Fasitsas v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

Evidence

1. In June 2023 the Applicant provided an undated statement and, later, a statement dated 10 July 2023. She gave evidence and was cross examined. She also provided two emails from her father, Peter Fasitsas dated 11 May and 9 June 2023.
2. The Applicant provided a reference from Shawn Roberts dated 14 May 2023 and a certificate of completion of a course in firearms legislation from Firearms Safety and Training dated 7 July 2023.
3. The Respondent provided material in accordance with s 58 of the ADR Act, and later, supplementary material including Notice of Change of Storage of Firearms by the Applicant dated 24 December 2018 and a similar Notice by her father. The material also included COPS information in relation to a person sentenced and subject to a community correction order in relation to damaging property at the Applicant's home (discussed below).

Tribunal's approach

1. Section 63 of the ADR Act provides that in determining an application for review the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it, and any applicable written or unwritten law. It is well established that a tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the decision-maker, but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31. Under s 28(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: s 38(2) of the CAT Act. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner's, and there is no presumption that the decision of the Commissioner is correct: McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357. The standard of proof that applies in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. There is no onus of proof: Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 at [28]-[34]. The Tribunal is required to base its findings of fact on logically probative material and not on mere suspicion or speculation: Meacham v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAP 107 at [54] and [83].

Applicant's licence history

1. The Applicant held a category ABG firearms licence from 30 April 2012 to 13 May 2017 (2012 licence); and also from 30 January 2018 until its suspension on 3 August 2021 (2018 licence).
2. In her application for her 2012 licence, the Applicant relied on her membership of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) in nominating her genuine reasons for possessing or using a firearm in each category of licence.
3. The Applicant repeated these bases in her 2018 licence application the Applicant and also sought permission in relation to her Category G licence, to collect Category C and D firearms (in addition to Category A and B as had formerly been the case).
4. I observe that the Applicant's firearms licence expired on 20 March 2023; the Tribunal has no power to reissue the expired licence: see Beleski v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 397 at [59].

On what basis was the Applicant's licence revoked?

1. The Applicant's licence was revoked on the basis that she had failed to meet the participation requirements relevant to her licence.
2. On 20 October 2022, the SSAA provided the Respondent with the Applicant's club attendance records to the effect that: 1. for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013, the Applicant participated in only one hunting and one target shooting activity; 2. between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2019, the Applicant did not participate in any hunting, target shooting or collecting activity; 3. for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020, the Applicant participated in one collecting activity, one target shooting activity and two hunting shooting activities.
3. In the internal review the delegate referred to the Applicant's firearms having been seized in 2016 due to the domestic violence incident, and again in 2021 due to another domestic violence incident, both of which resulted in AVOs in favour of the Applicant. These incidents are discussed below.

Respondent's contentions before Tribunal

1. The Respondent submitted that 1. the Applicant has contravened a condition of her firearms licence, in particular, the participation requirements in the Regulation and therefore does not have a genuine reason for a firearms licence; 2. the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence as a result of her living or domestic circumstances give reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms; 3. it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold a firearms licence.
2. It was also submitted that the Applicant had failed to notify the Firearms Registry of a change to her safe storage address in around 2016 and 2021 contrary to cl 17 of the Regulation.
3. Each contention is considered in turn.

Does the Applicant have a genuine reason for a firearms licence?

