Gavin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 83

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Lee [2016] NSWCATAP 234

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16

Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] Vic Rep 6; (1991) 1 VR 63

DMC v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 219

El Saadi v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 336

Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89

Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97

Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206

McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354

Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10

O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286; [2008] HCA 31

Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 156

Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent)

(1) Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the NCAT Act, the publication of any evidence given during any Private Hearing and the information contained, and documents referred to, in the Confidential Affidavit and the Confidential submissions (the Confidential Material) is prohibited.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the NCAT Act, the disclosure to the Applicant and her legal representatives of any evidence given, or submissions made, during any Private Hearing and the Confidential Material is prohibited.

(3) Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the NCAT Act, the transcript and recording of any Private Hearing is not to be published or disclosed to the Applicant, the legal representatives of the Applicant, or the public.

(4) Except pursuant to order (5) below, all paragraphs marked "[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]" are not to be published pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the NCAT Act or to be released to the Applicant.

(5) A copy of these reasons, without redaction shall be released to the Respondent.

1. Tiarne Anne Gavin (the Applicant) is seeking review of a decision made by the Respondent to refuse her application for a category AB firearms licence (the Application) under the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) (the Act) for the stated genuine reason of recreational hunting/vermin control. The Application was received by the Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (the Respondent) on 7 June 2023. The decision to refuse the Application was made by the Respondent on 11 August 2023.
2. On 8 September 2023, the Applicant applied for internal review of the Respondent's decision to refuse her firearms licence and provided additional material in support of the request. On 29 September 2023, the Respondent affirmed the decision to refuse the Application (the Decision).
3. On 20 October 2023, the Applicant applied for administrative review of the Decision (application for review) and no issue was taken by the parties in relation to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this matter.
4. On 31 January 2024, Senior Member Montgomery made certain confidentiality orders pursuant to s 59 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (the ADR Act) and s 49 and ss 64(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the NCAT Act).

1. Section 75(1)(a) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal for administrative review of the Respondent's decision pursuant to s 9 of the ADR Act. I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to this application for review.

1. The general principles and objects of the Act are set out in s 3 as follows:

3 Principles and objects of Act

(1) The underlying principles of this Act are -

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being 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 and use of firearms, and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and

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

(a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

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

(c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and supply of firearms,

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner,

(f) ...

11 General restrictions on issue of licences

(1) The Commissioner may issue a licence in respect of an application or refuse any such application.

...

(3) A licence must not be issued unless -

(a) the Commissioner is 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, and

(c) the Commissioner is satisfied that the storage and safety requirements set out in Part 4 are capable of being met by the applicant, and

...

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3) (a), a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of -

(a) the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances, or

...

(7) Despite any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

(8) The regulations may provide other mandatory or discretionary grounds for refusing the issue of a licence.

(1) The Commissioner must not issue a licence that authorises the possession and use of a firearm unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant has a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm.

...

(4) Subject to this Act, an applicant for a licence has a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm if the applicant -

(a) states that he or she intends to possess or use the firearm for any one or more of the reasons set out in the Table to this section, and

(b) is able to produce evidence to the Commissioner that he or she satisfies the requirements specified in respect of any such reason.

1. "Sport/target shooting" is a genuine reason specified in the Table in s 12 of the Act. The Table provides that the Applicant must:

...be a current member of a shooting club approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations, and which conducts competitions or activities requiring the use of the firearm for which the licence is sought.

1. "Recreational hunting/vermin control" is also a genuine reason specified in the Table in s 12 of the Act. The Table provides that the Applicant must:

(a) be the owner or occupier of rural land, or

(b) produce proof of permission given by the owner or occupier of rural land, or by an officer or employee of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development or other authority prescribed by the regulations, to shoot on rural land, or

(b1) produce proof of permission given by a land manager within the meaning of the Forestry Act 2012 to shoot on land in respect of which the land manager is authorised to exercise functions as land manager under that Act, or

(c) be a current member of a hunting club approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations.

The regulations may provide for the manner and form in which any such permission is to be given, the extent to which it operates, and how it is to be produced as evidence by the applicant. A person does not, so long as the person is authorised to give permission to shoot on land referred to in paragraph (b) or (b1), incur any liability merely because the person gives the applicant permission to shoot on the land concerned.

