen told him that he was carrying clothes for his wife because she might need them.
6. According to Senior Constable Egan, Ms Lee contacted Campsie Police Station at about 4pm to advise that there was no problem and that she did not need any police help. Police returned to the residence to ensure Ms Lee was all right. They did not see any visible injuries on her body and when asked about her whereabouts earlier that day, she told the officers she had been shopping. She denied that her husband had done anything wrong. She denied having seen her neighbour, Ms Diana Chen, and denied going to the railway station. She refused to provide a statement to police.
7. In his letter to the Tribunal dated 9 October 2014, Mr Chen stated that:

• the laceration or scar referred to by Senior Constable Egan was as a result of a workplace injury a couple of days beforehand;
• he took clothes for his wife because 'it is common sense to take clothes to cover her if she was really had an "accident" and no clothes. Police told me so and questioned me why I took clothes and why I go out. Should I stay at home with a movie when police told me that my wife has no clothes and walked on street?'

1. According to Ms Lee's letter to the Tribunal, Senior Constable Egan told her 'I don't like your husband; I will put him in jail.' She also noted the officer's insistence that her husband's scar on his forehead was fresh when she had photographs (contained in the s58 documents) to show that it was not.
2. In support of her contention that she was shopping at the time the complaint was made to police, Ms Lee placed before the Tribunal a receipt for meat issued by a meat shop in Strathfield at 11.57am on either 3 December 2013 or 13 December 2013. Because of the faintness of the print, it was difficult to determine the date.
3. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Chen agreed that police officers had come to his house on 13 December 2013. He told the Tribunal that his wife had been out shopping in the morning first to the butcher and later for fruit and vegetables. He agreed that she had taken her wallet, her keys and her mobile phone and that she had returned with five or six bags of groceries.
4. When it was put to Mr Chen that the bags of groceries were on the table when the police arrived and so his wife must have been finished her shopping by the time the police arrived, Mr Chen disagreed, saying 'no she didn't finish the shopping.' He disagreed that his wife had run away from the apartment because he had 'punished' her.
5. When asked how she could have been out shopping when she had left her keys and wallet in the apartment, Mr Chen told the Tribunal that his wife has three wallets and that sometimes just takes a small change purse out with her.
6. According to Mr Chen's oral evidence, the police officers had told him that his wife had run out of the apartment without proper clothing. It was for this reason that Mr Chen had taken clothes for his wife when he went to look for her.
7. When it was put to him that he was carrying a plastic bag with clothes and shoes for his wife because she had run out of the apartment without clothes and without shoes and he needed to get to her before the police did, Mr Chen maintained that the police had told him his wife was without her clothes. He denied assaulting his wife and denied that she had left the apartment in a hurry.
8. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Lee stated that she had left to go shopping on the morning of 13 December 2013. When she returned home, which was somewhere between midday and 4pm, the house was empty and she had to ask the strata manager to open the security gate for her. The strata manager then told her that she had contacted the police and that Ms Lee should now call them herself.
9. Ms Lee became confused in the course of giving her evidence to the Tribunal and later clarified that she had made two shopping trips that day. On her first trip, she had taken her keys and wallet. On the second shopping trip, she was in a hurry and, only after leaving the house, realised that she had forgotten to bring her key with her. She told the Tribunal that she bought five or six bags of meat on her first shopping trip, not fruit and vegetables. On this second trip, she took a coin purse with her.

