On review the applicant submitted that he was unaware of the strict timeframe stipulated in the notice, which he asserts was not validly served on him, and that upon becoming aware of its contents he provided a toxicology analysis and medical report outside of the stipulated timeframe. He submitted that he had made numerous requests for the Registrar to require a further random toxicology analysis and provided various references attesting to his good character. The Registrar submitted that the applicant had evaded complying with the notice, and any further random toxicology analysis would undermine the legislation as the applicant would be on notice of the testing.

• The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the notice was not properly served on him. The Tribunal agreed with the submissions of the Registrar that it is not a requirement in order for service to be validly effected under the Firearms Act that the contents of a notice be explained to the recipient. There is no allegation or evidence that the police officers serving the notice misrepresented its contents to the applicant. The onus was always on the applicant to read the notice and understand its requirements.
• The notice carried a strong indication that the toxicology analysis would be considered "irrelevant" if the urine sample was not taken within 48 hours, but patently did not demand, direct or mandate this timeframe.
• Both the toxicology analysis and the medical reports complied with the requirements of the notice, and demonstrated the applicant did not use methylamphetamine.
• The Tribunal did not accept that there was a sinister or inappropriate association between the applicant and the former bikie gang member.
• Neither s 18(2) nor s 53 of the Firearms Act stipulate any timeframe by which the relevant information must be provided, or empower the Registrar to stipulate a binding timeframe.
• The Tribunal made observations as to the principle of statutory interpretation de minimis non curat lex.
• On any view, the exercise of the discretion to cancel the licence is not the preferable decision.

Review of a decision of the Registrar of Firearms to cancel a licence, permit or registration - Association with a person previously a member of a criminal organisation - Lack of fitness and propriety - Failure to comply with requirements of the Act or the conditions of the licence

Administrative Review - Firearms Act 2015 - Procedural Matters - Service of notices - No power to stipulate a timeframe to comply with requirements of Notice

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 34, s 35, s 37

Firearms Act 2015 s 7, s 15, s 20, s 53

D'Orazio v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 15

Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58

Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40

Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51

Offe v Police [2002] SASC 259

Registrar of Firearms v Gitsham [2002] SASC 301

Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149

Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112

Pollitt v Police [2007] SASC 382

Jaworski v Police [2009] SASC 284

Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171

Zammit v Registrar of Firearms [2010] SADC 100

Lock v Registrar of Firearms [2021] SACAT 102

Collins v Registrar of Firearms [2021] SACAT 66

Farnell Electronic Components Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1996] FCA 1135

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Some of the parties and participants of the proceedings may 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)(c)(i)

1. This is an application made under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) for review of a decision of the delegate[1] of the Registrar of Firearms (the Registrar) made on 25 June 2021 to cancel Mr Collins' firearms licence under s 20(6) of the Firearms Act 2015 (Firearms Act).
2. I have had regard to the material that was before the Registrar, including the documents in the Registrar's Book of Documents provided under s 35 of the SACAT Act, and to the additional written and oral evidence and submissions put before the Tribunal on review. This includes affidavits provided by Mr Collins, his wife Ms Kay Collins and his brother Mr Ronald Collins as well as affidavits from two police officers.

1. The Tribunal conducts its review of the Registrar's decision as an independent body. The Tribunal will, in exercising its review jurisdiction, examine the decision of the decision-maker by way of rehearing. On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision-maker.
2. The procedure on a rehearing will include an examination of the evidence or material before the decision-maker and consideration of any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit for the purposes of rehearing the matter.
3. Any factual findings made by the Tribunal must be established on the balance of probabilities.
4. After making its decision, the Tribunal can affirm or vary the decision under review or can set the decision aside and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration.

Firearms Act

1. Relevantly, s 20(6) of the Firearms Act provides that:

The Registrar may, by written notice served personally or by registered post on the licensee, cancel a firearms licence - > > ...

(c) if satisfied that the licensee has failed to comply with or satisfy the requirements of this Act or the conditions of the licence; or

(d) on any ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application by the licensee for such a licence.

1. Section 15(1) of the Firearms Act is relevant to s 20(6)(d) and (relevantly) states that:

The Registrar may only refuse an application for a firearms licence if the Registrar is not satisfied - > > ... > > (b) that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence; or > > ...

(e) that the applicant has, in respect of any licence held by the applicant (whether under this Act or the repealed Act), complied with or satisfied the requirements of this Act or the repealed Act (as the case requires) or the conditions of the licence; or

(f) that the applicant will comply with or satisfy the requirements of this Act or the conditions of the licence; or

...

(l) that to grant the licence would be in the public interest.

1. In relation to s 15(1)(b), s 7 of the Firearms Act deals with who is not, or who may be taken not to be, a fit and proper person. In a review, the burden of demonstrating fitness and propriety lies on the applicant.[2]
2. Relevantly, s 7(3)(g) states that a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act if the person has failed to comply with a requirement made under s 53 of the Act. Section 53 of the Act states that:

(1) The Registrar may, as reasonably required for the purposes of determining whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act, require the 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).