1. The Table also provides the following genuine reasons:

Reason: primary production

The applicant must -

(a) be a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, or who is the owner, lessee or manager of land used for primary production, and

(b) state that he or she intends to use the firearm solely in connection with farming or grazing activities (including the suppression of vertebrate pest animals on the land concerned).

Reason: vertebrate pest animal control

The applicant must be -

(a) a professional contract shooter engaged or employed in controlling vertebrate pest animals on rural land, or

(b) a person employed by or in, or authorised by, a government agency prescribed by the regulations that has functions relating to the control or suppression of vertebrate pest animals, or

(c) a person whose occupation is the business of a primary producer, or who is the owner, lessee or manager of land used for primary production, and who is participating in an authorised campaign conducted by or on behalf of a government agency or public authority to eradicate large feral animals or animals that are affected by brucellosis or tuberculosis.

Reason: business or employment

The applicant must demonstrate that it is necessary in the conduct of the applicant's business or employment to possess or use the firearm for which the licence is sought.

1. The substantive matter was heard by the Tribunal on 8 April 2024. At the conclusion of the open hearing on that day, a confidential hearing (Private Hearing) was held pursuant to s 49(2) of the NCAT Act.
2. In these reasons in order to protect the privacy of certain third persons, I will refer to them either by their relationship to the Applicant or through the use of an initial for that person.

1. At the commencement of the proceedings, Mr Madden, the solicitor appearing on behalf of the Respondent, indicated that there was an error with the USB containing the footage from the police body worn video that formed part of the s 58 documents that had previously been filed and served by the Respondent and sought leave to replace the USB. Mr Kable, the solicitor appearing on behalf of the Applicant indicated that whilst he had not had the opportunity to canvass the matter with his client, the footage contained in the USB did not change the landscape and indicated that he did not require further time to consider the material. On this basis, leave was granted to the Respondent to replace the original USB in the s 58 documents with a new USB and the original was returned to the Respondent.
2. The Respondent relied on the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) together with a non-confidential affidavit of Licensing Sergeant Peter Saunders (Officer Saunders) dated 30 January 2024 (exhibit R2). The Applicant relied on the material and submissions contained in the internal review request that was made on behalf of the Applicant on 8 September 2023, and which was included in the s 58 documents. This material consisted of a letter from the Applicant dated 7 September 2023, a letter of Authority dated 7 September 2023 and four character references.
3. The Applicant gave oral evidence by way of audio-visual link and was cross-examined by Mr Madden, the solicitor appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

1. As indicated above, the Applicant relied on the submissions contained in the internal review request. The Respondent relied on the written submissions dated 6 April 2024. Oral submissions were made on behalf of both parties at the public hearing.

1. At the conclusion of the public hearing, a Private Hearing was held pursuant to s 49(2) of the NCAT Act. The orders made by Senior Member Montgomery on 31 January 2024 continued in force.
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

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 then before it, and any applicable written or unwritten law. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of that of the Respondent and there is no presumption that the decision of the Respondent is correct: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357. In doing so it may exercise all of the functions conferred or imposed by any relevant enactment.
2. There is no onus of proof: Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 at [28]- [30], [34]. In an application for review the 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) 235 CLR 286; [2008] HCA 31.
3. 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] (Cusumano). Accordingly, the objects and purposes of the Act are relevant when exercising a discretion under the Act.

1. It was not in dispute that the Applicant had not previously held a firearms licence and does not have a criminal history. In the Respondent's written submissions, it was acknowledged that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant has been directly involved in criminal activity, nor that she has ever been charged with a criminal offence. I am satisfied that this is the case and have regard to it in my consideration of this matter. Whilst the Applicant does have a limited traffic history, there have been no further matters in over a decade, and I give no further consideration to the traffic history.
2. It was the Respondent's position that the Tribunal should find that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the Respondent's Decision to refuse the Application because:

(a) The issue of the licence to the Applicant would be contrary to the public interest; and

(b) There is reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the Applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances.