15 February 2014

1. According to Constable Lee Chadwick, on 15 February 2014, a call came from the ambulance service reporting the assault of a woman in Girraween who had been taken to Blacktown Hospital. At the hospital, Constable Chadwick interviewed the woman, who said her name was Casidhe Lee.
2. According to Constable Chadwick, Ms Lee explained that she was looking around the area because she wanted to rent there: I was walking along trying to call my mother on my phone, I heard a car drive past and those in the car yelled something. I didn't look up because I was concentrating on my phone. I kept walking and someone punched me in the stomach, I fell to the footpath.
3. She told Constable Chadwick that she didn't see who punched her. When asked if the attacker had tried to take anything from her, 'your phone or handbag?' she said that they didn't. Ms Lee refused to make a statement in relation to the incident.
4. In CCTV footage viewed by Constable Chadwick, there was no footage of Ms Lee or any other person in the area at the time the incident was said to have occurred.
5. In her evidence to the Tribunal, Mr Chen denied having had an argument with his wife on 15 February 2014.
6. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Lee said that she had called an ambulance on 15 February 2014 after someone had tried to grab her handbag while she was walking on the street. Following the assault, a woman had stopped to help her after a police car had passed her by without stopping. Ms Lee agreed that she hadn't wished to make a statement in relation to the incident. She denied that this was because she had actually been assaulted by her husband and that didn't want to make trouble for him.
7. In explanation for her reluctance to make a police statement in this matter, Ms Lee referred to a car accident she had witnessed in November or December 2013 between a car containing three 'Muslim people' and a council van. The man in the council van asked Ms Lee to be a witness for the accident. When the three 'Muslim people' asked Ms Lee for her address and phone number, Ms Lee became scared and, on the advice of the man in the council van, drove around to avoid the people following her. When she saw that they were, in fact, following her, she became scared and drove to Campsie Police Station. She told the Tribunal that when she was at the police station, her request for a police report number was denied.
8. In a statement prepared for these proceedings, Mr Steve Snook confirmed that he had been involved in a minor motor vehicle accident with another car on 6 December 2013 and that he had exchanged details with the driver of the car and also with Ms Lee, who was a witness to the accident. He could not recall anything unusual or threatening about the behaviour of the driver or passengers of the other car towards himself or towards any other people.
9. Mr Snook stated that:

• he did not tell Ms Lee to drive around to avoid the passengers of the other vehicle and did not tell her not to go home directly;
• he did not see the driver of passengers of the other vehicle talk to Ms Lee or go near her;
• he did not see the driver of the other vehicle or the passengers of that vehicle behave in any manner to scare or threaten Ms Lee.

1. In a statement dated 15 January 2015, Acting Inspector Andrew John James stated that following a search of police records, he was unable to find a record of Ms Casidhe Jessamine Lee:

• being reported as a witness to a car accident;
• reporting to Campsie Police that she was fearful of Muslims; or
• being spoken to about the alleged incident.

1. He acknowledged that Mr Steven Snook had reported the accident to the Police Assistance Line.
2. In a statement dated 11 March 2105, Sergeant Lukas Sywenkyj of Campsie Police Station confirmed that there are no records of Ms Lee being reported as a witness to an accident in November or December 2013 or attending Campsie Police Station on 6 December 2013.

Mr Mattson

1. Mr Mattson submitted that there is reasonable cause to believe that Mr Chen may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his domestic circumstances. He also submitted that it would not be in the public interest for Mr Chen to have a firearms licence. In support of these submissions, Mr Mattson referred to Mr Chen's history of domestic disputation with his wife, namely that:

• within three months of Mr Chen obtaining a firearms licence, Ms Lee reported to police that she had been punched by him. According to Mr Mattson, Ms Lee has provided no satisfactory explanation as to why her signed statement to police that her husband punched her on 29 July 2013 should be disregarded. It is Mr Mattson's submission that the evidence of Constable Prain should be preferred to that of Ms Lee and Mr Chen. This is because Constable Prain was unshaken in her evidence in relation to the notebook entry signed by Ms Lee and confident that Ms Lee had told her on a number of occasions that she had been assaulted by Mr Chen;
• less than three months later, it appeared that Ms Lee made a call to Lifeline that 'she had been assaulted by her husband.' According to Mr Mattson, the Tribunal would be entitled to find that it was possible, in light of the other evidence before it, that Ms Lee made this call to Lifeline;
• a further two months later, Ms Lee apparently reported to a member of the public that she had again been punched by her husband. Police attended the couple's residence and found Mr Chen's explanations problematic. Information gathered in response to the explanations given by Mr Chen was consistent with a domestic disturbance having occurred. According to Mr Mattson, Mr Chen's explanation for the absence of his wife from their residence was unconvincing, as was his evidence as to why he left to find his wife carrying shoes and clothing for her;
• another two months later, Ms Lee reported an assault on her on a public street but would not assist in police enquiries about that assault. The recollection given by Ms Lee to police was not supported by independent evidence. The report of how the assault occurred was unusual. It is Mr Mattson's submission that the Tribunal should accept Constable Chadwick's evidence in relation to this incident and that the Tribunal should give weight to the fact that CCTV footage did not show Ms Lee present in the area as claimed. The Tribunal should not accept Ms Lee's reasons for not providing a statement in relation to the alleged attack.