1. As discussed above, the SSAA's attendance records with respect to the Applicant reveal that: 1. for the period 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013, the Applicant participated in only one hunting and one target shooting activity, in contravention of clauses 107, 108 and 109 of the Regulation; 2. between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2019, the Applicant did not participate in any hunting, target shooting or collecting activity, in contravention of clauses 107, 108 and 109 of the Regulation; 3. for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020, the Applicant participated in one collecting activity, one target shooting activity and two hunting shooting activities in contravention of clause 107 of the Regulation.
2. In cross examination the Applicant was taken to each participation year in the SSAA's records. The Applicant did not agree that she had only undertaken 6 shooting activities between 2011 and 2023. In respect of the 2011/12 year where she was recorded as having attended on no occasion, the Applicant did not agree that this was an accurate record of her participation and said she could not understand why more attendances had not been recorded. In relation to subsequent years, she acknowledged that the record noted her attendance on a total of 6 occasions. She said that she had attended a number of national AGMs of the SSAA and numerous "expos and shows". She agreed she did not fire any firearms at these activities but understood that attendance was restricted to those with a firearms licence. She observed that during the period "2016 to 2018" she was without her firearm which had been seized by Police. She also said that during 2020, because of COVID restrictions, there was a 2-year "grace" period, by which I understood her to mean that, for a period, participation requirements were suspended; the Respondent did not cavil with this assertion.
3. The Applicant agreed with respect to the 2019/20 year, in which she was recorded as undertaking one collecting activity, one target shooting activity and two hunting shooting activities, that she may have "missed a few". As to whether she was a member of a collectors' group she said she had read books in relation to collecting old firearms at first, and thought it was something her kids might be interested in. She did not refer to any attendances, other than those she had mentioned generally as "expos and shows".
4. In her statement she wrote that because her firearm is stored at her father's and he is mostly at work, she uses the firearms at the range. This does not however increase the number of occasions she attended to shoot at the range, and only described what firearm she may have used on the rare occasions she was there.
5. The Applicant's father wrote that between 2012 and 2016 the Applicant accompanied him on 6 or 7 hunting trips in the Bathurst area. There was no indication when those trips may have been, such as whether they were clustered or spread throughout the period.
6. Mr Roberts wrote that he had known the Applicant for several years and she had "shown [him] the ropes" at the firing range and shared her knowledge of firearms, safety protocols and best practices. It was unclear when this occurred and, in any event, his statement did not appear to relate to more than one attendance at the range.
7. In her statement and in her evidence the Applicant said that her 4 children (3 of whom suffer autism) keep her very busy, so she has rarely used her firearm. She is sole parent, has a dog training business and is a part time student. This may explain, but does not excuse, her failure to attend the range as required.
8. I am satisfied that the Applicant did not meet her participation requirements in respect of each category of licence held. Hence, she cannot be said to have a maintained her genuine reason for each category of her licence.

Did the Applicant fail to notify changes in relation to safe storage of her firearm?

1. In her application for her 2012 licence, the Applicant nominated an address in Regentville, as her safe storage address.
2. When Police were investigating the domestic violence incident in February 2016 the Applicant told Police that her firearm was now stored at her father's address, at Mount Vernon. It is unclear for how long it had been stored at that address, but, in any event, she did not notify the Firearms Registry of the change.
3. In her application for her 2018 licence, the Applicant nominated an address in Ashcroft, which was her father's home. On 24 December 2018, the Applicant notified the Firearms Registry that her safe storage address was now an address in Mount Vernon, having previously been an address in Lawson. There was no record of the Applicant having informed Police that her safekeeping address was at any time at the Lawson address.
4. On or about 23 November 2020, the Applicant's father notified the Firearms Registry that his safe storage address was now an address in Kingsgrove, noting that others, presumably his daughter, stored firearms at the address, as, in her evidence the Applicant said that her firearm had always been stored at her father's home. The Applicant, however, did not notify the Firearms Registry that she also had changed her safe storage address to Kingsgrove.
5. The Applicant said that in 2018 her father told her she needed to tell the Firearms Registry that her firearm was to be stored at his new address, and she had done so. She agreed in cross examination that because she had had the change noted in 2018, she should have been aware of her obligation in relation to the change in 2021, and said it was an oversight that she had not notified the Firearms Registry when her father had moved again in 2021.
6. I am satisfied that the Applicant has failed to notify the Firearms Registry of a change to her safe storage address on at least two, and possibly three occasions, contrary to cl 17 of the Regulation.

Is the Applicant a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and do her living or domestic circumstances give reasonable cause to believe that she may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms?