(2) In this section -

health professional means -

(a) a medical practitioner; or

(b) a psychologist; or

(c) a person of a class prescribed by the regulations.

1. Section 7(7) also states that s 7 does not limit the grounds on which a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act.
2. Section 7(4) contains factors that the Registrar may consider or is required to consider. In particular, the Registrar is required by s 7(4)(b) to consider the risk of future behaviour.[3] Section 7(4) states:

(4) In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act -

(a) regard may be had to the reputation, honesty and integrity of the person, close associates of the person and any people with whom the person associates; and

(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.

1. Also, under s 18(2)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act, a firearms licence is subject to the condition that the licensee must, whenever required to do so by the Registrar, provide the Registrar with information relating to a matter relevant to whether the licensee is a fit and proper person to hold the licence. This impliedly includes the provision of information pursuant to a notice served on the licensee under s 53. Under s 19 of the Firearms Act, a licensee who fails to comply with a condition of the licence is guilty of an offence.
2. The Parliament, the Supreme Court and this Tribunal have been clear that firearms possession is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.[4] As this Tribunal has observed, it is plain from the provisions of the legislation that licences are only to be granted to persons who can be trusted to comply with all aspects of the legislation.[5]
3. The principles and objects of the Firearms Act are critical to the decision-making of the Registrar and this Tribunal and it is worth setting them out in full. Section 3 states:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety; and

(b) to improve public safety -

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession, use, acquisition, supply and manufacture of firearms; and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage, transport and use (whether for recreational or other purposes) of firearms; and

(c) to facilitate a nationally consistent approach to the control of firearms.

(2) The objects of this Act are as follows:

(a) to ensure that the possession and use of automatic and self-loading firearms is permitted only in strictly limited circumstances;

(b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms;

(c) to require each person who possesses or acquires a firearm or ammunition under the authority of a licence or permit to have established a genuine reason to possess or acquire the firearm or ammunition;

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to firearms and transactions and activities involving firearms, including requirements to ensure the safe and secure storage and transport of firearms;

(e) to reduce the number of firearms that are in unlawful possession in the community through a general amnesty;

(f) to prevent or restrict persons and organisations from accessing, possessing or using firearms for criminal purposes;

(g) to minimise the risk of persons becoming victims of crimes involving the use or threatened use of firearms;

(h) to minimise the risk of persons causing injury or harm (including psychological harm) to themselves or others by the use or threatened use of firearms.

1. The following facts are evident from the material supplied by Mr Collins and the Registrar.
2. Mr Collins is 53 years old and has held a firearms licence since the age of 16 years.
3. Mr Collins' firearms licence was due to expire, and would appear that it did expire, on 31 July 2020, notwithstanding the Registrar's cancellation of the licence on 25 June 2021.
4. On 29 July 2020, the Registrar served a notice (the suspension notice) on Mr Collins suspending his firearms licence under s 20(8) of the Act pending an investigation as to whether grounds existed for the taking of action against him.
5. The suspension notice (which was dated 23 July 2020) referred to matters that had come to the attention of the Registrar that indicated that Mr Collins may not be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and/or that it would be contrary to the public interest to permit Mr Collins to continue to hold a firearms licence.
6. Briefly put, the suspension notice referred to allegations that:
   1. On 22 April 2019, following a report of trespassing made by Mr Ronald Collins, police attended a property at Andamooka. Mr Collins and his brother Ronald Collins were both present, as well as a third party. During that attendance, it was alleged to police by the third party that both Mr Collins and his brother use methamphetamine. The police formed the belief on that occasion that Mr Collins was likely under the influence of drugs and was hallucinating; and
   2. On 30 October 2019, Mr Collins was observed by police to be working at premises the proprietor of which is LHC. The suspension notice stated that LHC has a history of findings of guilt and convictions for serious offences and is considered to be a person of poor reputation, honesty and integrity. On that day, the attending police officer observed that Mr Collins "had lost a significant amount of weight which he believed could be as a result of using illicit substances".
7. Elsewhere in the Registrar's Book of Documents, it is asserted that LHC is a former Hell's Angels member. An Offender History Summary Report dated 3 July 2020 relating to LHC indicates that in the period between 1995 and 2020, LHC was found guilty and/or convicted of 14 traffic offences, two counts in 2013 of possession of instructions for manufacture of a controlled drug (fined $300 without conviction recorded), one count in 2000 of possession of a dangerous article (fined $200), and one count in 1999 of producing a controlled substance (fined $450 without conviction recorded).
8. Also on 29 July 2020, a notice was served on Mr Collins under s 53 of the Act (the s 53 notice). Mr Collins was required to comply with the s 53 notice within 28 days, i.e. by 26 August 2020.
9. The s 53 notice required Mr Collins to provide a medical report from a health professional addressing his use of illicit drugs. The medical report was required to address the following matters:

a. The length of time Mr Collins has been a patient of the treating doctor;

b. Any drug dependence issues Mr Collins suffers from;

c. His long term prognosis in relation to those issues;

