• The Tribunal finds that the Registrar's request for a psychiatric report was proper and lawful under s 53 of the Act and that the applicant did not make every effort to obtain one. Moreover, the historical psychologist report did not support the conclusion that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
• The Tribunal finds that the circumstances that led to the cancellation of the applicant's firearms license were still relevant to the Registrar and raised concerns around self-harm with firearms, unlawful use of firearms, and incorrect storage of firearms, as well as issues with alcohol and assault.
• The Tribunal finds that the decision to refuse to grant a firearms licence to the applicant on the ground that he is not a fit and proper person is both the correct and preferable decision given the objects of the Act, confirming that firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.

Administrative Review - Firearms Act 2015 - Review of a decision of the Registrar of Firearms to refuse an application for a license, permit or registration - Lack of fitness and propriety

Firearms Act 2015 ss 3, 7, 15, 20, 53

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37

GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68

Re RBY [2021] SACAT 39

Mr N Crouch, Wallmans Lawyers, appeared in person for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a).

1. This is the determination of an application made by the applicant, CKT, on 31 July 2025, under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act), for review of a decision of the Registrar of Firearms (the Registrar) made on 21 July 2025.
2. The Registrar's decision was to refuse CKT's application for a firearms licence. CKT had previously held a firearms licence, but this was suspended in September 2018, and later (22 February 2019), following a guilty plea entered in respect of a prescribed offence, was cancelled pursuant to s 20(7) of the Firearms Act 2015 (the Act), and he was prohibited from holding a firearms licence for a period of five years, pursuant to s 20(7) of the Act.
3. The applicant applied for a firearms licence on 9 July 2024. On 3 February 2025, pursuant to s 53(1) of the Act, the Registrar required him to provide a report from a registered psychiatrist, and three character references. On 1 May 2025, the applicant provided the Registrar with three character references, and a GP management plan, as well as additional submissions.
4. The Registrar's decision to refuse the applicant's application was made pursuant to s 15(1) of the Act, on the ground that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, having reference to matters identified in s 7 of the Act, which provides a framework to which the Registrar may or must have regard in considering the fitness and propriety of a person for the purposes of the Act.

1. The Act establishes a comprehensive regulatory scheme by which the possession, use, acquisition, supply and manufacture of firearms is strictly controlled. In particular, the Act sets out as its fundamental premise in s 3(1) that firearms possession is a strictly controlled privilege, not a right, and the overriding purpose of the regulatory system is to ensure public safety (see s 3(1)(a) of the Act).
2. Section 15 of the Act sets out the grounds on which the Registrar may refuse an application for a licence, and under s 15(1)(b), the Registrar may refuse a licence if satisfied that "the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence".
3. The assessment of whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence is informed by s 7 of the Act. Section 7(1) and (2) set out a range of non-exhaustive circumstances in which a person is deemed not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act. Section 7(3) sets out a range of circumstances in which a person "may be taken not to be a fit and proper person" for the purposes of the Act; and s 7(4) of the Act sets out certain mandatory considerations for the making of this assessment, including "any risks" that might be associated with the person having or using a firearm.
4. The concepts of fitness and propriety are necessarily informed by the underlying principles and objects of the Act, as set out in s 3.
5. Section 7 of the Act outlines the considerations relevant to fitness and propriety within the meaning of the Act, with s 7(2) setting out circumstances in which a person is deemed not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act:

A person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit or proper person for a purpose under this Act.

6. Section 7(4)(b) sets out some of the mandatory considerations to be considered in assessing if a person is fit and proper to hold a firearms licence, and directs as follows:

(4) In deciding of a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act - > > (b) regard must be had to -

(i) any risk of the person using a firearm for an unlawful purpose; or

(ii) any risk of the person using a firearm to harm himself or herself; or

(iii) any risk that the person will cause injury or harm to another by the use or threatened use of a firearm; or

(iv) any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm, and, in that connection, regard may be had to the person's past behaviour, instability, intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances.

(3) A person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of this Act if the person -

(a) ...

(g) has failed to comply with a requirement made under section 53.

1. Among the Registrar's powers under the Act in respect of the purpose of determining whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act (including to hold a firearms licence), is that in s 53(1), to require a person to:

(a) submit to an examination by a health professional, or by a health professional of a class, specified by the Registrar; or

(b) provide a medical report from a health professional, or from a health professional of a class, specified by the Registrar,

(including an examination or report that will require the person to submit to a blood test or some other prescribed procedure).