1. Section 11(3) of the Act requires that the Tribunal be satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.
2. The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, per Mason CJ. The expression "fit and proper person", on its own, carries no precise meaning and takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities: per Toohey and Gaudron JJ at 380. See also Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) [1955] HCA 28 (1955), Re Percival and Australian Securities Commission [1993] AATA 196, Re Brennan & Australian Casino Surveillance Authority (1995) 38 ALP 794 at [41].
3. In Sobey v Commercial Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 at 76, Walters J said in relation to the licensing of commercial and private agents, that the expression means that an applicant must show that he or she "is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails." In the context of firearms licensing, in Barlow v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2003] NSWADT 254 at [22], JM Higgins stated that in determining the fitness and propriety of an applicant for a licence s 11(3)(a) of the Act requires the decision-maker to have regard to an applicant's conduct and whether that conduct is such that the decision-maker can be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. The test is directed towards maintaining and encouraging appropriate standards in the use of firearms.
4. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal should not be satisfied the Applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. The Respondent submitted, in particular, that the Applicant has been the victim of multiple domestic violence incidents said to be in the course of 2 separate domestic relationships, including, most recently, at the hands of a person who lives on the same street as the Applicant. It was submitted that the Applicant's living and domestic circumstances give rise to a concern that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms.

Domestic incidents with the Applicant's then husband

1. The Applicant said in her evidence that she and her husband had married in 2004 and they had 4 sons. According to Police reports, on 9 February 2016, the Applicant and her then husband (husband) who were under financial stress, as neither was employed, were driving towards their home when they began arguing. On arriving home, they got out of their vehicle. As the husband walked behind the vehicle, the vehicle rolled down the driveway and over his left foot. He believed that the Applicant had intentionally caused this and they continued arguing. Subsequently, Police were called by one of their children. When the Police arrived, the husband was reportedly aggressive towards Police and was escorted from the home in handcuffs. Both parties, when spoken to by Police, were vague about details as to what had occurred and provided conflicting versions of events.
2. On 23 February 2016, Police received a call reporting that the Applicant was fighting with the husband, and that he was bashing her and had smashed windows. Meanwhile, the Applicant attended St Marys Police Station where she reportedly was belligerent and rude to Police, and stormed out of the station to return home. When Police spoke with the Applicant, she stated only that a heated argument had occurred. She did not appear to have sustained any injuries but Police observed two smashed windows at the home. Both parties said that their children had smashed the windows a few weeks beforehand.
3. On 8 April 2016, the Applicant attended Police to report an alleged violent physical and sexual assault that had occurred on 3 April 2016 following an argument with the husband. As a result, on 12 April 2016 the husband was issued with an Interim Apprehended Violence Order (IAVO) for the protection of the Applicant and a final Apprehended Violence Order was later issued that expired on 27 November 2022. The Applicant said she had not seen the husband since the events of 3 April 2016 and he has also had no contact with the children at all in the intervening years.
4. As a result of the first reported incident in February 2016, the Applicant's firearms licence was seized. The firearm was held by Police until the Applicant retrieved it on 29 April 2020, although it was reportedly available for release to her 28 days after the incident.