1. The number and frequency of visits he has had with his treating doctor;
2. His frequency of illicit drug use and the amount consumed on each occasion;
3. Any prescribed medication and any issues arising from self-medication that Mr Collins has; and
4. The impact of his illicit drug use on his suitability to hold a firearms licence and safely possess and use firearms and ammunition;

1. Mr Collins was also required by the s 53 notice to provide a toxicology analysis. It is important for the reasons that follow that I set out in full exactly what was said in the s 53 notice about a toxicology analysis. It stated (emphasis in original):

I also require you to supply a toxicology analysis from a legally qualified medical practitioner, which shows a current analysis of your urine toxicology. This is required to determine the recent use of illicit drugs by you. Due to the variables associated with metabolising illicit drugs, it is reasonable to consider this report irrelevant if the urine sample is not taken within 48 hours of service of this letter.

2. The suspension notice and s 53 notice were served on Mr Collins, in person and simultaneously, by two police officers at about 5.30 pm on 29 July 2020. It would appear that the officers inadvertently took the notices away with them and returned them to Mr Collins in person later that evening. There is some disagreement between the parties as to the extent to which the police officers explained (or, alternatively, ought to have explained) the content of the notices to Mr Collins. The respective arguments of the parties are briefly outlined later in these reasons.
3. On 6 August 2020 and again on the following day, Mr Collins through his solicitors wrote to the Registrar by email seeking an additional 28 days to respond to the suspension notice and a further opportunity to provide a random toxicology analysis. Mr Collins asserted that there were "issues" with the service of the suspension and s 53 notices, in particular that he was not aware that he had to submit to a toxicology analysis within 48 hours of service. While the additional 28 days to provide a response was granted by the Firearms Branch (i.e., to 23 September 2020), the request to submit to another random toxicology analysis was refused.
4. On 24 September 2020, Mr Collins through his solicitor provided the Registrar with lengthy submissions. It would appear from the Book of Documents that these submissions were emailed to the Firearms Branch at 10.53 am that morning.[6] Briefly, in these submissions:
   1. Mr Collins denied that he has been using illicit drugs;
   2. Mr Collins asserted that he did not open the envelope in which the suspension and s 53 notices were served until a few days after service and that he was unaware that he needed to have a drug test performed within 48 hours. Mr Collins again requested that he be able to submit a further random drug test to the Registrar;
   3. Mr Collins included a toxicology analysis report of a urine sample that was collected from him on 14 August 2020 (which was about two weeks after the s 53 notice was served on Mr Collins). The report indicates that a number of "drugs of abuse", including "amphetamine type substances" were "not detected";
   4. Mr Collins attributed his weight loss to health issues he had in 2019, including a suspected heart attack, and as a result of the serious illness experienced by his 14-year old son from February 2019, and also the death of his wife's adoptive mother in April 2019. Letters were provided from a paediatric neurologist from the Women's and Children's Hospital as to Mr Collins' son's treatment and diagnoses. It is to be noted that one of the neurologist's letters, which is dated 17 September 2019, makes an incidental reference that the child's "father has been on metformin in the recent months and has lost 60 kg";
   5. Mr Collins agreed that he had been working on LHC's property but asserted that he was unaware that LHC had convictions for criminal offending and that it is his understanding that LHC is not involved in any current offending or has any pending charges; and
   6. Mr Collins included a number of references speaking to Mr Collins' good character and contributions to the community from persons who have known Mr Collins for up to 30 years[7] as well as two certificates awarded to Mr Collins as the local Australia Day Citizen of the Year in 2012 and 2018.
5. On 30 December 2020, Dr Staridas wrote a brief report stating relevantly:

I am the treating GP for Andrew, since 26/03/2019... > > I have no evidence of any drug dependence issues, or abuse of any drugs or alcohol > > Since 2019 he has been seen at this clinic 8 times > > He is prescribed medications for diabetes and blood pressure > > I have no evidence of any illicit drugs consumed > > Andrew has previously had a urine toxicology that has not shown any abnormality

6. On 15 March 2021 and on 22 March 2021, the two police officers who served the suspension and s 53 notices on Mr Collins on 29 July 2020 respectively affirmed in affidavits the circumstances of their two visits to Mr Collins on that day. The police officers were available but ultimately not called for questioning at the full hearing of this matter.
7. The Registrar wrote to Mr Collins on 7 April 2021. He stated in this letter that:

the toxicology analysis was undertaken by you on 14 August 2020. Whilst the toxicology analysis did not indicate a positive result for any illicit substances, I note with concern the analysis was not conducted until fourteen days after the stipulated forty eight hour timeframe in the [section 53] notice served upon you.