1. On 17 September 2018 police and ambulance officers were called to the applicant's property after a report of a mental health incident. A report had been made that the applicant, while under the influence of alcohol, had assaulted his wife, attempted to access his firearms for the purpose of harming himself, and had subsequently attempted self-harm (not with a firearm). At that time the applicant's firearms (for which he had a licence) were found to be unsecured, and were seized. The applicant was detained under the Mental Health Act and was taken to hospital.
2. On 18 September 2018 the applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and firearms offences arising out of the 17 September incident. The charges of aggravated assault were later withdrawn.
3. On 19 September 2018 the applicant's firearms licence was suspended, and the Registrar required him to provide a report from a health professional in relation to his health. In response to this request, the applicant provided a report from Mr Greg Ireland, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, dated 25 January 2019, to the Registrar.
4. On 13 February 2019 the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of contravening a provision of the Code of Practice (a prescribed offence) relating to the storage of firearms. On 22 February 2019 the applicant's firearms licence was cancelled pursuant to s 20(7) of the Act, as a result of the findings of guilt in respect of these offences.

1. The applicant provided a number of written submissions, as well as oral submissions and evidence at the hearing of this matter.
2. The applicant told the Tribunal he believed the matter had not been properly considered by the Registrar, and so should not be affirmed as correct. He pointed the Tribunal to a number of examples where incorrect date references were provided in the material and notices from the Registrar, including the date of his application, and the categories of firearms for which he had applied for a licence. He submitted these errors indicated that the application had either not been properly considered by the Registrar, or had been confused with some other application.
3. The applicant agreed he had been directed by the Registrar to provide a report from a registered psychiatrist. He referred to the powers of the Registrar set out in s 53 of the Act, and submitted these powers enable the Registrar only to require a report to be provided by "a health professional".
4. The applicant submitted that this did not empower the Registrar to require a report from a registered psychiatrist, as in his submission a psychiatrist does not come within this category. He referred to s 53(2) of the Act as defining "health professional" as a "medical practitioner", a psychologist, or a person of a class prescribed by the regulations. He told the Tribunal that "nurse" has been prescribed by regulation to come within this term, but not a psychiatrist. The applicant told the Tribunal he had provided a report from a psychologist, dated 25 January 2019, but the Registrar had no power to direct him to provide a report from a psychiatrist.
5. The applicant also submitted that the Registrar had not properly taken the report of the psychologist into account. He submitted that the psychologist's report concluded that he had no chronic suicidal ideation, and he was "as safe as any other member of the community to possess and use firearms". Despite this report, the Registrar continued to express the view that the applicant was unsafe and had mental health issues.
6. The applicant told the Tribunal he had pleaded guilty to the charges relating to his incorrect storage of firearms, as he recognised this was the case. However, he denied he had tried to access his firearms to self-harm. He said this assertion was based on an incorrect report made by a police officer who had not witnessed the event, and on a 30 minute conversation with a doctor, at the hospital, where the doctor had also relied on an incorrect account of the events.
7. The applicant told the Tribunal these events had occurred 7 ½ years ago. He had been convicted and his licence had been cancelled for five years. He felt he was being punished again for events in the past which had not repeated. He submitted that the events of September 2018 were now substantially irrelevant. He told the Tribunal he had not tried to access his firearms, one of which had been left out accidentally following earlier use, and he had recognised this was an offence. He denied seeking to access his firearms to cause harm to himself or others, or threatening to do so, and said his actions and expressions used at the time had been misunderstood and exaggerated.
8. The applicant also told the Tribunal he had made concerted efforts to consult with a registered psychiatrist and obtain the required psychiatric report. However, he had found it impossible to obtain an appointment with a psychiatrist. In the first place, his GP had told him he did not need to consult with a psychiatrist and so had declined to provide a referral, which was required for a consultation. The applicant had also made direct contact with some psychiatrists but had found that none had appointments available for months or years, or did not provide forensic assessments, but only consulted for therapeutic purposes. He provided a list of the psychiatric or psychological practices he had contacted, all of which were either unsuitable or unavailable. The applicant referred to his GP Management Plan which had not identified any mental health issues, but did detail some of the matters identified by the Registrar for inquiry. He had provided this to the Registrar.
9. The applicant concluded that the Registrar's decision had been made on the single ground of his failure to provide a psychiatric report, which was not within the Registrar's power to require. The Registrar stated the report was required to address his "alcohol use and anger management issues", which had not been previously identified as matters of concern. He submitted that taking these matters into account, the decision should be set aside as neither correct nor preferable.

