1. These offences are minor and a long time ago. They are of little significance in the current context. It is in the applicant's favour that he has not been found guilty of any criminal conduct since 1992.
2. It must also be noted, however, that the applicant called and produced no evidence, other than his own, to demonstrate his fitness and propriety.

1. At this point, the Tribunal considered detailed evidence as to the applicant's association with various persons and the criminal records of those persons, and then continued.

to confirm firearm possession and use as a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.[11]

1. The objects of the 2015 Act include the following: [12]

to minimise the risk of persons becoming victims of crimes involving the use or threatened use of firearms; and

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. Consideration of an application for a licence will involve an element of risk assessment by the decision-maker.[13]
2. A licence may be refused on the basis that the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.[14] A person will only meet the test of fitness and propriety if the decision-maker is satisfied that they can be trusted to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a licenced person in a manner consistent with the overriding need to ensure public safety.[15]
3. The onus of demonstrating fitness and propriety is on the applicant. The expression "fit and proper" is well-known to the common law. It has been described as giving -

the widest scope for judgement and indeed for rejection.[16]

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; ...

1. A similar provision was introduced into the 1977 Act. It was considered by the District Court in Pepper v Registrar of Firearms [2016] SADC 38. The Court rejected a suggestion that the verb, "associates", required proof of specific and frequent occasions of association.[17] It adopted a far broader approach consistent with the objects of the Act. I would respectfully agree with this approach.
2. It must be noted that the 2015 Act does not provide for the refusal of a licence on the ground that the applicant associates with persons of poor reputation, honesty and integrity. Proof of such association will be relevant, however, to the consideration of the fitness and propriety of the applicant. Obviously, there may be circumstances where an applicant's choice of associations may tend to impugn the applicant's own reputation, honesty or integrity. However, the fitness and propriety of an applicant may also be affected, in my view, by the risks that are inherent in those associations. This may involve an assessment of whether the applicant's associations may place public safety at risk.
3. For the sake of completeness, it is noted that a licence may also be refused if the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason to possess a firearm to which the application relates.[18] This was not a ground relied on by the delegate, but it came to be of some relevance in view of evidence given by the applicant at the hearing.

1. In his application, the applicant indicated that he needed the licence for the purpose of hunting.[19] At the hearing, however, he gave evidence that he did not want his firearms back to use, but so that he could sell them. He said: "Really, I don't need a firearms licence" and "I don't need to have a firearms licence". A desire to sell firearms is not a genuine reason to seek a licence.[20] The Act provides a process by which persons whose firearms have been seized may sell those firearms.[21] This process does not require the obtaining of a licence. However, the applicant expressed concern that he would not get a sufficient price by selling in that way.
2. When it was pointed out at the hearing that the lack of a genuine purpose for needing a licence might be fatal to the application, the applicant responded by indicating that he was interested in having a collector's licence which is a different class of licence altogether. He also stated that he is still licenced as a security guard and a firearms licence might enable him to work in that area. However, these were not his stated reasons for seeking a licence and had not been raised at all prior to that time.
3. In the end, there is a real doubt as to whether the applicant has established a genuine reason for needing to possess firearms as required by s 15(1)(c). At very least, it can be said that the applicant's need for a licence is not compelling.

1. The significance of the "association evidence" is in its cumulative effect. It demonstrates that, over a period of approximately five years, the applicant has allowed persons with serious criminal records to live with him in his house at Prospect. This included persons who were involved in the use and trafficking of illicit drugs. He developed a relationship with Ms Gottardo, a heroin addict, and has continued to associate with her during 2017. He has associated over several years with Mr Rose while knowing that he was always in trouble and aware of claims that he was a drug dealer. The applicant was prepared to drive Rose to an address in Salisbury Downs, not knowing whether the visit was drug related. Drugs were found in the vehicle. Despite this, the applicant continued his association with Rose into late 2016 and last had contact with him in July - August 2017.
2. There was a clear pattern of association with persons who have significant records of offences of dishonesty and violence. Some of these persons committed offences involving offensive or prohibited weapons and offences against firearms legislation. The applicant continued to associate with persons despite awareness of their criminal conduct. The applicant allowed persons to reside at his home on home detention but appears to have had little control over the persons living there or their anti-social behaviour. He referred, during his evidence, to persons visiting or staying against his wishes and lamented his inability to get certain persons to leave his home. He articulated that some of these persons had caused him "trouble" but did not appear in his evidence to be unduly concerned by their criminal records or their involvement in illicit drugs. He did not convince me that he felt any great personal abhorrence for the behaviour or lifestyle of his associates other than that it had caused him "trouble". I formed the impression that he turned a blind eye.
3. When invited by the delegate to respond to concerns about these associations, the applicant said in his statutory declaration that:

I do not associate with these people (mentioned on pages 2/3/4 of your letter dated 23 Feb 2017) who were attending [the Prospect address] due to borders [sic] staying at the house.

1. The applicant's evidence before the Tribunal establishes that this was untrue, or at best misleading. Paul Sewer was related to his daughter. The applicant said that he had known Ferguson for a long time. Abrook lived at the house for about five years at the applicant's invitation. Tidball was invited to stay at the house by the applicant. So too was Shaun Jones. The applicant invited La Starza to stay with him. His association with both Rose and Gottardo had nothing to do with boarders staying at the house. The applicant had known them for several years. The applicant clearly associated with all these persons and it was not true to say of any of them that they attended the house because of boarders residing there.
2. If the objectives of the Act are to be achieved it is important that licence holders are co-operative with the relevant authorities (particularly police) and totally honest in any dealings in relation to firearms. I am of the view that the applicant misrepresented the true situation in the statutory declaration he provided to the Registrar in support of his application. As indicated earlier, I also have doubts as to the genuineness of the applicant's change of living arrangements referred to in that declaration. These concerns reflect adversely on the fitness and propriety of the applicant.
3. I am also concerned by the general tenor of the applicant's evidence insofar as it suggested that persons coming to his home had taken advantage of him. The evidence suggested that the applicant had essentially lost control of what was happening in his own home. At one stage in his evidence, the applicant said, "I should learn to say no." The applicant also gave evidence of various persons who from time to time gave his address to police as their own in order to avoid police attention. This tends to suggest that he is seen by such persons as someone who will play along with that deceit and who is unlikely to "dob them in". These factors raise serious concerns that the applicant, if granted a licence, might be imposed upon by criminal associates to act other than in accordance with his responsibilities under the legislation. This includes a concern that the applicant would not necessarily advise police if, for example, an associate stole or "borrowed_"_ one of his firearms.
4. The applicant deposed that his firearms would be kept at his mother's address and he would not let any of these associates near them. He stated that he now lived at his mother's address and would continue to do so. He suggested that these persons did not know where he now lived. This evidence does not allay my concerns. I am not convinced that the applicant has decided that he wants to leave behind his former life and associates, or that he would be capable of doing so. I think it more likely that any change in his associations and living arrangements is related to the desire to obtain a licence. Such change, of course, has not been shown to have persisted over a significant period.
5. I must consider whether the applicant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is a fit and proper person to hold the licence. I consider that there would be an undue risk to the public if the licence was granted. I am not satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to strictly comply with the Act and Regulations and to withstand pressure that may be imposed by associates. I am not satisfied that he has been honest and forthright in his dealings with the Registrar or that he can be trusted to be so in future. Whilst he has not been found guilty of any offence since 1992, I am not satisfied, in view of the applicant's priorities and associations, that he would necessarily be committed to strict compliance with the statutory requirements. Having regard to all these circumstances, I do not consider that the applicant has demonstrated that he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
6. The correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Registrar.

[2] Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40 at paragraph [6].

[9] He may have meant when the Registrar first raised concern about his associates.

[15] Cf. Sobey v Commercial & Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70; per Walters J at page 74-75_._

[16] Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v State of NSW [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156 per Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Webb JJ.

[17] Note that "close associates" is defined and does not have relevance here.