1. In light of the conflicting evidence contained in the statement by Mr Snook, Mr Mattson submitted that the Tribunal should not accept Ms Lee's evidence that she was reluctant to give a police statement because of the earlier refusal by officers at Campsie Police Station to take a report on 6 December 2013. According to Mr Mattson, Ms Lee provided no basis to conclude that she could lose faith in police such that she would not assist them in relation to a subsequent assault on her two or three months later.
2. According to Mr Mattson: Ms Lee claims, without foundation, that the police officers have acted improperly or targeted her husband. Ms Lee's responses cause uncomfortableness rather than clarify any alleged misunderstanding.
3. It is Mr Mattson's submission that the couple's claim of poor English comprehension can 'only take the matter so far' and that Ms Lee and Mr Chen have a sufficient level of understanding of English to understand the matters before them.
4. It is Mr Mattson's submission that the Tribunal cannot be confident that there is virtually no risk in the applicant having a firearms licence. This is because there have been four separate reports involving Ms Lee and Mr Chen (or potentially involving them) in a domestic situation between July 2013 and February 2014, coupled with unsatisfactory explanations given by Ms Lee in recanting any complaints she made of being assaulted by Mr Chen. For these reasons, it is Mr Mattson's view that the Tribunal has reasonable cause to believe that Mr Chen may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his domestic circumstances, and that it is not presently in the public interest for Mr Chen to have a firearms licence.

Applicant's submissions

1. The Tribunal allowed Ms Lee to present submissions on behalf of her husband. In her submissions, Ms Lee conceded that in the early months of their marriage, she and Mr Chen had argued. This was because they were not happy where they were living. Since 2014 they have moved and are now much happier.
2. In considering the evidence before it, Ms Lee asked the Tribunal to take into account the fact that she and her husband have significant limitations in English. This, together with the feeling of obligation she had, explains why she signed the entry in Constable Prain's notebook despite not understanding what it said.
3. It is her submission that the photographs taken in the hospital display not a redness to her cheek but rather a redness to her eyes, consistent with her evidence that they had become red because of her excessive rubbing. She submitted that she had later tried to retract her statement but was unable to find Constable Prain to do so.
4. Ms Lee submitted that the Tribunal should disregard the evidence put forward in relation to her alleged call to Lifeline on 10 October 2013 on the basis that, despite repeated requests for it, no documents had been produced by Lifeline in relation to any calls made by her.
5. Ms Lee maintained that she was punched in the stomach in Girraween and is unable to understand why the CCTV footage for the area would not have captured the assault. It is her suspicion that the police did not thoroughly check the relevant footage.
6. Ms Lee denied that had been dishevelled when she saw her strata manager on 13 December 2013. She submitted that the Tribunal should not accept the evidence of Senior Constable Egan in relation to the 13 December 2013 incident. This is both because Senior Constable Egan had denied meeting Ms Lee on a previous occasion and because he had told her that he didn't like her husband and wanted to send him to gaol.
7. She submitted that the Tribunal should be wary of accepting the evidence of Ms Diana Chen because she and her husband had had a disagreement about parking spots and she disliked him because of this. Ms Lee confirmed that Ms Chen had given her a lift to the shops on 13 December 2013 but submitted that Ms Diana Chen is 'more concerned about giving trouble to my husband so we can move out rather than about my untidy clothes.'
8. She submitted that the evidence shows that her husband does not pose a risk to public safety and that he has not shown a propensity for violence towards her.
9. In his own submissions to the Tribunal, Mr Chen maintained that he had not hurt his wife on 29 July 2013. He agreed that there had been some physical contact between them but denied having punched her. Had he done so, he insisted he would have admitted to it.
10. He submitted that when he came to the house on 13 December 2013, Senior Constable Egan asked him where his wife was. When Mr Chen replied that he didn't know, Senior Constable Egan told him that someone had seen her 'going out in a dishevelled manner.' This, he told Tribunal, explained why he took clothes and shoes for her when he went out to find her.
11. Mr Chen told the Tribunal that his life with his wife has been very peaceful since they moved into their new accommodation in 2014.

CONSIDERATION

1. In examining this matter, I will consider in turn each of the four incidents of concern to the NSW Commissioner of Police.