1. Mr Crouch told the Tribunal it appeared that the applicant did not disagree with the broad outline of the events of 17 September 2018, although he disagreed with some of the details and the interpretation of the events.
2. However, the applicant agreed in questioning from Mr Crouch that the seizure of the firearms arose from those events, and that he had told his cousin (who lived in a cottage on the applicant's property) that he wanted to shoot himself. He said he had not meant this seriously or literally, and he was not able to access his firearms at that time, but he did agree he had said this to his cousin at the time of the incident. The applicant also agreed his firearms were unsecured in the premises where his cousin lived, in that two firearms were in a safe, which was itself not properly secured, and another firearm was out of the cabinet, and loaded. He agreed an unsecured firearm could be a risk to the community. He also agreed he had been drinking on that evening, and that he had hit his wife, which she had reported to the police, although he could not remember doing so. He was charged in relation to this assault, but the charge was later withdrawn. The applicant also agreed he had cut his wrists with a knife that evening, and following this his wife had called an ambulance.
3. Mr Crouch told the Tribunal that a psychiatrist in Australia is a medical practitioner with medical qualifications, unlike a psychologist, who is generally not medically qualified. He tendered a screen print out from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists' website, which states that "psychiatrists are specialist medical doctors who are experts in mental health". Mr Crouch submitted to the Tribunal that psychiatrists are therefore within the definition of "health professionals" referred to in s 53 of the Act, and therefore the Registrar was acting within the power set out in s 53 in requiring a report from a registered psychiatrist.
4. Mr Crouch also made submissions on the Psychological Report from Mr Ireland. He noted that Mr Ireland referred to issues of drinking alcohol and violence, and that the incident of 17 September 2018 appeared not to be the only episode of domestic violence involving the applicant. The applicant disagreed with these assessments: he told the Tribunal under questioning from Mr Crouch that he disagreed with the psychologist's conclusions, and that he did not consider he had any problem with alcohol, and that he had never threatened anyone, or held or displayed any anger toward his wife. The applicant told the Tribunal the opinion expressed by Mr Ireland was an exaggeration of his circumstances: he said he had no "long history of incidents" of violence as stated by Mr Ireland, although he conceded there had been arguments with his wife, but he said these were not aggressive arguments, or "incidents of violence".
5. Mr Crouch referred to the conclusions drawn by Mr Ireland in respect of the applicant's alcohol use. Mr Ireland concludes that "under the influence of a high level of alcohol intake", the applicant "becomes emotional, misinterprets comments and clearly does not think rationally", and his judgement "is disordered". Mr Ireland concluded that "if this situation were to continue then there would be real ongoing doubt as to his capacity to safely possess and use firearms". Mr Ireland reported that the applicant had stopped drinking alcohol to excess, and believed if this was maintained "he will be as safe as any other member of the community to possess firearms".
6. The applicant agreed that while his alcohol intake fluctuates, he presently drinks 4-5 glasses of alcohol a day. Mr Crouch submitted that while this might not represent excessive alcohol intake, in the light of the report of the psychologist this legitimately represented a concern to the Registrar. Mr Crouch submitted this was similar to the alcohol consumption reported prior to the September 2018 incident, and appears contrary to his GP's advice set out in the GP Management Plan.
7. Mr Crouch submitted that the absence of an updated report as required by the Registrar, was significant. Mr Ireland's report is dated January 2019. Without the required psychiatric report there is no current information by way of an expert report or assessment to demonstrate the applicant's fitness and propriety.
8. Mr Crouch submitted that there were several features demonstrating the applicant's lack of fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence.
9. The circumstances of the September 2018 incident were concerning in that the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol; he had assaulted his wife; he had indicated he wanted to access his firearms to self-harm; and when he was prevented from accessing his firearms, he did self-harm with a knife.
10. The January 2019 psychologist's report indicates that the applicant had a long history of alcohol use, leading to "recurring interpersonal domestic issues with his wife to the extent of occasional violence".
11. Mr Crouch submitted that this history indicated that it was reasonable for the Registrar to exercise the powers set out in s 53 of the Act to require the applicant to provide an updated report from a registered psychiatrist. He had not complied with this direction. Mr Crouch noted that the applicant had reported that it was difficult to obtain an appointment to get the required report, but it appeared from his evidence that if he had waited some months a report could have been obtained. Mr Crouch submitted that the applicant had taken the view that he could not be required to obtain a psychiatric report, and so had not done so.
12. Mr Crouch further submitted that the evidence before the Tribunal, including the applicant's submissions and the evidence given in cross examination at the hearing, demonstrated a lack of insight by the applicant, in minimising the September 2018 incident and his history of domestic violence, and externalisation of blame for the incident, as well as minimising the issues relating to the firearms charges. Mr Crouch submitted that the applicant's current alcohol use is of significance, as Mr Ireland has premised his opinion of the applicant's fitness and propriety on his cessation or significant curtailment of his alcohol use. The applicant's own account of his alcohol use raises concerns about his ability to abstain from alcohol, his mental health, his ability to comply with directions, and the potential for further instances of domestic violence.
13. Mr Crouch also referred to the character references provided by the applicant. He submitted little weight should be given to these statements, as there was no indication that the writers were aware of the applicant's firearms offences: they all indicate that in the writers' views, he was law abiding and always handled firearms safely and appropriately. Nor did it appear the referees were aware of the assault on the applicant's wife. Mr Crouch submitted these should be accorded little weight.