8. The Registrar also noted in the letter of 7 April 2021 a brief medical report provided by Dr Staridas on 11 January 2021, which would appear to be the report written on 30 December 2020. The Registrar said that after contacting the police officers who served the notices, he was satisfied that the notices were served correctly on Mr Collins. The Registrar invited Mr Collins to make further submissions within 28 days addressing the areas of concern set out in the suspension notice. The Registrar noted that he is "considering cancelling your firearms licence and have taken the non-compliance with the medical requirement notice to provide the urine sample within 48 hours of service into account". Mr Collins had new legal representation by this stage and was granted an extension of time until 3 June 2021 to provide these submissions.
9. On 3 June 2021, Mr Collins provided submissions to the Registrar addressing the matters in the suspension notice and attaching a letter from Dr Staridas dated 13 May 2021, with a further copy of the toxicology analysis of 14 August 2020, and a number of character references. Briefly, in these submissions:
   1. Mr Collins denied that either he or his brother were under the influence of drugs during the police attendance in April 2019 and asserted that he has never used illicit drugs;
   2. Mr Collins stated that in October 2019 he had been employed by LHC to undertake welding work at the latter's property and cannot be deemed to be an associate of LHC on that basis, nor should his reputation, honesty and integrity be measured against that of LHC;
   3. Mr Collins stated that he had lost a significant amount of weight as a result of medical advice following a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes in May 2019 and later of hypertension;
   4. Mr Collins explained again the circumstances leading to him not being aware of the timeframes in the s 53 notice. He denied that this was done to avoid being drug tested. He again invited the Registrar to offer him a further opportunity to provide a random toxicology analysis; and
   5. Mr Collins asserted that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and is a respectable member of the Andamooka community, pointing to the character references and Citizen of the Year awards.
10. The letter of 13 May 2021 from Dr Staridas indicates that he has been treating Mr Collins since 26 March 2019. The letter confirms that Mr Collins was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in May 2019 and that Mr Collins lost weight on Dr Staridas' advice and as a result of taking the medication metformin for his diabetes. Dr Staridas asserts that during his consultations and interactions with Mr Collins, he "did not see any evidence of illicit drug dependence or abuse, or alcohol abuse."
11. The character references included with the submissions are from persons who have known Mr Collins for 30 years (Ms Margo Duke JP) and 13 years (Ashley Wood) and speak highly of him.
12. On 25 June 2021, the Registrar sent to Mr Collins a notice cancelling his firearms licence on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The notice observed in respect of the toxicology analysis report that "whilst the toxicology analysis did not indicate a positive result for illicit substances, the analysis was not conducted until fourteen days after the stipulated forty-eight hour timeframe in the [s 53] notice served upon you". The Registrar concluded in the notice that he did not accept Mr Collins' explanation that he did not understand the "requirement to provide a urine sample for toxicology analysis within the designated timeframe".
13. The notice refers to the receipt of the medical report from Dr Staridas of 13 May 2021 but says nothing further about it.
14. The cancellation notice also observed that the "incident dated 22 April 2019 ... is of serious concern to me, as is your association with [LHC]".
15. The Registrar's Book of Documents includes an indication that Mr Collins has received a caution and an expiation notice for two minor traffic offences but otherwise it would appear that the Registrar acknowledged that Mr Collins has no criminal history.

