Dattilo v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 336;

Since that time, I have taken serious steps to address the underlying issues in my life. I removed myself from the toxic and emotionally damaging environment I was in, and I have worked hard to rebuild my life in a healthy and constructive way. I have since remarried, and I am now in a stable, loving, and supportive relationship that has helped me find a new sense of maturity and purpose.

Furthermore, I have focused on rebuilding my business, which now employs over 40 people. Creating a positive, respectful, and responsible work environment has been a priority for me, and I take great pride in contributing to my community in a meaningful way.

Through this journey, I have come to understand that alcohol and drugs are never a solution to emotional pain. Instead, I have learned the importance of seeking support, making positive life changes, and being accountable for my actions. This journey has helped me gain clarity, discipline, and a much deeper understanding of responsibility both as an employer and as a parent. Raising children in a secure and nurturing environment has only deepened my commitment to living a positive and responsible life.

I am truly sorry for the mistakes I made and the impact they may have had. I have learned valuable lessons, and I am committed to continuing on a path of integrity, responsibility, and personal growth.

1. Under cross-examination he conceded that his use of illicit drugs was not "on a single occasion". He accepted that the use had continued over a period of two to three years after 2018 and that he was using drugs between 2014 and 2018. However, he explained that it was an extremely difficult and emotionally turbulent time in his life including a breakdown in his marriage.
2. He accepted that the February 2018 incident at the Adina Apartments was drug induced. He said that he had previously seen a psychologist at Burwood, but he conceded that he had previously given evidence that he had not seen a psychologist following the Adina Apartments incident. He has not seen a psychologist in relation drug use, stress management or coping techniques. He said that there has been no need for him to do so.

1. Mr Kruger-Davis provided a report for the purposes of these proceedings. He has not been treating the Applicant for any mental illness or mental disorder. He had previously provided a report in relation to the Applicant. In his 2021 report he stated:

In relation to the hypothesis formulated by the NSW Police Firearms Registry that Mr Dattilo may have a health problem related to drugs or a mental health disorder or illness could not be substantiated from this assessment.

In relation to the hypothesis formulated by the NSW Police Force Firearms Registry that Mr Dattilo is of unsound mind and intemperate habits could not be substantiated from this assessment or his recent behaviour.

In my expert opinion, when Mr Dattilo answered questions regarding his background, the concerns the NSW Police raised in the refusal of his application and the mental status examination and suicide risk assessment, I found his narrative to be truthful and honest and I could not detect any indications of any intent to deceive or otherwise influence the substantive effect of my report. The clinical interview, mental status examination and suicide risk assessments are standard psychological practises for conducting mental health assessments. These are coupled with empirical assessments that have inbuilt reliability and validity measures. My 35 years as a psychologist allows me to identify most attempts to deceive when interviewing clients.

From the information provided above, it is my professional opinion that Mr Dattilo is of sound mind and would be able to exercise rational judgement and responsible control over the possession and use of firearms.

It is my professional opinion, Mr Dattilo is very unlikely to pose a threat to the public or himself, if he were to possess or use firearms.

1. In his later report he noted that he received an inquiry from Mr Kable in May 2025, requesting him to reassess the Applicant. He subsequently spoke with the Applicant and organised a video conference. He provided the Applicant with depression anxiety and psychological distress self-report questionnaires. After receiving the completed questionnaires he conducted a video conference with the Applicant.
2. Mr Kruger-Davis formed the opinion that the Applicant:
   • presents to be of 'sound mind'.
   • does not currently present with depression, anxiety, or overwhelming psychological distress.
   • does not have a mental disorder, personality disorder, mood disorder, thought disorder or substance abuse disorder ,
   • does not drink alcohol excessively or take illicit or prescribed drugs that would impact on his ability to possess and use firearms.
   • has a very high Global Assessment of Functioning.
   • owns, manages and runs a large concreting business employing over sixty people.
   • has not been charged with driving under the influence or prescribed content of alcohol.
   • does not have any criminal convictions nor does he hold criminal associations.
   • does not pose a suicide risk. There are no predisposing, precipitating or perpetuating factors that would elevate his suicide risk profile.
   • has a number of sound protective factors that indicate he is looking forward to his future. He currently holds no fears for the future.
3. He formed the view that there are currently no factors that would indicate that the Applicant would not be able to exercise will power and continuous control if he were to possess and use firearms.
4. He found the Applicant's narrative to be truthful and honest and he could not detect any indications of any intent to deceive or otherwise influence the substantive effect of the report. He concluded:

it is my professional opinion, that Mr Dattilo is of sound mind and would be able to exercise rational judgement and responsible control over the possession and use of firearms.