1. Following the Applicant's oral evidence at the hearing, Mr Madden submitted that having regard to her evidence at the hearing relating to her genuine reason for a licence that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
2. It was the Applicant's position that there is no risk to public safety if the Applicant was to be granted a firearms licence and that she is a fit and proper person. It was submitted that if there were any concerns in relation to the possibility of any undue influence on the Applicant, then this could be addressed by the imposition of conditions on the Applicant's licence.

1. The phrase "public interest" is not defined in the Act. In O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210 at [13], the High Court held that the "public interest" imported a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters, confined only in so far as the subject matter and the scope and purpose of the legislation might require. In Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 at [25], which dealt with the revocation of a security licence, the Appeal Panel described the public interest ground in the relevant Act in the following terms:

[A]n inherently broad concept giving the [Commissioner] the ability to have regard to a wide variety of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. As the possibility of refusing an application on the ground of character is dealt with elsewhere in the same section, it is reasonable to infer that the Parliament intended that the public interest discretion operate in areas to which the character ground was not relevant or, possibly, in circumstances where an objection on character grounds would not be sufficient in its own right to warrant refusal.

1. The concept does include standards acknowledged to be for "the good order of society and for the well-being of its members": Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] Vic Rep 6; (1991) 1 VR 63. In Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (No 2) [1995] IRCA 540; (1995) 131 ALR 657, 681, the High Court said:

The purpose of the reference to "public interest" is to ensure that private interests are not the only matters taken into account; to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the Commissioner's consideration. The effect of the reference is to amplify the "scope and purpose" of the legislation.

1. The issue of public interest allows for matters going beyond the applicant's character to be taken into account. They 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]. In the present context and given the objects of the Act as explicitly and emphatically stated in s 3(1), the primary consideration in relation to the public interest must be public safety.
2. In a familiar passage, Hennessy DP in Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 (Ward), 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. Ward was a case on the "fit and proper person" test, but the formulation has been held to apply to the public interest test as well: Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89 at [23]; Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206 at [130].
3. Since then, Hennessy DP has cautioned against applying that language in a mechanistic way, pointing out in AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 (AML) that that the Ward decision itself had set aside the Commissioner's decision to revoke a firearms licence because her Honour was Mr satisfied that despite the fact that he had assaulted his partner, he was a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence. "The 'virtually no risk' comment was made in the context of the 'fit and proper person' test. It should not be understood as a judicial gloss on the plain meaning of that test, or of the reasonable cause test. The relevant tests are set out in the Firearms Act and comments in cases should not be substituted for those tests" at [8].
4. Other cases have pointed out that 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 at [64] - [66]. Thus, in Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 at [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that, "In determining this issue it is my view that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account. Minimal, fanciful or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration".

1. The Respondent submitted that due to the Applicant's associations and her limited appreciation of the risk of those associations that the issue of a firearms licence to the Applicant would be contrary to the public interest. It was the Respondent's contention that the Applicant was in a relationship with Mr A, who has been charged with or accused of a number of violent offences between 2007 and 2017.
2. The Respondent also contended that the Applicant and Mr A are associated with members of the Bandidos Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (OMCG), and at the very least with two members of that OMCG, namely Mr B and Mr C, and that on 18 March 2023, a wedding reception for Mr C was held at the property owned by Mr A, and at which the Applicant also resides. The Respondent also contended that Mr B was observed wearing full Bandidos colours at the wedding and was also observed by police on subsequent occasions riding a motorcycle and wearing Bandidos colours.
3. The Respondent also relied upon various interactions between the Applicant and police and submitted that the Applicant was evasive and displayed extremely limited understanding of the risk arising from her possession and use of firearms whilst maintaining those OMCG associations. It was submitted that these factors, in conjunction with the Applicant's partner's long-term issues with resorting to violent conduct, would lead the Tribunal to conclude that the issue of a firearms licence to the Applicant would pose a sufficient risk to the public safety that the issue of a firearms licence would be contrary to the public interest.
4. It was also the Respondent's position that the Tribunal would have reasonable cause to believe that the Applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms, because of Mr A's history of violent conduct and given that known members of the Bandidos OMCG had attended their residence.
5. At the hearing, the Respondent also raised issues about the genuine reason for the Applicant seeking to hold a firearms licence and submitted that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