1. Mr Collins provided an affidavit sworn on 1 September 2021 in which he deposed to facts not markedly different from those already outlined in these reasons. This included details of the events of 22 April 2019, his weight loss, and the circumstances of his undertaking work for LHC on 30 October 2019 and on other occasions when he would assist LHC to unload freight using his (Mr Collins') forklift. Mr Collins deposed that he was not aware of LHC's criminal history at that time. He deposed that he knew that LHC had once been a member of the Hell's Angels but that LHC had told him he was no longer a member and did not associate with them anymore. Mr Collins denied that he uses or has ever used methylamphetamine or any other controlled substances.
2. Under cross-examination by Ms Ewens, Mr Collins said that his main employment is earthworks at Andamooka and that he uses his firearms recreationally, target shooting and for vermin control (euthanasia of dingoes in station country). He said that the suspension and s 53 notices were not explained to him and he was just told he had to see a doctor. He disagreed that the notices were explained in detail to him. He said that he did not know there was a timeline in the notices. He said that he put the sealed envelope containing the notices in his office and found it seven days later. He indicated that he did not think there was a need to read the notices any sooner because he knew he was going to have to go to a doctor and that he would sort it out eventually. He said that he thought that once he went to a doctor and proved he was sane, he would get his guns back and that he did not realise that it was thought that he was a "junkie".
3. Mr Collins' brother, Mr Ronald Collins, swore an affidavit on 25 August 2021 corroborating the evidence in Mr Collins' affidavit. Mr Ronald Collins also deposed that he does not use or has ever used methylamphetamine or any other controlled substances.
4. Mr Collins' wife, Ms Kay Collins, swore an affidavit on 25 August 2021 corroborating matters to which Mr Collins had deposed in his affidavit. She also deposed that in 17 years of marriage, she had never known Mr Collins to use methylamphetamine or any other controlled substance.
5. Both Mr Ronald Collins and Ms Kay Collins were available at the hearing for questioning but were not questioned by the Registrar. Save for the cross-examination of Mr Collins on aspects of his evidence, the three affidavits were tendered at the hearing without objection by the Registrar.
6. Briefly, in written and oral submissions, it was submitted on behalf of Mr Collins that:
   1. The Tribunal should place very little, if any, weight on the assertions of the third party present on 22 April 2019 that Mr Collins was using methylamphetamine. The identity of this person is protected,[8] meaning the information provided by that person is incapable of being challenged. The observations of the police officer made on 30 October 2019 that Mr Collins was using drugs because he had lost a considerable amount of weight should also be given very little weight as these observations are made by a person without medical qualifications or experience and are refuted by Dr Staridas' medical report that the weight loss was related to the diabetes diagnosis;
   2. Despite police officers noting that they have had many dealings with Mr Collins from working in Andamooka, Mr Collins has not been reported for drug use and he has never been charged with or convicted of drug offences or any criminal offences at all;
   3. Mr Collins had a legitimate purpose for being in the company of LHC;
   4. There was no intentional avoidance of the s 53 notice, but oversight and carelessness. The s 53 notice was never explained to Mr Collins and he did not realise that he was required to attend for a urine toxicology analysis until after the 48 hour deadline from service of the notice. The urgency of the requirement to attend for urine toxicology requires not only proper service but also proper explanation of the notice, including its requirements and the consequences if those requirements are not met;
   5. The Registrar's position has been harsh from the outset, including in not offering Mr Collins another chance to provide a random drug test;
   6. Compliance with the s 53 notice needs to be considered in the context of Mr Collins' medical reports and toxicology analysis of 14 August 2020, the health issues of his son, the character references and the lack of prior offending or issues with respect to his firearms; and
   7. Given the weight of the evidence, Mr Collins' licence should be reinstated.

1. In written and oral submissions, it was submitted on behalf of the Registrar that:
   1. A s 53 notice can be served in a manner set out in s 77 of the Firearms Act, including in person, by registered post, fax or email. There is no express or implied requirement in the Firearms Act to include an explanation of the contents of the document to the recipient. In any event, the officers did explain the contents of the notice in detail to Mr Collins;
   2. Service of the suspension and s 53 notices was validly effected in person at least by the evening of 29 July 2020 when the police officers returned the notices to Mr Collins. The several hours between the officers' visits gave Mr Collins full opportunity to review the notices, but in any event they were read out in detail to him earlier that day;
   3. There are a number of avenues open to the Tribunal to uphold the decision to cancel Mr Collins' licence, including ss 20(6)(c) and 20(6)(d);
   4. With regard to s 20(6)(c), this is the strongest aspect of the Registrar's case. It is not disputed that Mr Collins failed to comply with the s 53 notice and failed to comply with a condition of his licence to comply with the s 53 notice and not breach the provisions of the Firearms Act. To comply with the s 53 notice, Mr Collins was required to submit to a urine toxicology screen on or before 1 August 2020 and to furnish that screen to the Registrar by 26 August 2020. Mr Collins provided a toxicology screen taken on 14 August 2020. He was also required to furnish to the Registrar by 24 September 2020, a medical report addressing his possible use of illicit substances. Mr Collins provided the medical report on 11 January 2021. This is clear non-compliance with a requirement of the Firearms Act and with the conditions of Mr Collins' licence;
   5. The effect of non-compliance with the s 53 notice was to frustrate the Registrar in discharging his discretion to determine Mr Collins' fitness and propriety to hold a licence. Mr Collins' bare non-compliance is alone a sufficient basis for the Tribunal to uphold the Registrar's decision. It also has negative implications as to Mr Collins' fitness and propriety to hold a licence in two respects: first, Mr Collins' failure to demonstrate regard for the law; and secondly the inference open to the Tribunal that the non-compliance was not a result of unintentional oversight but intentional avoidance of the requirement to undertake a toxicology screen within 48 hours because it may demonstrate the presence of illicit substances;
   6. With regard to s 20(6)(d), Mr Collins is not an obvious risk to society, but the fit and proper person requirement of s 15(1)(b) is not the only relevant consideration. The more significant ground is non-compliance with the s 53 notice where there was intentional avoidance of the requirement to provide a urine sample taken within 48 hours of service of the notice. Mr Collins had 48 hours to comply with the notice regarding the toxicology analysis and it was his obligation to do so;
   7. The Registrar's decision is the preferable decision and this is inferred by the statutory scheme of the Firearms Act, which requires strict compliance for it to be effective;[9]
   8. To have given Mr Collins a further opportunity to provide a random drug test would undermine s 53(1) of the Firearms Act and is inconsistent with the aim not to give a licensee prior notice of the need to provide a drug analysis;
   9. The Tribunal should give weight to the decision of the decision-maker and not depart from the decision without a compelling reason to do so;
   10. Mr Collins does not use his firearms for his work and enforcing the law would not deprive him of the opportunity to earn an income; and
   11. No issue is taken by the Registrar in respect of the medical reports from Dr Staridas.