It is my professional opinion, Mr Dattilo is very unlikely to pose a threat to the public or himself, if he were to possess or use firearms.

1. Mr Kable provided written submissions to the Respondent in support of the Applicant's application for the licence. Mr Kable adopted those submissions for the purposes of these proceedings. With his submissions he included references and Mr Kruger-Davis' report. Mr Kable submitted that:
   • the Applicant is a reformed person who has removed himself from the previous stressful position, has remarried and has rebuilt his extensive business interests.
   • the Applicant's divorce and property settlements have been finalised. This has reduced a considerable amount of stress for the Applicant.
   • the Applicant is now in a stable and loving marriage. He was able to maintain his business, which is solvent, and employs approximately 60 people.
   • the Applicant now has nothing to do with his first wife.
   • the Applicant previously held a firearms licence without incident. That record can be regarded as is an indicator of likely future conduct.
   • Mr Kruger-Davis' report from November 2021 is still current.
   • For the reasons set out above, Mr Kruger-Davis believes that the Applicant is fit and proper to possess and use firearms, in accordance with the legislation.
2. Mr Kable's oral submissions were consistent with these points. He noted that Senior Member Walker had indicated that further time was needed before he could be satisfied that the Applicant should be able to possess and use firearms. He submitted that a further 3 years have passed and that time has shown that the Applicant has mended the error of his ways. He submitted that he now poses virtually no threat to the public.
3. Mr Kable referred to views expressed by Senior Member Dinnen in Hindmarsh v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 254 in which she stated:

"Diagnosis of mental health issues or even general concerns regarding an individual's mental health are not sufficient to demonstrate that there is a risk to public safety as a result of that individual holding a firearms licence. There has to be a demonstrable link between the mental health issues or individual's thought processes and how they are manifested or affect an individual's conduct so as to result in a risk or increased risk to public safety. "

1. Senior Member Walker relied on this view in Buchanan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 53 and he stated at paragraph [36]:

The case of Hindmarsh v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 254, [40] had shown that an observation of delusional thinking was not enough to justify licence revocation; there had to be a link to the licence holder's conduct.

1. Mr Kable submitted that in this case there is no instance of the Applicant using firearms inappropriately and the report of delusion or paranoia is a one-off or single occasion. The Applicant acknowledges that he over did it, had a negative reaction to drugs and alcohol and suffered from a negative reaction.

1. As noted, the Applicant has provided a number of character references. The writers of the character references provide a positive picture of the man they know and have been associated with in the local community. The references all indicate that the Applicant is held in high regard by the authors as a good and honest person and not the type of person to engage in criminal activities or have criminal associations.
2. In addition to the references from his long term acquaintances he relies on a reference from his wife who stated:

During our time together, John has informed me of the incident back in 2018. From what I have witnessed during our time together, this was completely out of character for him and during conversations about this event, he has expressed deep remorse and describes it as a moment of lunacy which he deeply regrets. This is not the John I know and married, and since being married I have not experienced John excessively take alcohol and never seen him take drugs. He has told me it was a 1 off, hence why it is my strong opinion that he had the reaction he did on that terrible night John has demonstrated that he has learnt his lesson and will never do drugs as he hasn't had an episode like that since.

1. Mr Kable submitted that, on all the evidence, there is an overwhelming indication that the Applicant can be entrusted with firearms in the community. Accordingly, his application for a firearms licence should be granted.

1. As noted, the character references provide a positive picture of the man they know. Senior Member Walker also indicated a positive response to the references that he was considering.
2. However, Senior Member Walker also formed a strong the view about the Applicant's background. He wrote:

He developed a pattern of violent behaviour beginning in the June 2005 confrontation at the Kings Court Hotel, followed by disorderly behaviour at the Crown Hotel in Camden in November 2007 and another episode in March 2011 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Hunter Valley involving destruction of a glass door, which saw him placed on a s 10 bond.

