Gale v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2026] NSWCATAD 90;

(a) That the Applicant has a genuine reason for using silencers in his business.

(b) That the use of a silencer is necessary to ensure that the destruction of feral pests is done ethically and humanely.

(c) That the Applicant has adopted the best practices as per the NSW Department of Primary Industries national standard operating procedures (SOPs).

(d) That shooting feral pests without a silencer impacts accuracy and efficiency which in turn compromises the Applicant's ability to despatch pests in an ethical and humane manner, and in compliance with the SOPs.

(e) The Applicant has been unfairly hampered in his ability to expand his business, only 20% of which is currently pest control, as he is unable to act on certain existing contracts and attract new contracts which require the use of a silencer.

(f) The silencer is necessary in particular, in regard to the culling of deer, which get "spooked" and disperse immediately when one of the pack is shot without a silencer. This means there is often hours between kills, and potential disruption to nearby properties.

(g) Where the Applicant is shooting foxes and wild dogs, a silencer is required because once one of the pack is shot, the remainder will disperse and not return to the same area.

(h) Many of the Applicant's potential clients operate small (sub-100 acre) farms and are very noise conscious with respect to their neighbours, guests, pets and livestock/horses.

(i) Where shooting is done with a silencer, subsonic ammunition is appropriate. However, without a silencer, the Applicant may need to use supersonic ammunition, which comes with additional risks (eg over-shooting) and noise (sound-barrier "cracks").

(j) The Applicant has two additional contracts for pest control which he cannot undertake because they involve a non-rural area and would necessitate the use of a silencer.

(k) The Applicant cannot compete fairly with other service providers who hold permits for silencers and can therefore undertake culling with greater speed and efficacy.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that it was a fact that a silencer is necessary in the conduct of his business.
2. The Applicant relied on the Dutton Report and contended that Mr Dutton was more qualified and precise in his analysis than Senior Sergeant Schey, noting that the Respondent had not sought to cross-examine Mr Dutton.
3. The Applicant submitted therefore that Mr Dutton's evidence and qualifications as an expert should be given greater weight by the Tribunal than those of Senior Sergeant Schey.
4. The Applicant rejected the Respondent's suggestion that he had written the silencer requirement into his client contract in order to generate the "necessity" claimed and noted that the Respondent had not sought to cross-examine any of his clients who had submitted statements of support in this respect.
5. The Applicant further submitted that the need for a silencer was driven by his clients' needs and preferences, rather than being initiated by the Applicant.
6. The Applicant submitted that the "crack" of gunfire triggered the immediate dispersal of feral pests, which in turn impacted precision which then reduced the chances of disposing of pests in an ethical and humane manner.
7. The Applicant posited that he had observed the use of silencers when hunting in New Zealand and found they significantly assisted with these issues.
8. The Applicant submitted that he had tried alternatives, and none of these methods were effective in resolving the issues caused by not using a silencer.

1. The Respondents submitted that they have made the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances, and that their decision to retain the condition on the Licence should be affirmed by the Tribunal, for the reasons briefly outlined as follows:

(a) That s 11 of the Act mandates that the Respondent must not issue a permit authorising the possession or use of a prohibited weapon unless the Applicant has demonstrated a genuine reason for such.

(b) The Applicant has submitted that their reason is for business/employment purposes, and it is accepted that the Applicant conducts a business whose central features include work as a professional contractor engaged in vertebrate pest animal control.

(c) However, the Act requires the Applicant to demonstrate that it is necessary in the conduct of their business or employment. The Applicant has the evidentiary burden of demonstrating this necessity and has failed to meet that burden.

(d) The Applicant has established his preference for a silencer, and the benefits to his business, and certain clients' desire for him to use a silencer, however, these factors do not equate to a demonstration of necessity in satisfaction of the legislative requirements and the standard established by the relevant case law.

(e) The Schey Affidavit demonstrates that a silencer would not effectively resolve the Applicant's concerns about disturbance to vermin and livestock, due to the need to use supersonic ammunition which makes a loud "crack" whether or not a silencer is used. This is based on the contention that if the Applicant were to use subsonic ammunition (either with or without a silencer), there would be a reduction in accuracy and precision.

(f) The Schey Affidavit further posits there is a viable alternative available to the Applicant in the form of the latest generation of air rifles.

(g) It has been established that client demands or requests are not determinative of whether a silencer is necessary. In any case, all but two of the contracts prepared and submitted by the Applicant, containing a clause which requires the use of a silencer, were created subsequent to the Applicant's permit application.

(h) Therefore, the Applicant has manufactured the purported necessity, and in fact, the Applicant has been conducting this business successfully for some time without a silencer.

(i) That there are other effective and readily available ways of managing hearing loss impact, other than with silencers, for example ear plugs and earmuffs.

(j) That the Applicant's inability to expand his business without this permit, does not equate to necessity, and noting the Applicant's submission that only 20% (approximately) of his current business relates to pest control.