1. I make the following findings on the evidence available to the Tribunal.

1. I find the submissions made on Mr Collins' behalf that there were "issues" with service of the suspension and s 53 notices to be largely misconceived.
2. I am satisfied that there was compliance in regard to service with ss 20(8) and 77 of the Firearms Act. Mr Collins was properly served the suspension and s 53 notices in person on 29 July 2020, if not on the police officers' first visit to Mr Collins then certainly by the second visit later that evening.
3. There was some disagreement between Mr Collins and the Registrar about what Mr Collins was told about the content of the notices at the time of service. I am not satisfied that the affidavit evidence of the police officers demonstrates that the officers explained the content of the notices in detail, as the Registrar's counsel submitted. I accept Mr Collins' evidence that he was unaware of the precise terms of the notices for about a week and therefore I accept that he acted innocently in not attending sooner to the contents of the notices. However, this is essentially irrelevant. I agree with the submissions of the respondent that it is not a requirement in order for service to be validly effected under the Firearms Act that the contents of the notices be explained to the recipient. There is no allegation or evidence that the police officers misrepresented the contents of the notices to Mr Collins. The onus was always on Mr Collins to read the notices and understand what they were communicating to him and what they required of him.
4. In putting the notices to one side and failing to read the notices earlier than he did, however innocently, Mr Collins was at risk of putting himself in a position where he might not act promptly to deal with any requirements in the notices.

1. I do not accept the allegations of methylamphetamine use made against Mr Collins.
2. In forming my conclusion, I place substantial weight on the unchallenged medical evidence provided by Dr Staridas that there is no evidence that Mr Collins uses illicit drugs and which also amply explains Mr Collins' weight loss. In my opinion, the weight to be placed on this medical evidence substantially overcomes the considerably less weight that could be placed on the negative results of the toxicology analysis.[10]
3. I also place substantial weight on the unchallenged evidence of Mr Collins, Mr Ronald Collins and Ms Kay Collins that the applicant Mr Collins was not a user of methylamphetamine.
4. I agree with the submissions made on behalf of Mr Collins that I should place little to no weight on the uncorroborated assertions of the unnamed third party made in April 2019 and also the extrapolations of the police officer who in October 2019 observed that Mr Collins had lost weight. Similarly, I place little to no weight on the inferences drawn by the police officer attending at the Andamooka property in April 2019 that Mr Collins was experiencing drug-induced hallucinations.

1. I do not accept that the evidence before the Tribunal establishes a sinister or inappropriate association between Mr Collins and LHC.
2. The worst that can be said is that Mr Collins was aware that LHC is a former Hells Angels member. There was no challenge to Mr Collins' evidence that he did not know of LHC's criminal history or any current offending. There is no evidence that Mr Collins participated in any past or current offending by LHC or otherwise approved of or supported LHC in that conduct.
3. I do not accept that a person who merely provides goods or services to another person knowing that other person to be a former member of the Hells Angels would, by that fact alone, themselves not be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
4. Although it appeared that the Registrar no longer relied on an association between Mr Collins and LHC to make its case before the Tribunal, for completeness, I make the final observation that the limit of the information against LHC is that he is a former Hells Angels member and that he committed the offences outlined earlier in these reasons. The non-traffic related offences are dated and resulted in insignificant penalties. The evidence before the Tribunal did not substantiate the Registrar's assertions in the suspension notice that LHC has a history of findings of guilt and convictions for serious offences and that he is considered to be a person of poor reputation, honesty and integrity.