1. Section 34 of the SACAT Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with a matter that ... involves a review of a decision. An application to review a decision comes within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, and the Tribunal is required to examine the decision under review by way of a re-hearing (see s 34(3) of the SACAT Act), and must reach the correct or preferable decision, having regard to and giving appropriate weight to the decision of the original decision-maker (see s 34(4) of the SACAT Act). The Tribunal in conducting a review of a decision and exercising those powers is taken to be standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker, but may also have reference to additional relevant evidence, as the review is by way of a rehearing. The Tribunal "may make any order the Tribunal considers appropriate" (see s 37(1) of the SACAT Act), and the Tribunal's decision on review is to be regarded as and given the same effect as a decision of the original decision-maker (see s 37(3) of the SACAT Act).
2. I have before me the material taken into account by the Registrar in making the decision to refuse the applicant's application for a firearms licence, and Mr Crouch's written and oral submissions in support of the decision. In addition, I have the applicant's evidence and several written submissions as well as his oral submissions, his GP Management Plan of 19 November 2024, and the three character witnesses he provided in support of his application, which were before the Registrar when he made the original decision. I also have the Forensic Psychological Report concerning the applicant, dated 25 January 2019, prepared by Mr Greg Ireland, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist. I take all this material into account.
3. The purpose of the Act is to regulate the use of certain types of firearms, essentially through a licensing system, for the overarching purpose of protecting and assuring public safety, with the Act emphasising that possession and use of firearms is a privilege, not a right. These purposes must govern the interpretation, application and administration of the Act, including the granting of firearms licences under the Act.
4. Section 15(1)(b) of the Act provides that the Registrar may only refuse an application for a firearms licence if satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. Section 7 of the Act deals with who is not, and who may be taken to not be, a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act.
5. The determination of the Registrar in refusing the applicant's application for a firearms licence was based on the conclusion that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. In particular, in making the decision the Registrar referred to s 7(3) of the Act, which identifies that a person may not be fit and proper if they fail to comply with a requirement made under s 53. In addition, I note s 7(2) also identifies that a person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit or proper person for a purpose under this Act.
6. Section 7(4) of the Act provides that in making this assessment "regard must be had" to "any risk" of the person using a firearm for unlawful purposes, to harm him or herself, or cause injury or harm to others, or fail to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm. Section 7(7) of the Act provides that the specific matters referred to in s 7 do not limit the grounds on which a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act.