1. Whilst the terms "silencer" and "suppressor" were used somewhat interchangeably throughout the hearing, I will refer to the weapon as a silencer, in accordance with how it is referenced in the Act.
2. The Applicant's fitness and integrity have not been called into question in these proceedings, and the fact that the Applicant is operating a business was also not disputed by the Respondent.
3. The Applicant operates a business which has held an ABN since December 2024, under the registered trading name of a partnership between the Applicant and his wife. The business advertises on social media, and offers rural services including wild pest consulting, contract shooting and wild animal trapping, in exchange for an hourly or daily fee or per animal rate.
4. I therefore find that the Applicant is operating a business, offering a range of services in exchange for payment.
5. The issue in dispute is simply whether or not the possession or use of a silencer is necessary in the conduct of the Applicant's business.
6. In the absence of a definition of the word "necessary" in the Act, tribunals and courts have relied on the ordinary usage and dictionary meaning of the word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "necessary" to mean "absolutely needed" or "required". A "necessary conclusion" is one that is "logically unavoidable".
7. As per South Western Sydney Local Health District v Gould [2018] NSWCA 69 at [79], care must be taken in ascribing a particular dictionary meaning of a word in the statute as appropriate to "the context and purpose of the legislation in which it appears".
8. On the basis of the above, and the available case law, I consider the intent of the provision in s 11 of the Act is that the grant of a permit for a prohibited weapon must be refused unless the Applicant can demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that it is absolutely needed or required in order to conduct his pest control business.
9. With regard to whether there is a necessity for the Applicant to possess or use a silencer, the Applicant essentially submits that this is demonstrated by a combination of factors including (i) his clients' demands or requests; (ii) work health and safety concerns generated by the greater noise damage of discharging weapons without a silencer; (iii) the greater efficiency in culling when using a silencer; and (iv) that use of a silencer is ultimately more humane.

1. The Applicant has submitted a number of contracts dated 3 July 2025 with clients which include a term "The contractor is required at all times, to use only firearms fitted with suppressors to reduce the adverse impacts associated with noise to our business undertakings."
2. In response to the Respondent's inference that the Applicant may be creating a need for a silencer through the inclusion of this term in his contracts, the Applicant has further submitted two statements from clients. One client, Mr Martin has submitted that the use of a silencer is essential, for a range of reasons. The other client, Ms Baillie, has stated that allowing the Applicant to use a suppressor would "be a great help" in the eradication of feral deer on her property.
3. The Respondent did not seek to cross-examine or otherwise challenge the veracity of these statements.
4. It has been established in Formosa v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 132 (Formosa), at [32] that "[t]he Applicant must therefore be able to demonstrate that the use of a silencer would be necessary (in this stricter sense of essential, indispensable, imperative or directly required) to the conduct of his business" and "the fact that one client requests or even demands use of a silencer is not determinative of whether a silencer is necessary for the Applicant's role in the business of vermin control."
5. Formosa is distinguished from these proceedings, in that the relevant business had not been commenced, whereas the Applicant in these proceedings has an established and operating business. However, the consideration of whether his business could not be conducted on a viable basis without possessing and using a silencer remains applicable in these proceedings.
6. The Applicant relies on the contracts and client letters submitted to evidence his need for the permit. Whilst there is no doubt that certain clients may have a legitimate basis for requesting their contractor use a silencer, this does not equate to a necessity for the Applicant to have one.
7. I further accept that there will be circumstances where certain potential clients will elect not to engage the Applicant to perform the services due to his lack of permit for a silencer. However, the Applicant has submitted that only around 20% of his business operation is in the relevant area of pest control. This would suggest that these services are not central, core, nor form the essence of his service offering.

1. The Applicant has submitted that the potential damage caused by regular shooting without a silencer to a person's hearing is a significant and relevant factor in establishing necessity in these proceedings.
2. The Schey Affidavit asserts that whilst a silencer "may reduce the need to wear hearing protection (earmuffs, ear plugs or both)", the amount of noise reduction depends on many factors, and the risk of hearing loss can be appropriately managed in ways other than using a silencer. Senior Sergeant Schey references the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia 2019 'Safe Shooting - A Training Program in Firearms (longarms) safety for new shooters' in this regard.
3. Both parties have provided material in the form of expert reports and statements to the Tribunal concerning the efficacy of using a silencer for the purposes of pest animal control. Whilst there are points of difference between them, the experts appear to agree that use of a silencer goes some way towards reducing the noise, and the attendant impact.
4. Substantial material has also been provided by the parties with regard to the degree to which ear plugs and earmuffs effectively reduce the sound and hearing impacts, however it is clear that these are standard accepted equipment in the industry with regard to hearing protection and it is beyond the purview of these proceedings to determine otherwise.