1. The Respondent relied on various records obtained from the Respondent's Computerised Operational Police System (COPS) database (part exhibit R1) together with a copy of his criminal history. It was not in dispute that Mr A had a criminal history, and that this consisted of a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which Mr A was given a bond on 29 January 2009 under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (s 10 bond) for a period of 18 months and ordered to pay compensation.
2. It was not in dispute that on 25 July 2017, Mr A was served with an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) taken out against him on behalf of a third person and that on 5 March 2018, Mr A was given a s 10 bond for a contravention of the ADVO that took place on 10 August 2017. It was also not in dispute that on 13 April 2018, following an appeal to the District Court, Mr A was convicted of an offence of affray that took place in a hotel on 7 September 2017 and that he was fined in relation to the matter. Further details of these matters are contained in the COPS reports contained in the s 58 documents.
3. The Respondent's material also includes police reports and facts sheets regarding further accusations relating to Mr A which did not result in criminal findings. As these matters were not the subject of criminal findings, and no further evidence was adduced in relation to them, I have given no weight to these accusations in the context of this matter.
4. A COPS report Event Ref No: E XXX113 created on 12 July 2023 (July 2023 COPS report) was relied upon by the Respondent (part exhibit R1). The July 2023 COPS report related to the consideration of the Application by the Respondent and includes the following entries under the heading "Details of Concerns":

"Close associate of the applicant...[Mr A]...is recorded in intelligence information, concerns held that the applicant may be coerced into providing firearms or ammunition for use in criminal activity.

...

It is of note that [Mr A] has recently been refused a firearm licence on the grounds of having been served an Apprehended Violence Order within the last 10 years (Mandatory)..."

1. The Respondent relied upon a number of COPS reports, including Event Ref No: E XXX140 created on 26 January 2021. This records the Applicant as residing at the same address as Mr A. This is the address used by the Applicant in the Application and at which she was present when police attended that location on 17 March 2023 and 3 August 2023. The COPS report refers to Mr A as the "NOK/FATHER" of a number of children and the Applicant as the "NOK/STEPMOTHER" to those children. A further COPS report created on 15 February 2021 also refers to the same address for the Applicant and identifies her as the children's stepmother as well as a support person for them.

1. The Respondent relied on a number of further COPS reports (part exhibit R1 and part exhibit R2) in relation to this issue, including Event Ref No: E XXX850. This COPS report relates to a police interaction with Mr B on 13 October 2022 in which he was observed riding a motorcycle and wearing a black "Bandidos OMCG" t-shirt. Mr B was recorded as having told police that he was a probationary member of a chapter of the Bandidos OMCG and had been for about three years. A further Information Report relating to Mr B from May 2013 was annexed to Officer Saunder's statement (exhibit R2) and referred to Mr B's criminal priors.
2. [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
3. In a further COPS report, Event Ref No: E XXX856, created on 17 March 2023 (March 2023 COPS report) it is recorded that Police received information that three to four people wearing Bandidos colours entered a hotel in the same area in which the Applicant and Mr A resided, and that following a request, they had removed their colours. Information received by police indicated that these persons were in the area to attend a wedding reception at the Applicant's address. An information report summary from 17 March 2023 was annexed to Officer Saunder's statement and contains similar material. There is also reference to police observing the property at which the Applicant and Mr A resided in, and which had had a large marquee erected on it at that time.