1. The applicant told the Tribunal he requires a firearms licence for the control of pests at his rural property. He explained that one of his firearms had been left out of his firearms safe, and loaded, after he had been shooting rabbits on the day of the September 2018 incident. He conceded (and pleaded guilty to the charge) that the firearms safe had not been dynabolted to the floor as required.
2. The applicant did not disagree with the broad account of the events of the September 2018 incident, although he disagreed with some interpretations placed on the events. He did not agree he had any "chronic suicidal ideation", as reported by the doctor who spoke with him at the hospital and as reported by the police; and he told the Tribunal that he had not really intended to harm himself, and had threatened no one, but was acting out of frustration at the time. He believed that the circumstances would have resolved by the morning if there had been no interventions.
3. However, there were interventions by those present, who were sufficiently concerned to call the police and ambulance services to address the circumstances that had arisen.
4. The concerns of all those involved, including the applicant's wife, his relative, the police and the medical staff, related to his alcohol use and its impact on him; his assault on his wife; his comment to his cousin that he wanted the (unsecured) firearm to kill himself; and his actual attempt at self-harm with a knife.
5. These are all highly concerning issues in the context of the Act, even in the absence of any "chronic suicidal ideation", and are explicitly referred to as of high relevance in s 7(2) and (4) of the Act.
6. The cancellation of the applicant's firearms licence, which is not before the Tribunal, was a consequence of his conviction related to the firearms charges relating to his breaches of the Code of Practice. This period of cancellation is now over. The applicant submitted that the charge in relation to his wife had not been proceeded with, and these events were, therefore, of no further relevance, and that they should not be taken into account.
7. However, while I accept the applicant's comments concerning these aspects of the September 2018 incident, I do not accept his conclusion that those events are no longer of relevance.
8. The circumstances of the September 2018 incident remain relevant in terms of the application of ss 7 and 15 of the Act. Section 7 is concerned with the assessment of fitness and propriety; and s 15 is concerned with the granting of firearms licences. In considering whether to grant a firearms licence, the Registrar is required to have regard to the factors set out in s 7(4)(b) of the Act, which refers to

(i) any risk of the person using a firearm for an unlawful purpose; or > > (ii) any risk of the person using a firearm to harm himself or herself; or

(iii) any risk that the person will cause injury or harm to another by the use or threatened use of a firearm; or

(iv) any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm, and, in that connection, regard may be had to the person's past behaviour, instability, intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances.

1. All of the factors referred to in s 7(4)(b) of the Act are applicable in this matter, and all arise from the circumstances of the September 2018 incident. I accept that the applicant did not touch his firearms in that incident, but he did tell his cousin he wanted them to cause harm to himself (he says, hyperbolically), and he did go on to self-harm on that occasion, albeit with a knife.
2. The Registrar must be satisfied that an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, noting the context of the legislative regime focusses on the risk that results from firearms misuse, and that ownership and use of firearms is a privilege, not a right (see s 3(1)(a) of the Act).