29 July 2013 event

1. It is not disputed that Ms Lee phoned for an ambulance on 29 July 2013 after an argument with her husband and that she was distressed and had been crying when police attended the couple's residence that day.
2. What is in dispute is what had earlier occurred between Mr Chen and Ms Lee. According to Mr Chen, he grabbed his wife by the shoulder and shook her. In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Lee agreed that he had 'held her by the shoulders to try to talk to her.'
3. According to the entry in Constable Prain's notebook, signed by Ms Lee, Mr Chen had threatened Ms Lee before punching her in the face. Before being punched, Ms Lee had taken off her glasses to 'avoid more hurt if he beat me.' According to the oral evidence of Constable Prain, Ms Lee had redness to her cheek when she and Senior Constable Woods arrived at the house and was visibly distressed.
4. In a subsequent statement, Ms Lee denied that Mr Chen had punched or beat her and said that, due to her limited English, she had been unaware of the differences between the words 'touch' and 'hit'. In this later statement and before the Tribunal, Ms Lee gave evidence that she often called the ambulance for minor health issues including when she had a cold.
5. According to the entry in Constable Prain's entry, Ms Lee had removed her glasses because he was scared her husband would hit her. In her later statement, Ms Lee said that she had removed her glasses so she wouldn't have to see her husband. By contrast, in his oral evidence, her husband said that she had removed her glasses because they were play-acting a scene from the movie Mr & Mrs Smith.
6. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that on 29 July 2013, there was an argument between Mr Chen and Ms Lee that involved some physical force by Mr Chen. I accept that due to her limited English, Ms Lee may have had problems expressing herself to the attending police officers. On this basis, I am prepared to accept Ms Lee's evidence that she did not use the word 'punch' when describing to the police officers what had occurred. I am satisfied on the evidence, however, that at the very least, Mr Chen grabbed his wife by the shoulders and shook her and that she was fearful enough of violence from him to have removed her glasses. In light of the inconsistencies between the notebook entry, Ms Lee's subsequent written statement, her oral evidence to the Tribunal and that provided to the Tribunal by Mr Chen, I am not satisfied that Ms Lee removed her glasses so she would not have to see Mr Chen or, alternatively, because she and her husband were play acting. Ms Lee's accepted distress upon the arrival of the police does not accord with play-acting and her evidence that she removed the glasses so as not to see Mr Chen was unconvincing. On the evidence before me, I am instead satisfied that Ms Lee removed her glasses because she feared violence from Mr Chen.
7. I am also satisfied that the reason Ms Lee called for an ambulance was because Mr Chen had exerted some physical force towards her. Ms Lee's evidence that it is her habit to call 000 for minor ailments, including a cold, was unconvincing.

10 October 2013

1. According to the COPS event sheet generated in relation to the incident, on 10 October 2013, a call was made to Lifeline from Ms Lee's mobile number stating that she had been assaulted by her husband. Despite requests by Ms Lee, no documents were produced by Lifeline to confirm this information. Ms Lee denied making the call in question.
2. In light of Ms Lee's denial that she had made the call and the failure by Lifeline to provide documentation confirming the call, I am not reasonably satisfied that Ms Lee called Lifeline on 10 October 2013 claiming to have been assaulted by her husband.

13 December 2013

1. It is the respondent's submission that on this day, Ms Lee told a neighbour, Ms Diana Chen, that she had been punched by her husband. Although Ms Diana Chen provided a statement to this effect, she was not made available to give evidence before the Tribunal.
2. Before the Tribunal, Ms Lee denied telling Ms Diana Chen that her husband had punched her. Instead, she offered a reason as to why Ms Diana Chen may have provided such a statement: that Ms Diana Chen disliked Mr Chen because of a parking dispute they had had, and wanted the couple to move out. Because Ms Diana Chen was not made available to give evidence to the Tribunal, her evidence could not be tested. On this basis, I have given little weight to the contents of the statement of Ms Diana Chen.
3. Of concern, however, is the contradictory evidence provided by Mr Chen in relation to this incident. His evidence to Senior Constable Egan that his wife was out shopping despite her handbag, car keys and wallet still being in the unit was less consistent with her being out shopping and more consistent with her having left the apartment in a hurry. Mr Chen's behaviour, following the departure of the police officers, in leaving the apartment carrying shoes and a dress is also less consistent with his wife being out shopping and more consistent with her having left the unit dishevelled and in a hurry.
4. Mr Chen's evidence that the police had told him that his wife was 'untidy' or 'undressed' was unconvincing, particularly as this information had come from Ms Diana Chen, who, on the evidence before me, had spoken to the police officers only after they had left Mr Chen's residence and not beforehand.
5. When added to the evidence that a call had been made to police by a neighbour because there had been 'screaming, yelling and door slamming' coming from the couple's residence, I am reasonably satisfied that there had been an argument between Ms Lee and Mr Chen on 10 October 2013 that had resulted in Ms Lee leaving the apartment in a hurry.
6. The production of a receipt by Ms Lee showing the purchase of meat at 1157am on either 3 December 2013 or 13 December 2013 does not satisfy me otherwise. Accepting Ms Lee's evidence that the receipt was for meat she purchased on 13 December 2013, the timing of the purchase does not prove that Ms Lee was not at home by 1.30pm when the complaint was made to the police. There is no evidence to persuade me, as Ms Lee has submitted, that the disturbance that had precipitated the call to police was simply noise from a movie.