1. The March 2023 COPS report indicates that police then attended the Applicant's address and spoke to Mr A and to the Applicant. This conversation was recorded on the police body worn video footage (March 2023 footage) (part exhibit R1).
2. I have viewed the March 2023 footage which shows Mr A, the Applicant, a woman, and various children at the Applicant's residence. It is apparent that one of Mr A's children had a fishhook lodged in his foot, that the child was distressed, and that Mr A and the others were dealing with this issue. The police advised Mr A of patched OMCG members attending licenced premises and that police had received information that a wedding might take place at BH's premises. Mr A advised that it was a reception and not a wedding. Police then asked if the wedding was local and the Applicant responded by stating words to the effect of "well, what's the information you've got?."
3. The police then stated that they had information that a wedding or reception was to be held at the property with a potential of some "bikie" connection and possibly that bikies were coming or wearing colours and asked if that was something that Mr A wanted to tell the police about. The Applicant asked police if there was a better time and Mr A indicated that there was just him, the two women and seven kids at the property at that time and suggested that the police come back the next morning. Mr A said that he had not seen anyone wearing colours and that his priority at that time was his child.
4. The police then asked Mr A to let the "guys know, whoever the senior guy is that's here, who's come along with the crew" that police did not want to see patched people riding the streets but if "they" kept their heads down, kept it low profile it would be "cool". However, if they stuck their heads up, police would have to have an appropriate and proportional response. Mr A indicated that there would be "no dramas". The Applicant then had a conversation with one of the officers about their jealous neighbours who watched everything on the property. One of the attending officers indicated that they may attend the property the next day to check that everything was ok in relation to the wedding. Police then left the property.
5. The March 2023 COPS report indicates that on 18 March 2023, police came across Mr B who was described as a "well known" Bandidos member. Mr B is recorded as having volunteered to police that he was late for a wedding, and that afterwards they would be going to an address (the same as that of the Applicant and Mr A). He is recorded as stating that they were only "local guys", about nine of them. Detectives then went to the area where the wedding was taking place and observed seven to ten male attendees plus a number of women and children. It was noted that only Mr B was seen wearing colours. No further action was taken by police.

1. The July 2023 COPS report also records the steps to be taken by police in relation to the Application as including contacting the Applicant to arrange a firearms application licence interview and the nature of the enquiries to be made by the police. It was requested that the interview be recorded via body worn video and uploaded to the Event. The July 2023 COPs report goes on to record those police attended the Applicant's residence at approximately 10.20 am on 3 August 2023. The Respondent relied upon the police body worn video footage of this meeting (August 2023 footage) (part exhibit R1).
2. The August 2023 footage was played during the hearing and contains both sound and vision of the conversation between the Applicant and the attending police. Following some questions about her Application and firearms course, the Applicant was asked who Mr A was, and she replied, "that's my employer's son." One of the attending officers then said words to the effect of "You're not in a relationship with him?" and the Applicant replied, "part time". The attending officer made reference to the wedding at the property and asked if the Applicant had any affiliations with motorcycle gangs and she replied, "I'm not a member". When asked if she knew anyone or was friends with them, she replied "Not really - everyone knows people but I'm not in a club." The Applicant was asked who she was friends with, and she replied with words to the effect of, "Well, I'm not friends with the club. I just know people who are in it." The Applicant was asked which clubs, and she responded "Bandidos."
3. The attending officer then asked the Applicant, "What people do you know who are in the Bandidos?" and she responded, "What's this got to do with it?" She was then told that the information was important in relation to whether or not it was in the public interest for her to have a firearms licence and she was asked "Who do you know who's in the Bandidos". The Applicant replied, "Who have you got information about and I'll tell you if I am or not".
4. The attending officer indicated that he was asking the Applicant if she was going to be honest in her interview and the Applicant responded with words to the effect of, "Well, I am but I don't see what - why that's stopping me" and made reference to being employed by a primary producer, namely Mr A's mother. The Applicant was later asked by attending police about the wedding at the property in March and indicated that it was the wedding of "Mr C". The Applicant confirmed that she lived at the premises but that it was not her house. When asked if there were Bandidos at the home for the wedding, the Applicant said that it was "him that I know of and that's it." There were further questions and discussion in relation to other matters prior to the August 2023 footage concluding at 10.37 am.

1. The Notice of Refusal dated 11 August 2023, in which the Application was refused, made reference to the Applicant's interview with police on 3 August 2023 and the letter included the following:

"Information maintained by the NSW Police Force indicates that a member of your family whom you reside with, has close associations with persons who have an extensive criminal history.

I hold significant concerns regarding the associations with persons who have an extensive criminal history and the risk that this place on public safety."