Section 53 notice

1. The only notice served on Mr Collins on 29 July 2020 that required him to relevantly comply with anything was the s 53 notice. The suspension notice merely informed Mr Collins that his firearms licence was suspended.
2. The s 53 notice required Mr Collins to provide two reports: a toxicology analysis of his urine and a medical report from a medical practitioner answering certain dot point questions. The reports were initially to be provided by 26 August 2020 and this was extended by agreement to 23 September 2020. (I do not agree with the submissions of the Registrar's counsel that the brief email exchanges between the parties on 6 and 7 August 2020 are open to an interpretation that only the time for the provision of the medical practitioner's report, not the toxicology analysis, was extended a further 28 days. However, I address the possibility that I may be wrong on this point later in these reasons.)
3. Mr Collins provided a toxicology analysis of his urine to the Registrar on 24 September 2020. The urine sample was taken on 14 August 2020.
4. Mr Collins did not provide a report from his general practitioner Dr Staridas until 11 January 2021 and then provided a more complete report on 3 June 2021. I am satisfied that the report provided on 11 January 2021, albeit brief, adequately addressed the dot points in the s 53 notice. There was no explanation for the delay in Mr Collins providing these reports.
5. Both before and during these proceedings, Mr Collins and the Registrar have acted on the premise that the s 53 notice required Mr Collins to submit a urine sample for testing within 48 hours of service of the notice. I am not satisfied that it did.
6. The s 53 notice simply carried a strong indication that the toxicology analysis would be considered "irrelevant" by the Registrar if the urine sample was not taken within 48 hours of service of the notice "due to the variables associated with metabolising illicit drugs". The Registrar patently did not demand, direct or mandate that Mr Collins provide a urine sample for the toxicology analysis within 48 hours.
7. The submission made by the Registrar's counsel that Mr Collins intentionally delayed undertaking a toxicology analysis to avoid a positive test result was made without evidence, and is contrary to the evidence that Mr Collins is not a user of illicit drugs. This submission is rejected.

1. It is fair to say that the Registrar's case pivots on the Registrar's assertion that Mr Collins failed to comply with the s 53 notice. According to counsel's submissions, that leads to a conclusion that Mr Collins has failed to comply with the Act and with his licence conditions, which in turn invokes the exercise of the power in s 20(6)(c) and/or (d) to cancel Mr Collins' licence, either on the aforementioned grounds and/or that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. I do not agree with either the Registrar's assertion or with these submissions.
2. While I do not wish in any way to diminish the critical role that the Registrar clearly has in regulating firearms in the interests of public safety in this State, in the present case the Registrar has dealt with Mr Collins overzealously and unduly harshly, and based in large part on a misunderstanding of the terms of the Registrar's own s 53 notice. As I now go on to discuss, there are compelling reasons to depart from the Registrar's decision.
3. At the time that the Registrar made the decision under review, Mr Collins had provided to the Registrar the toxicology analysis and medical report sought by the Registrar under the s 53 notice. For reasons I have already given, both the toxicology analysis and the medical reports complied with the requirements of the s 53 notice, including in that there was no direction to supply a urine sample for analysis within 48 hours of service of the notice.
4. The unchallenged medical reports of Dr Staridas have been accepted by the Tribunal as evidence that Mr Collins is not a methylamphetamine user. As discussed above, I have declined to make any adverse findings in respect of Mr Collins' undertaking work for LHC. That leaves the only potentially adverse information before the Tribunal regarding Mr Collins to be the fact that he failed to provide the toxicology analysis and medical reports within the extended time required by the Registrar, that is by 23 September 2020.
5. The toxicology analysis was provided to the Registrar along with other documents and submissions on the morning of 24 September 2020. Mr Collins provided Dr Staridas' reports on 11 January 2021 and 3 June 2021.
6. The question for the Tribunal is whether the mere lateness by less than 24 hours in respect of the toxicology analysis and by 3½ or 8½ months in respect of Dr Staridas' reports should result in the cancellation of Mr Collins' firearms licence. In other words, by providing this information late did Mr Collins fail to comply with s 53 of the Firearms Act and, in so doing, breach the condition on his licence imposed by s 18(2) of the Act and/or demonstrate that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence? If he did, then it would have been open to the Registrar to cancel Mr Collins' licence under s 20(6)(c) or (d) of the Act.
7. However, given that neither s 18(2) nor s 53 stipulate any timeframe by which the relevant information must be provided, or empower the Registrar to stipulate a binding timeframe, Mr Collins' provision of the analysis and reports could not have been "late" in a statutory sense. I am satisfied that by the time the Registrar came to make the decision under review, which is the critical time, Mr Collins had not breached s 53 of the Firearms Act nor the conditions of his licence. By that time, he had provided the toxicology analysis and the medical report.
8. There being no other persuasive adverse information against Mr Collins, this has led me to the conclusion that, in all respects, the decision by the Registrar to cancel Mr Collins' firearms licence was not the correct decision.
9. However, I have turned my mind to the possibility I may be wrong and that the Firearms Act does indeed empower the Registrar to stipulate binding timeframes for compliance with a s 53 notice.
10. On this alternative (but not preferred) hypothesis, I am nevertheless satisfied that the provision of the toxicology analysis by Mr Collins on 24 September 2020 substantially complied with the extended timeframe of the s 53 notice for provision of this report (i.e. by 23 September 2020). Alternatively, I am satisfied that regard should be had to the principle of statutory interpretation de minimis non curat lex[11] when considering such a minor delay in the provision of the toxicology analysis. In other words, I am satisfied that a delay of less than 24 hours in the provision of the toxicology analysis is irrelevant for the purposes of ss 18(2), 20(6) and 53 of the Firearms Act.
11. The Registrar is on a somewhat firmer footing on this alternative hypothesis in respect of the later provision by Mr Collins of the medical reports by Dr Staridas. Nevertheless, while this lateness may possibly be the foundation of a correct decision under s 20(6) to cancel Mr Collins' firearms licence for breach of the Act and conditions of his licence, for the following reasons I am not satisfied that it would be the preferable decision:
    1. The delay in the provision by Mr Collins of Dr Staridas' first compliant medical report in January 2021 was relatively minor in duration and largely amounts to a technical breach only. I do not agree that it is evidence of a failure to demonstrate regard for the law;
    2. The two medical reports from Dr Staridas were available to the Registrar at the time of the making of the decision under review;
    3. The medical reports are clear evidence that Mr Collins is not a methylamphetamine user;
    4. There is no evidence that the delay in providing the medical reports frustrated or prejudiced the Registrar's functions under the Firearms Act, nor that the effectiveness of the regime of the Act was adversely affected by the delay in this case;
    5. Aside potentially from the lateness in providing the medical reports, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr Collins has breached the Firearms Act, including s 53, or any conditions of his licence; nor that Mr Collins is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, either in respect of illicit drug use, association with undesirable persons or failure to comply with the Act and conditions of his licence; nor that the risks referred to in s 7(4)(b) or any risks to public safety would arise from Mr Collins holding a firearms licence; nor that there is a risk that he will not in the future comply with the Act or a licence condition; nor that there is any inconsistency with the principles and objects of the Act or the public interest if Mr Collins were to hold a firearms licence;
    6. The weight of the unchallenged character evidence supports a favourable conclusion as to Mr Collins' reputation, honesty and integrity; and
    7. Since becoming aware (albeit mistakenly to an extent) of the provisions of the s 53 notice, Mr Collins through his solicitors has engaged with the Firearms Branch and provided substantial submissions to assist the Registrar in making the decision under review, including the making of several (unsuccessful) requests to be given another opportunity to provide a random drug test.
12. If I am wrong that Mr Collins had until 23 September 2020 to provide a toxicology analysis, and that it should have been provided by 26 August 2020, I would find for similar reasons to those above that the decision to cancel Mr Collins' firearms licence by reason of this lateness is not the preferable decision.
13. For the reasons given on this alternative hypothesis, if the exercise of the discretion in s 20(6) had been enlivened by a breach of the Firearms Act or the conditions of Mr Collins' licence or otherwise, I consider that the exercise of the discretion to cancel the licence is not the preferable decision and that the decision made by the Registrar on 25 June 2021 should be set aside.
14. As it would appear that Mr Collins' firearms licence expired on 31 July 2020, the Registrar should have regard to the reasons and findings in this decision to deal with the renewal of Mr Collins' licence or an application for a replacement licence, as the case may be.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review.