Domestic incident with Mr ED and his breach of ADVO

1. On 25 January 2021, the Applicant and Mr ED, reportedly the Applicant's partner of about 4-5 years, were drinking alcohol with the Applicant's cousin at the Applicant's home. According to Police records, at around 3:30am on 26 January 2021, the Applicant and Mr ED had an argument, and the cousin messaged his mother to call the Police to attend the premises. Police attended about 30 minutes later, and the Applicant and Mr ED and the cousin said that the Applicant and Mr ED had engaged in a heated verbal argument. As a result, Police requested Mr ED to return to his residence, located on the same street, which he did.
2. In her evidence the Applicant denied that she had been in a relationship with Mr ED, claiming that he was only a neighbour. In her statement she wrote, though, that she had been "casually seeing" Mr ED. The Applicant said she could not recall Police attending her home on the Australia Day weekend in 2021.
3. On 3 August 2021, Mr ED attended the Applicant's residence to pick up his BBQ. According to Police records, as he was leaving there was an argument between him and the Applicant and he accused the Applicant of being unfaithful, sleeping around with other men and called her a 'slut'. They argued and he then kicked the front gate open, causing the latch to come loose, before allegedly slapping the Applicant on the face. The Applicant then ran inside her house, shutting the front door. Mr ED kicked in the front door, breaking the door jam. He continued to argue with the Applicant until she told him to leave, which he did. The Applicant then contacted Police. When Police arrived, she reportedly told them that Mr ED was only a neighbour and not her partner. Later, she reportedly told Police that they had been in a romantic relationship for a few years. In her evidence she denied she had been in a relationship with Mr ED, and said she had known him for a few years since she had lived in the street.
4. Police arrested Mr ED, and as a result of this incident, Police seized the Applicant's firearm which was stored at her father's and suspended the Applicant's firearms licence.
5. Mr ED was charged with "intentionally or recklessly destroy/damage property domestic violence related" contrary to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 and on 23 June 2022, was convicted and sentenced to a Community Correction Order for a period of 15 months. He was issued with a Provisional Apprehended Violence Order for the protection of the Applicant, which was replaced with a full Apprehended Violence Order on 10 August 2021 which is in place until 22 June 2024.
6. On 22 September 2021, the Applicant reported to Police that Mr ED had breached the AVO by contacting her on nine occasions between 10 August 2021 and 10 September 2021. On 23 September 2021, Police attended Mr ED's home where he was arrested for breach of the AVO. Mr ED reportedly became aggressive, went into the kitchen, opened the kitchen drawer and was ripping out utensils, causing Police to believe they were in danger, and they armed their tasers. Capsicum spray was deployed and it took four police officers to restrain him, as he continued to resist arrest.
7. The Applicant said in her evidence that Mr ED continues to live near her - across the road and 4 doors up. She said she has had no further conversation with him since the events described above and he has not sought to engage her in conversation either.

Conclusion in relation to domestic circumstances

1. In LY v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 115 at [41]- [43], the Tribunal held that the Commissioner, and hence the Tribunal on review, must objectively be satisfied, from established facts, of the matters set out in s 11(4)(a) of the Act, that is, whether the Applicant's domestic circumstances are such that she may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over her firearms. Domestic violence is clearly at the heart of s 11(4)(a) of the Act, and the Tribunal has considered many times circumstances where the licence holder is not the perpetrator of the domestic violence: see for example, Mekhitarian v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 198 and Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144 (Lee).
2. There was no dispute that the Applicant has no criminal history. It is unfortunate that she found herself in a violent relationship with the husband. There was no contention that she had retaliated by resorting to violence herself, and in particular, she had not relied on her firearm to defend herself. I observe though that this course would not have been open to her in any event as, at the time, her firearm was stored at her father's. There was also no evidence that her husband had sought access to her firearm during their relationship nor that he was associated with others who may have desired such access. I also observe that the Applicant has had nothing whatever to do with her ex-husband since the events of 2016, now over 7 years ago.
3. It is also unfortunate that the Applicant had an association with Mr ED. The Police, on 2 occasions they attended her home in response to complaints about Mr ED, recorded that they were told, presumably by the Applicant who was the complainant, that they had been in a relationship for 4-5 years. She denied a relationship in her evidence. I accept that the Applicant and Mr ED may never have co-habited, but that does not preclude them having been in a form of domestic relationship. While the Applicant denied that they were in a relationship, I have reservations that they were not more than mere neighbours as the Applicant contended. I accept though, that nowadays they do not even converse, notwithstanding the proximity of their homes. In that regard, I note that Mr ED remains subject to an ADVO which will not expire until June 2024.
4. Again, there was no contention that the Applicant had retaliated against Mr ED's physical abuse by resorting to violence. There was also no evidence that Mr ED had sought access to her firearm nor that he was associated with others who may have desired access. I also observe that the Applicant appears to currently have nothing to do with Mr ED.
5. I am satisfied on the basis of the Applicant's evidence that her regrettable interactions with her former husband and Mr ED are now in the past. Furthermore, I accept that her firearm has always been stored at her father's various premises, and access to it, by her or others, is therefore very limited.
6. For these reasons, I am comfortably satisfied that the Applicant's living or domestic circumstances do not give reasonable cause to believe that she may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms. I find she is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.