1. I am satisfied that the Registrar's requirement that the applicant provide a report from a registered psychiatrist, pursuant to s 53(1) of the Act, was a legitimate request.
2. I do not accept the applicant's submission that a psychiatrist is not included in the definition of "health professional" in s 53(2), as a medical practitioner: a psychiatrist is a specialist medical practitioner. Psychiatrists and psychologists have different training and qualifications, reflected in, among other things, their authority in respect of the prescribing of drugs, and approaches to treatment and diagnoses. As a result, psychiatrists are able to diagnose and treat mental illnesses in different ways than available to psychologists. The applicant expressed scepticism concerning the specification of a psychiatric rather than a psychological report, but this is a choice available to the Registrar pursuant to s 53 of the Act.
3. The applicant did provide a psychologist's report in 2019 when required to do so by the Registrar. That request referred to a psychological report, not a report from a psychiatrist. The applicant submitted this report had been disregarded by the Registrar. However, I do not accept this was the case.
4. I am satisfied it was reasonable in February 2025 when considering the applicant's application for a firearms licence, for the Registrar to require a report from a health professional for the purpose of determining if he was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. There was already significant information before the Registrar arising out of the September 2018 incident (both in respect of the applicant's personal conduct, including alcohol use, domestic violence, and threats of self-harm; and the firearms charges), for the Registrar to consider there were a number of serious issues. The only evidence before the Registrar at the time of considering the applicant's application was the 2019 report addressing his behaviour and intentions at that time. Clearly that needed to be updated for the Registrar to be satisfied that the concerning issues had been addressed or overcome, as the 2019 report suggested they might be. To this extent it is clear the report from Mr Ireland was taken into account.
5. However, the applicant did not provide any updated report, or any report at all as required by the Registrar. He failed to comply with the Registrar's requirement made under s 53 of the Act, and under those circumstances he may be taken not to be a fit and proper person.
6. Failure to comply with a s 53 requirement does not necessarily mean the applicant is not a fit and proper person. However, it is a significant consideration. The applicant has disregarded the Registrar's requirement, a significant consideration, although it may be that the main consequence of the failure to do so will be that the Registrar then lacks appropriate material concerning the applicant's fitness and propriety. Failure to comply may well be seen as inconsistent with the privilege of holding a firearms licence, especially as it may suggest a lack of insight concerning the significance of the requirement and the matters to be addressed in the report required.
7. This seems to be an issue in this matter. It was apparent to me that the applicant did not appreciate the significance of the assessment sought by the Registrar, or why an up to date assessment by a psychiatrist might be of significance in determining if a firearms licence would be issued: this lack of insight was apparent throughout the applicant's submissions, and led him to refer to "the Delegate's idiosyncratic preference for a psychiatrist", and that the requirement for an up to date psychiatric report "likely reflects his [the Delegate's] exposure to US preoccupations with Psychiatry, rather than awareness of, or familiarity with, the Firearms Act". I do not accept the applicant's assessment in this respect, and in my view, the comments reflect his lack of insight, rather than the Registrar's (or Delegate's) "preoccupations" or the requirements of the Act.
8. I accept the applicant did in fact seek a psychiatric appointment to obtain a report. He gave evidence that he had sought a referral from his GP, who apparently declined to make a referral, advising him it was unnecessary. He provided the Tribunal with a list of six practices or practitioners he had approached: one (it is not clear if this person is a psychiatrist or a psychologist) advised she was "too busy"; he obtained a referral to the second, but then realised the practitioner was a psychologist, not a psychiatrist; a Psychology practice indicated it did not do "assessments"; another practitioner, possibly a psychiatrist, had no booking available until November; another psychiatric practice advised it would not see him, advising he needed a forensic psychiatrist; and the last (unclear whether this was for a psychologist or a psychiatrist), was identified as "awaiting consideration of my request".
9. This list indicates that the applicant has sought an appointment to address the Registrar's requirement, but he has not been clear in seeking an appointment with a psychiatrist. I note however, that one practitioner, who appears to be a psychiatrist, had, earlier in the year, appointments available in November, but the applicant did not pursue this opportunity. He instead relied on the 2019 psychologist's report, along with a GP Management Plan which addresses a broad plan for future attention, but does not include any analysis or assessment of the issues which the Registrar indicated should be addressed for the purpose of assisting in his assessment as to the applicant's fitness and propriety for the purposes of being granted a firearms licence.
10. Insofar as the applicant considered the Registrar should and could rely on the 2019 psychologist report rather than requiring a recent psychiatric report, and that it supported his application by concluding that he was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, I do not agree with the applicant's submissions.
11. Mr Ireland's report is quite equivocal on this issue. While he makes it clear that in his view the applicant does not have a suicidal ideation, he identifies a number of other concerning issues and conduct relevant to questions of public safety. These include his use of alcohol, and its effect on him, including incidents of domestic violence and the disordering of his judgement while under the influence of alcohol. Mr Ireland regarded the applicant as an intelligent man who was capable of reducing and controlling his use of alcohol, and noted that he had done so in the preceding four months before the report was prepared. However, Mr Ireland considered that it would be valuable for the applicant's alcohol use to become a regular discussion point with his GP, and that he might also benefit from seeing a mental health professional on a regular basis for a period of time. It is not entirely clear if either of these suggestions have been taken up by the applicant, but there is no evidence they have been.
12. Mr Ireland's conclusion concerning "the manner in which any illness, disorder or condition (mental or otherwise) effects [the applicant's] behaviour, judgement and suitability to possess and use firearms", was qualified.
13. Mr Ireland considered that under the influence of alcohol the applicant "becomes emotional, misinterprets comments and clearly does not think rationally. His judgement at such times is disordered: if this situation were to continue then there would be real ongoing doubt as to his capacity to safely possess and use firearms". Mr Ireland also considers alternative circumstances: "to the extent to which he has stopped drinking alcohol to excess, which appears to be the current situation, and maintains this new adjustment over time, then there is confidence that he will be as safe as any other member of the community to possess and use firearms".
14. Mr Ireland's report is dated 25 January 2019. The Registrar in considering whether to grant the applicant's application for a firearms licence clearly needs to have information concerning his current circumstances. Mr Ireland's report, and the GP Management Plan, do not provide the updates and assessments reasonably required to enable the Registrar to make this assessment. The Registrar sought that information through the s 53 notice, but the applicant has not provided that information.
15. In my view the applicant's failure to provide the report required by the Registrar is not merely a matter of failing to comply with the letter of a bureaucratic request: it is a failure to provide the essential information which could inform the Registrar in making the decision sought by the applicant. The Registrar is required to consider issues of any risk that the applicant for a firearms licence using it for an unlawful purpose; to harm him or herself or another person, or any risk that the applicant will fail to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm. There was already information before the Registrar that these matters were real issues in respect of the applicant's behaviour in the past. In considering these matters, the Act suggests the Registrar may also have regard to the person's past behaviour, instability, intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances (see s 7(4)(b) of the Act). The applicant did not provide the Registrar with any updated information required by the Registrar for this assessment.