15 February 2014 event

1. Despite enquiries made by officers of the NSW Police Force, there is no CCTV evidence to support Ms Lee's evidence that she had been punched in the stomach while walking in Girraween on 15 February 2014.
2. This leads me to question Ms Lee's evidence, as do the inconsistencies between her evidence to Constable Chadwick that the attacker had not tried to take anything from her and her oral evidence before the Tribunal when she claimed that the attacker had tried to grab her handbag.
3. Given that there is no record of her having attended Campsie Police station in November or December 2013 either by way of CCTV footage or police report, I give little weight to Ms Lee's submission that she had been unwilling to make a statement in relation to the 15 February 2014 matter because of the previous unwillingness by police to assist her when she had been followed by Muslim people in November or December 2013.
4. On the evidence before me, I am not reasonably satisfied, however, that Ms Lee had called the police on 15 February 2014 because of Mr Chen's behaviour towards her.

CONCLUSION

1. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that on 29 July 2013, there was an argument between Ms Chen and Mr Lee that involved Mr Chen grabbing Ms Lee by the shoulders and shaking her such that:

• she felt threatened enough to remove her glasses for fear he would hit her; and
• she rang the ambulance for assistance.

1. I am also reasonably satisfied that on 13 December 2013 there was an argument between Mr Chen and Ms Lee that caused:

• a phone call to be made to police in relation to the noise coming from the apartment; and
• Ms Lee to leave the apartment in a hurry, leaving behind her handbag, keys and wallets.

1. On the basis of these two events, I find that in both 2013 and 2014 there have been domestic disturbances in Mr Chen's household such as to prompt:

• a phone call to the ambulance service by Ms Lee in relation to suspected injuries sustained by her during an argument with her husband on 29 July 2013; and
• a phone call to police from a neighbour in relation to a disturbance coming from the apartment.

1. On this basis, I find that there is a history of domestic disputation between Mr Chen and Ms Lee involving physical force to Ms Lee by Mr Chen, such that I have reasonable cause to believe that Mr Chen may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over his firearms because of his domestic circumstances.
2. In reaching this decision, I have considered all the evidence before me. I have also taken into consideration the principles of the Firearms Act which clearly state that that possession and use of a firearm is a privilege and that the primary objective is public safety, which can be improved by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms and promoting the safe and responsible use of them.
3. In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful of the observation made in Fielden & Fielden v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2000] NSWADT 156 that firearms regulation is strict for obvious reasons including that firearms are often involved in domestic disputes and routinely cause death and disfigurement.
4. On this basis, I am satisfied that the decision of the Commissioner of Police to revoke Mr Chen's firearms licence is the correct and preferable decision.
5. In so finding, I note that the internal reviewer accepted that if a very lengthy period of time were to pass with no further reported incidents between Mr Chen and Ms Lee, or any other incident which could cause concern regarding access to firearms, it may be possible to reach a different conclusion regarding his potential risk with firearms.
6. On the evidence presently before me, however, and for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the decision of the Commissioner of Police to revoke Mr Chen's firearms licence is the correct and preferable decision. On this basis, the decision under review is affirmed.
7. Having made this finding, it is not necessary to determine whether the Commissioner is correct in submitting that it is not in the public interest for Mr Chen to continue to hold a firearm licence.

ORDER

1. The decision under review is affirmed. I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 11 August 2015