Public interest

1. The Respondent also contended that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence: s 24(2)(d) of the Act and cl 20 of the Regulation. The term "public interest" is not expressly defined in the Act or Regulation. A decision in relation to the public interest in this context is particularly informed by the underlying principles and objects of the Act and the strict controls under the Act in relation to licensing. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9, at [25], the Appeal Panel said that the "public interest" is an inherently broad concept giving the Commissioner (and hence the Tribunal on review) the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in deciding whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual.
2. The Tribunal is required to look at the Applicant's conduct as a whole, including potential future conduct. In that regard, past conduct of the Applicant is a significant guide in assessing likely future conduct: see for example, Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 156 at [141].
3. The discretion to make a decision in the public interest is not confined except by the scope and purposes of the legislation itself: see DMC v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 219 at [15]. The Tribunal must exercise its discretion in determining this review in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50, at [23]. The underlying principles stated in s 3(1) of the Act emphasise that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Strict controls on the possession and use of firearms are imposed in the interests of public safety. Where there is the possibility of a threat to the public's safety, the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm: Lee at [94].
4. There are a number of features of the Applicant's conduct, each of which, on its own may not have sufficed, on public interest grounds, to preclude the Applicant from continuing to hold a firearms licence, but these, together, give rise to concern in the context of public protection and safety and, particularly, public confidence in the administration of the licensing system.

Failure to comply with obligations under the Act

1. It is trite to say that holders of firearms licences must understand the requirements of the Act and Regulation, and must also act in accordance with those requirements: Nepotu v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 101 at [41]. See also Lukas v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 268 at [73]. The Applicant failed to meet her participation requirements in respect of each category of licence over a period of several years. She also failed to keep the Firearms Registry informed as to the storage of her firearm over a period of several years.
2. In Uzelac v Commissioner of Police, Ministry of Police [2003] NSWADT 226 Hennessey DP said that if the breaches of the Act or Regulation are trivial or excusable, as distinct from fundamental, there is less likelihood of a risk to public safety. In Bevan v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWADT 1, the Tribunal stated at [26]: ... Parliament has given a clear indication that the Commissioner is to revoke or refuse a licence, unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the contravention was merely a technical breach, the conduct posed no risk to public safety and there was no evidence that the licence holder or applicant for a licence would in future engage in conduct that posed a risk to public safety (see s3(1)(a) of the Act). (Tribunal's emphasis)
3. The Applicant's contraventions in the present matter were not merely a "technical" breach; the Act sets out clear obligations and the Applicant has failed to comply with those obligations over a period of several years. Her continued failure to comply cannot be disregarded as a mere oversight: per Todororovski v The Commissioner of Police [2019] NSWCATAD 192 at [130].
4. The solicitor for the Applicant referred in submissions to my decision in Aloschi v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 64 (Aloschi). There, the Applicant, even though not a member of a gun club, was still able to satisfy the 'genuine reason' for his licence on production of authority to shoot, and provided evidence that he had done so. The same occurred in Lee, to which I was also referred by the Applicant's solicitor, where the Applicant fell "shy" of the requisite number of shoots, but there was evidence that he had undertaken hunting activities. In this matter though, there was scant evidence of hunting activities with her father, and this did not overcome the participation failures.
5. In Kogias v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 297, SM Walker stated at [101] 101. Legislation such as the Firearms Act serves the public interest in ways that go beyond guarding against misconduct by an individual licensee. Licence refusals and similar orders serve the public interest by establishing a regulatory structure for an activity that not only protects the public from harm, but also helps to maintain public confidence in the licensing scheme by signalling that those whose activities do not meet the required standards will not be granted a licence or permit: Moujalli v Roads and Maritime Services [2017] NSWCATAD 141, [52] - [53]. One of the expressed objects of the Firearms Act is "to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms": s 3(2)(b).
6. The Applicant failed in her participation requirements and in her obligation to inform the Firearms Registry as to the safe storage of her firearm. The public expectation is that the privileged holders of firearms licences will comply with their statutory obligations; the confidence in the scheme depends on meeting that expectation.