[1] Although strictly speaking the decision-maker was the Registrar's delegate, for brevity and clarity in these reasons I will refer to the decision-maker as the Registrar.

[2] D'Orazio v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 15 at [28]; Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58 [38].

[3] Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40, [76].

1. [4] Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51; Offe v Police [2002] SASC 259, [22], [26]; Registrar of Firearms v Gitsham [2002] SASC 301, [23]; Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149, [23]; Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112, [21]; Pollitt v Police [2007] SASC 382, [20] - [23], [27]; Jaworski v Police [2009] SASC 284, [22] - [25]; Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171, [8]-[12]. And also Zammit v Registrar of Firearms [2010] SADC 100, [36]-[38].

[5] Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58, [49]; Lock v Registrar of Firearms [2021] SACAT 102.

[6] Respondent's Book of Documents, p 99.

1. [7] From Mr Peter Allen, former chair Andamooka Progress and Opal Miners Association (APOMA); from Ms Deb Allen, formerly of the Outback Communities Authority; from Ms Margot Duke JP and proprietor of several business in Andamooka; from the APOMA but not signed; and from Ms Diane Bilka RAN of the Andamooka Health Service.
2. [8] The Tribunal found on 6 November 2021 that this person's identity is immune from disclosure by reason of public interest immunity: Collins v Registrar of Firearms [2021] SACAT 66

[9] Citing his Honour Justice Gray in Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149.

1. [10] Although I note that there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the accuracy and reliability of toxicology analyses undertaken within certain periods of assumed drug use, merely unsubstantiated references in the s 53 notice as to the "variables associated with metabolising illicit drugs."

[11] Farnell Electronic Components Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1996] FCA 1135.