1. In the Applicant's letter to the Respondent dated 7 September 2023 submitted as part of the internal review request, the Applicant stated that "Regarding the information retained by the Police concerning a member of my family with alleged close associations to individuals with extensive criminal histories, I wish to emphasize that I am unaware of any such persons mentioned. Furthermore, I was not presented with the opportunity to discuss this during my conversation with police, which took place on Thursday, 3 August 2023". No mention was made of Mr A's criminal history in that letter.
2. The Applicant also said in that letter that in relation to the mentioned association with a member of the Bandidos, she had not been able to provide a comprehensive explanation during her interview with the police. She then said that she had initially met Mr C through her employment at a haulage company, where she served as an administrator. She stated that throughout this period, she interacted with all staff members with respect and professionalism and there were no instances of unprofessional conduct. She said that her connection with Mr C was purely a result of their professional engagement through employment and "should not be construed as an association with an outlaw motorcycle group."
3. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that she now realised that there was more to what the police were asking her on 3 August 2023 but at that time she was not aware. She went on to say that the Respondent's evidence included a "f_air bit_" about Mr A and that she knew about some of it, but that some of it was "news" to her. She said that she was aware that it was from a long time ago, and that since she had known Mr A, she had not witnessed any such conduct and that she had not known that it would have such a big effect on her Application.
4. She stated that she had met Mr C through her employment during which they had a fair degree of interaction but that when she met with police, she did not think to explain it all to them. She said that as far as she was concerned her association with Mr C was as a work friend rather than as a Bandido. She explained that on occasion she would have interactions with Mr C after work and he had said that if he ever got married he would "love" to have a wedding at "our place". She said that she attended the wedding and "that's it".
5. The Applicant gave evidence that on the morning of 3 August 2023, she was due to go to a school awards ceremony. She said that police had called her, and she had agreed to meet them as she did not think it would take very long, and she was not aware about the extra information they would be asking her questions about. She said that towards the end of the interview she became anxious as she needed to be at school and that she did not explain her association with Mr C. She thought about it later and regretted not having made mention of the connection.
6. The Applicant said that when police attended the property on 17 March 2023, there was a fishhook embedded in a child's foot, and that it was not a good time. She said however that she was happy for the police to come back. The Applicant said that on both occasions that the police attended the premises she was not expecting to have in depth conversations with them but that she did her best at the time.
7. In cross-examination, she was asked if Mr A was her partner, and she said "currently". When asked if she knew any members of OMCGs she referred to Mr C and denied knowing anyone else. She stated that she did not recall seeing anyone at Mr C's wedding wearing colours and did not remember seeing Mr B at the wedding. When asked if she knew anyone with a criminal record, the Applicant indicated she had learned more about Mr A's past conduct during the course of this matter, and that Mr A was the only person that she knew with a criminal record. She also said that "off the top" of her head, she was not aware of knowing anyone associated with criminal activity and stated that she did not know anyone who sold drugs.
8. In response to a question about the matters that she said she had not been able to discuss with police, the Applicant indicated that it would have been important to set out that her association with Mr C was initiated through her employment. She said that she had later thought of things that she could have said if she had not been watching the clock. She said she was able to provide that information in her letter and that she did so.
9. The Applicant was asked about why she had included a reference in her letter to not being able to provide a comprehensive explanation during her interaction with the police and said that it was because she did not get to explain this during the meeting. She said that she considered the association with Mr C as being a friendship through her employment rather than socialising in an outside way. It was then put to the Applicant that when police asked her if she knew Bandidos, she did not say that she knew Mr C. The Applicant said that this was because she had thought of him more as a workmate.
10. The Applicant said that she did not recall being evasive with police about interactions with people with associations with OMCGs and that because of her circumstances on the day, she was short with her answers. She said that she had been assured that the meeting with police would be short one and had offered to go to the police station later. The Applicant said that she thought that it was reasonable to have offered this. The Applicant was then taken to her response to police when asked about associations with OMCGs in which she had said "What's this got to do with it?" and asked if she was being open with the police at this time. The Applicant said that she was, and that she was entitled to find out this information.
11. In relation to whether she was being open when she asked the police "Who have you got information about?" she said "possibly" and that she was not going to be pressured into responding to police questions that were not directly relevant. The Applicant said that she thought that police were there solely to talk about firearms and to see where the firearms would be stored, and it was only later that she realised why they were asking these questions.
12. The Applicant also clarified that she knew Mr C by two different surnames but did not provide any reasons for this. She also stated that she had attended both his wedding and reception and that there were around 30 to 50 people at the wedding, but she was not entirely sure how many people attended the reception. The Applicant was asked whether she remembered that when asked about whether any Bandidos had attended the wedding, she had answered "[Mr C] and that's it" and she said "vaguely". When asked if she now knew that this answer was not correct, she responded "potentially".
13. Following the playing of the August 2023 footage, she acknowledged that she had referred to Mr A as her "employer's son" and that she had said he was her partner, "part time". When it was put to her that she only acknowledged this after police specifically asked her if she was in a relationship, she said that she had not been directly asked. When asked what she meant about a "part time" relationship she said that it was "not solid for an extended period of time". When asked to clarify her words, she said that she guessed that to her a full-time relationship would be a number of years on end. She indicated that at the time that she was asked, she had been in a relationship with Mr A for roughly three years and acknowledged that she had a good relationship with his children.
14. When asked about her acknowledgment to police that she knew "people" who were in the Bandidos, she said that this was incorrect grammar and that she should have said "person" as Mr C was the only person that she knew.
15. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Applicant indicated that she now considered her relationship with Mr A to be a "full time" relationship and said that she had a three-month-old child with him, as well as having a 12-year-old child from a previous relationship. There were no further questions for the Applicant from either party.