Driving record

1. Although not specifically relied on by the Respondent, from the s 58 documents, it was apparent that, since obtaining her drivers' licence in 2008, the Applicant has had multiple traffic infringements, including speeding, negligent driving, and various non-compliance offences such as not display "P" plates and stop in school zone, resulting in the suspension of her licence on several occasions. It is well established that repeated breaches of traffic laws and regulations are a relevant consideration in determining whether a firearms licence should be granted (and by inference, revoked): Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116 at [32] and [37]; see also Himo v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 321. The Applicant's conduct in relation to traffic offences may indicate an inability to observe, or an intentional disregard for, rules which are imposed for public safety and may indicate a lack of regard for her own safety and that of the public. Although the last reported infringement was in 2019, given her history of traffic infringements, I cannot be satisfied that similar conduct will not be repeated, given her long-standing disregard for the traffic regulatory scheme.
2. Similarly, I cannot be satisfied that she may not continue to disregard aspects of the firearms regulatory scheme, as she has done in the past.

Conclusion in relation to public interest

1. The "public interest" factor allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of an applicant to be taken into account; public safety is to be given paramount consideration: Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 at [24].
2. The Tribunal has referred many times to Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 (Ward) where Hennessy DP at [28] said that in terms of public safety, "the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk", while acknowledging that the Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would never pose any risk to public safety. The question of risk is not to be viewed as requiring an applicant to discharge an almost impossible burden of proving a near absolute negative, but, in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 (Martin), at [64] - [66]. The principle in Ward is about identifying the possible risks to the public, and then making decisions that are consistent with the need to reduce any risks to a minimum.
3. The Applicant said in her statement and in her evidence that she seeks a firearms licence because she hopes to go shooting with her sons; her youngest son, who is aged 9 and is not, like his brothers, on the autism spectrum, is interested in family history and she would like to take him shooting, as both her parents held firearms licences. As a child, she would go shooting with her father and sometimes watch him compete in competitions. Her father had given her his father's .22 rifle and this is her sole firearm. (She now proposes to transfer it to her father.) She said she would like to get involved in women's shooting and target shooting in particular and to go on hunting trips. She said she thought collecting old firearms might be something her kids might be interested in as well.
4. Private interests such as wishing to continue a family activity and wishing to participate in sports involving shooting, however, are not the only matters taken into account; the interests of the whole community are matters for consideration: Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657 at 681. As I have observed many times, these matters include public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16 at [33].
5. I also observe that the Applicant, when engaging with Police in relation to the domestic violence matters, while perhaps distressed by the events, did not appear, from the Police records, to have been forthright with Police about the events which gave rise to Police intervention: see [46-47] above. This added to my concern that her respect for the regulatory scheme and those charged with enforcing it, has been lacking.
6. I note the proposal that a condition be imposed on the Applicant's licence that her firearm be stored at her father's. This may have been relevant in respect of the Applicant's domestic circumstances but does not address her failure to comply with her statutory obligations.

Conclusion

1. My conclusion is therefore that while the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, it would be contrary to the public interest for her to hold a licence at this time. This does not, of course, preclude her from making another application, especially when she is able to demonstrate a genuine interest and is prepared to meet participation and reporting requirements. The Applicant has displayed an inadequate knowledge of the firearms' legislation's requirements, or she had a lack of preparedness to comply with those obligations. I accept that she has recently undertaken a course in firearms legislation and that, from her evidence, she now feels she has a better understanding of her obligations. This may better prepare her if she seeks a licence in the future.
2. The public needs to be confident that those who are afforded the privilege of a firearms licence will comply with the legislative requirements: see Morris v The Commissioner of Police [2002] NSWADT 223, [21] to [27] above. In my view it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to retain her firearms licence. I consider that the revocation of the Applicant's firearms licence will assist in ensuring public interest is accounted for and the confidence of the public in the licensing system safeguarded: per Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16, at [33]; and Martin.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 20 July 2023