1. The applicant identified a number of inaccuracies in the various correspondence he received from the Registrar (or Delegate), which he submitted indicated that his application had not been properly considered. These inaccuracies included the incorrect record that his licence had been cancelled "for mental health reasons", when it was cancelled following him pleading guilty to three charges relating to firearms storage; the incorrect identification of the date of his application, which was received on 16 July 2024, not 4 November 2024; and a reference to his application being for Category H firearms "for purposes of club use", and Category A and B firearms for "target shooting and hunting", when his application was for Category A and B firearms for Primary Production purposes only.
2. I accept the applicant's assertions that these references are incorrect, and note they should be corrected in the Registrar's records.
3. However, I do not accept the broad conclusions the applicant drew from the existence of these errors. They may represent lack of care and attention to detail, but I do not accept they suggest the Registrar (or Delegate) confused his application with some other application, or failed to give it appropriate consideration.
4. In my view, these errors, though clearly irritating to the applicant and which should not have occurred, nevertheless are not material errors. Taking into account all the other material before the Registrar, and the manner in which it has been considered, I am satisfied the application was properly considered, and the relevant and correct material was taken into account in the assessment made by the Registrar.
5. In addition, I note that the nature of a review by this Tribunal is that it is a hearing de novo: that is, the Tribunal in reviewing the decision, stands in the shoes of the decision maker: see GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [140], and I have taken into account the correct details as advised by the applicant in conducting this review.
6. In addition, the nature of this merits review is generally accepted as curing any procedural defects which may have occurred in the original decision: see Re RBY [2021] SACAT 39. I am satisfied that the defects to which the applicant has referred are such as to be in the nature of procedural defects, as they do not represent substantive matters in the context of this decision.

1. In my view the decision of the Registrar to refuse to grant a firearms licence to the applicant is both a correct and preferable decision, and I will affirm the decision.
2. In reaching this conclusion I have noted that the applicant did not provide the Registrar with a report from a registered psychiatrist as required by the Registrar. I am satisfied this was a requirement consistent with the Registrar's powers in s 53 of the Act, and the consequence of a failure to provide this information was that the Registrar did not have before him, in making the decision, relevant up to date information to inform him concerning the matters he was required to consider in making his decision, in particular those considerations set out in s 7(4)(b) of the Act. While I accept the applicant faced some difficulty in getting an appointment to obtain the report required, I also note his resistance and misplaced objection to seeking a psychiatric report. The applicant failed to comply with the Registrar's requirement under s 53 of the Act, and this meant there was no recent expert evidence concerning his mental health and circumstances.
3. Mr Ireland's report of January 2019 does not in itself support the conclusion that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, as Mr Ireland's conclusion is predicated on his future use of alcohol. The applicant did not provide any updated expert information concerning this matter.
4. In my view the events of 17 September 2018, especially in the absence of the updated information requested concerning the applicant's circumstances, remained relevant for the Registrar's consideration. Section 7(4)(b) of the Act requires the Registrar to have regard to a number of the specific matters which were revealed in the September 2018 incident: the applicant's threat to harm himself with his firearms; the risk that the firearms might be used for an unlawful purpose; the incorrect storage of the firearms; and his use, immediate and historical, of alcohol, and his assault on his wife on that occasion. The Registrar is obliged to have regard to these considerations, and in the absence of the required information, there was no alternative expert information to balance these considerations.
5. The Registrar must be satisfied that an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The legislative regime set out in the Act focusses on the risk that results from firearms misuse, and that ownership and use of firearms is a privilege, not a right (see s 3(1)(a) of the Act).
6. I am satisfied that the Registrar's decision in this matter is a correct decision, consistent with the requirements of the Act.
7. I am also satisfied the decision is a preferable decision, taking into consideration the purpose of the Act, "to confirm firearm possession and use as a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety" (see s 3(1)(a) of the Act). In the absence of up-to-date expert information as required by the Registrar, this decision promotes that requirement of the Act, and is accordingly preferable as well as correct.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.