1. I am satisfied from the Respondent's documentary evidence that Mr A was given a s 10 bond in January 2009 for a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I am satisfied that on 25 July 2017, he was served with an ADVO and that on 5 March 2018, he was given a s 10 bond for having contravened that ADVO on 10 August 2017. I am further satisfied that on 13 April 2018, following an appeal to the District Court, Mr A was convicted and fined in relation to a charge of affray in relation to events that occurred in a hotel on 1 September 2017.
2. The contents of the July 2023 COPS report were not disputed by the Applicant, and I accept that police recorded their concerns that the Applicant may be coerced into providing firearms or ammunition for use in criminal activity. I am satisfied that as a result of having an ADVO issued against him, that Mr A is not eligible to be issued with a firearms licence under s 11(5)(c) of the Act for a period of ten years and that his application for a firearms licence was refused by the Respondent.
3. It was not in dispute that Mr C was a member of the Bandidos OMCG and that his wedding reception was held at the Applicant's property on 18 March 2023. Having regard to the Respondent's documentary material, including the March 2023 COPS report, I am satisfied that Mr B was a member of the Bandidos OMCG and that he told police on 18 March 2023 that he was going to a wedding and that afterwards he would be going to the reception and that about nine local guys would be attending. I am satisfied that police then went to the area where the wedding was taking place and that police observed seven to ten adult male attendees amongst the adult females and children attending the wedding. I am satisfied that Mr B did attend the wedding and that he was the only person observed by police to be wearing colours.
4. Whilst I find that both Mr B and Mr C were at the wedding and that both were members of the Bandidos OMCG, I am satisfied that other OMCG members also attended the wedding, although it is unclear how many. In reaching this position, I have had regard to the information from police as set out in the documentary evidence and in the March 2023 footage that four OMCG members wearing colours attended a local hotel on 17 March 2023 and the information provided by Mr B to police on 18 March 2023. Mr B's statement that they were local guys and there was about "nine" of them is consistent with police observing some seven to ten adult males at the wedding, including Mr B.