1. The Applicant contends that culling activities would be significantly more efficient and take less time with a silencer. The benefits of a silencer are not disputed, however, none of the expert reports suggest the job cannot be done without one.
2. The Respondent contends that the use of a silencer merely facilitates noise reduction of the Applicant's contract shooting activities and improves his ability to cull higher numbers of vertebrate pest animals more effectively. However, this does not make a silencer "necessary" for the purposes of the business/employment genuine reason requirement.
3. The Applicant has provided a copy of the Terrestrial Vertebrate Working Group (2023) 'National Standard Operating Procedure: Ground Shooting for Feral and Wild Deer', in which it is noted that the most humane method of killing feral deer is for ground shooting to be carried out by "experienced and skilled shooters", using appropriate firearms and ammunition, and with a head or chest shot. The SOP notes that the use of silencers can be beneficial and recommends the use of tranquiliser darts for urban or peri-urban areas.
4. There is nothing in the material provided by the parties to refute the proposition that using a silencer may be beneficial in a number of aspects. Similarly, there is nothing in the material which states or suggests that the use of a silencer is indeed necessary or essential.
5. There was some discussion at the hearing regarding the relevant qualities of subsonic versus supersonic bullets, however the Applicant noted he uses subsonic bullets and would continue to use those with a silencer, if such were granted. Accordingly, I do not make any findings on the differences between these types of ammunition as they are not relevant to the core issue for determination in these proceedings.

1. The parties referenced a number of key relevant decisions, whereby the Respondent seeks to rely on the findings in those, and the Applicant seeks to distinguish them, in search of a different outcome.
2. The decision in Formosa can be distinguished on the basis that the applicant failed to establish that they were operating a business at the time of their application.
3. The decision in Allen can be distinguished in that it involved a sheep farmer who needed the firearm to shoot pests on his own rural land.
4. In Osborne v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (GD) [2000] NSWADTAP 10 (Osborne), an Appeal Panel of the ADT considered a similar issue regarding the necessity of firearms in a business/employment context. In these proceedings, the Appeal Panel considered whether necessity means "absolutely necessary" or "reasonably necessary" and noted at [45] "[t]he narrower view should, we consider, be preferred. The purpose of the legislation is to reduce the use and possession of firearms in the community." Adopting a broader view would "defeat the objects of legislation" as noted in that same paragraph.
5. Osborne focused on the way the business was conducted and necessity in the context of the core features of the business, not in the context of the way a person chooses to conduct the business per [46]-[47].
6. In Henney v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 174 (Henney), the Applicant's case predominantly failed on the basis that they could not demonstrate they were carrying on a business. However, at [52] the Tribunal relied on Senior Seargent Schey's expert testimony to state "I am not satisfied on balance, that the evidence is capable of establishing that the use of a suppressor silencer effectively minimises animal harm, or significantly increases the ability to control vermin."
7. The recent case of Burke v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 260 (Burke) bears significant similarities to the circumstances of these proceedings.
8. In Burke, at [5] the Tribunal provided:

"I am satisfied the possession and use of a silencer would provide a practical benefit to the applicant in doing his vertebrate pest animal control work. However, I am not satisfied that the possession or use of a silencer is necessary in the conduct of the applicant's business in the sense required by the WP Act."

"[A] central purpose of the WP Act is to impose strict controls on the possession and use of prohibited weapons aimed at improving public safety. The expression 'necessary in the conduct of the applicant's business' in the business/employment genuine reason should therefore be read strictly. In my view, the expression requires an applicant to demonstrate that the possession or use of the prohibited weapon concerned is essential, indispensable, imperative or directly required to the conduct of the applicant's business: Formosa at [32]. This would be demonstrated, for example, if the evidence showed that an applicant's business could not be conducted on a viable basis without possessing or using the weapon."

1. As in Burke, I do not consider the evidence of the experts to be decisive, as the issue before me is simply whether or not the possession or use of a silencer is necessary for the Applicant in the conduct of his business.
2. The Applicant, in his original submissions to the Respondent concluded "I understand that the use of a silencer may not be deemed absolutely necessary, but it is certainly a highly beneficial tool in improving the humane and effective management of feral animal populations". He continues to submit that he considers ''silencers [are] required to effectively control these populations".
3. It is clear that there would be a practical benefit for the Applicant in using a silencer, and that some of his clients prefer or may even demand it.
4. However, when considering the available case law, the ordinary meaning of the word "necessary", and the context of the Act and its objects, I find that the stricter definition and intention of the term should be applied.
5. I find that "necessary" means "absolutely necessary" or "indispensable", such that the Applicant's business cannot viably operate in its absence.
6. The Act is clear that use or possession of a silencer is prohibited unless it is demonstrated to be necessary in the conduct of the Applicant's business. The Applicant has the evidentiary burden in these proceedings, and on the balance of probabilities, I find that I am not satisfied that he has met this burden.
7. In short, my finding is based predominantly on the following factors: (i) there is nothing in the materials submitted to suggest the use of a silencer is necessary, as opposed to beneficial, in the conduct of the Applicant's business; (ii) the Applicant submitted that pest control is roughly 20% of his business, so it appears that this requirement is not core to the survival of his business, rather he has continued to operate his business effectively in its absence to date; (iii) the rationale submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate necessity in relation to health, efficacy or humaneness is not compellingly supported by the evidence available or provided; and (iv) whilst I accept that this refusal has an impact on the expansion of certain aspects of the Applicant's business, this is not sufficient to compel a determination of necessity.
8. Accordingly, it follows that I find that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Respondent.

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.