Then followed a series of occurrences which the applicant (and his referees) attribute to the stresses caused by his marriage breakdown, beginning with a verbal and physical altercation with his then wife in November 2014 that resulted in the suspension of his firearms licence, followed by a further verbal argument in June 2015. In the course of the incident at McDonald's in February 2016 he shouted profanities at staff and customers and threw a cup of water across the room, splashing other customers in the process. Fisticuffs outside the restaurant ensued, in which the applicant was actually the victim. He was issued with an infringement notice for offensive behaviour.

That pattern culminated in the full-scale mental breakdown at the Adina Apartments at Coogee on 25 February 2018 which has been described above. The mental health team at Prince of Wales Hospital diagnosed drug-induced psychosis but observed substantial improvement and stabilization of his mental state and discharged him late the same evening. Since then, there have been no other instances of erratic or aggressive behaviour and by all accounts he now behaves as a responsible member of the community. The psychologist's report by Mr Kruger-Davis assessed him as being within normal limits on all indicators.

1. He nevertheless formed the view that there is no reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant might not exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.
2. It does not follow that intemperate habits or being of unsound mind provide the only basis on which public interest issues might arise. After considering the public interest ground under section 11(7) of the Act, on the basis of the open and confidential evidence, Senior Member Walker concluded that:

while the applicant now enjoys a stable background and mental state and appears to have a sound reputation in the community, insufficient time has elapsed to enable a tribunal to be confident that there is no significant risk of a relapse into aggressive or destructive behaviour that might jeopardize public safety. His prior conduct was so egregious that more time without reports of further instances of violent or irrational behaviour, or other forms of adverse notice, would be needed before a decision favourable to him would be warranted. On those grounds, therefore, I find that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a firearms licence and the decision under review must be affirmed.

1. The question of risk is to be approached taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety.
2. On the material before me I agree with the view that the Applicant's prior conduct was egregious. Given the nature of the conduct that the Respondent has identified, I also agree that the mere passage of time is not sufficient itself to indicate a change of character as espoused.
3. In the present matter I have concerns in regard to the weight to be given to the psychologist report from Mr Kruger-Davis. It is common ground that the Applicant did not consult Mr Kruger-Davis for counselling. In the circumstances Mr Kruger-Davis did not have the opportunity to undertake a thorough consideration of the Applicant's background. It is not clear whether the Applicant was selective in what he told Mr Kruger-Davis or whether there was insufficient time to address all the issues that have been raised by the Respondent. In any event, limited weight can be given to the report because of these deficiencies.
4. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
5. It is also apparent that while the Applicant's references are very positive, they do not address most of the areas that are of concern to the Respondent. Similarly, limited weight can be given to the references for the same reason.
6. I agree with the view expressed by Senior Member Walker in relation to the material that was provided on a confidential basis.

1. I adopt the views expressed by the Court of Appeal in the In Ex Parte Tziniolis decision. That view has been repeatedly approved in the Courts. As was noted in Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2017] NSWCA 232 at paragraphs [82] - [83]:

82. It is true that many more years have passed in the case of Mr Hilton, and that he is, now, genuinely contrite. But the approach taken by Walsh JA shows that the entirety of Mr Hilton's conduct must be weighed to determine his current fitness and propriety.

83. In short, the evaluative balancing process adopted by the primary judge was correct, and his Honour's conclusion was one which was open to him in light of the evidence as a whole, and the heavy onus which Mr Hilton bore.

1. As was observed in BSR v Office of the Children's Guardian a party who asserts a fact has a responsibility to prove that fact. At this time there is insufficient evidence before me to establish that the Applicant has established himself as a different man.
2. The entirety of the Applicant's conduct must be weighed to determine the correct and preferable decision. It appears that there is merit in the Respondent's contention that the Applicant's approach is to minimise his conduct and that he appears to display no reflection, self-responsibility and reformation. Instead, he blames his marriage and ex-wife for his conduct. This is a relevant consideration in determining whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence.
3. On the totality of the material before me, I find that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence at this time. It follows that the decision under review must be affirmed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.