1. It is evident from the March 2023 footage that the Applicant was present with Mr A when police attended their shared residence to speak to Mr A on 17 March 2023 and I am satisfied that the Applicant was aware that police were expressing their concerns in relation to OMCG Bandidos members having recently attended a local hotel wearing colours, that they had information about a wedding taking place at the Applicant's address and that Mr A clarified that it was the reception that was to be held at their premises. It is clear from the March 2023 footage that the police asked Mr A if the wedding was local and that it was the Applicant who responded with words to the effect of "well, what's the information you've got, so...?"
2. I accept the Applicant's evidence that it was Mr C's wedding and reception that was taking place on 18 March 2023, that she knew Mr C through her work, that on occasion she had socialised with him outside of work, and that Mr C had previously told her that he would like to have his wedding at the property. It is also evident from the Applicant's evidence that she knew that Mr C was a member of the Bandidos OMCG. I am satisfied that at no time during the police attendance on 17 March 2023 did the Applicant disclose this information to police, but instead asked the police what information they had.
3. The police did provide the Applicant and Mr A with the information that they held in relation to the wedding, including a potential "bikie" connection with the reception being held at their premises the next day and that possibly bikies were coming or wearing colours. The Applicant was clearly present when this information was provided but made no mention to police that it was Mr C's wedding or that he was a member of the Bandidos OMCG.
4. I am satisfied that the Applicant was present when police expressed their concerns to BH and asked him to let the "guys know, whoever the senior guy is who's here, to let the guys know" to effectively keep their heads down at the wedding and that Mr A responded that there would be "no dramas". In my view, it was clear to both the Applicant and Mr A, that police expected more than one OMCG member to be attending the wedding and that this was not challenged by either of them.
5. Moreover, Mr A did not challenge the police request to pass on their message to the "senior guy" or refute the inference that he would know who this was and instead, Mr A reassured police that there would be "no dramas" at the wedding. I am satisfied from this conversation that there was some association between Mr A and the "crew", namely the Bandidos OMCG members attending the wedding, as well as knowledge by him in relation to the "senior guy". It is clear that the Applicant was present for this conversation, appeared to agree with what was being said and continued to speak to police about their neighbours.
6. I accept the Applicant's evidence that she did attend both Mr C's wedding and the reception on 18 March 2023.
7. In light of the visit from police on 17 March 2023, I am satisfied that the Applicant was on notice of the possibility of a number of Bandidos "bikies" attending the wedding and reception on 18 March 2023, including the possibility that a number might be wearing colours. As a consequence, it would have been expected that the Applicant would have been aware of any further OMCG members attending the wedding, especially those wearing colours, and that she would have a recollection of such persons, given the police visit and that at most there were only ten adult males present.
8. However, the Applicant stated in evidence that she did not remember Mr B being there and did not recall seeing anyone wearing colours. When it was put to the Applicant in cross-examination that she "now" knew that her response that Mr C was the only OMCG member at the wedding was wrong, she did not agree and said "potentially".
9. I accept the Applicant's oral evidence that as of 3 August 2023, she had been in a relationship with Mr A for "roughly" three years and from the Respondent's documentary evidence, I am satisfied that from at least 26 January 2021, the Applicant resided with Mr A and their children from previous relationships. I am satisfied that the Applicant represented herself to police at that time, and on at least one subsequent occasion, as the stepmother to Mr A's children.
10. I have also had regard to the Applicant's oral evidence at the hearing. When asked in cross-examination whether Mr A was her partner, the Applicant said "currently" but provided no further details. Later, in her response to questions from the Tribunal, the Applicant indicated that she considered her relationship with Mr A to be a "full time" relationship and that she had a three-month-old child with Mr A. The hearing took place in April 2024, which would mean that the child was born in or around January 2024 and that the Applicant would have been approximately three to four months pregnant when she described the relationship as "part time" to police in August 2023.
11. Given the matters outlined above, it is evident that on 3 August 2023, Mr A was much more to the Applicant than just her "employer's son". I am satisfied that the Applicant did not disclose any relationship with Mr A to the attending police until after she was specifically asked about it by them, and at that time she referred to the relationship as only "part-time". Whilst I have had regard to the Applicant's thoughts on relationships, in light of the circumstances outlined above, I do not accept the Applicant's characterisation to police on 3 August 2023 that her relationship with Mr A was "part time" was an accurate one at that time.
12. Accordingly, I am satisfied that as of 3 August 2023 the Applicant's relationship with Mr A was more than "part time" and that the Applicant was not candid in her responses to police during the interview. In the circumstances, I find that the Applicant's lack of candour with police about her relationship with Mr A was an attempt by her to minimise any connection with Mr A in the context of the Respondent's consideration of her Application.
13. In her oral evidence, the Applicant referred to being anxious with her meeting with police on 3 August 2023 due to the time that the meeting with police was taking and knowing that she had to go to a school awards ceremony and that as a consequence she did not explain her association with Mr C. The Applicant made no reference to this awards ceremony or to feeling anxious at any time during the meeting with police on 3 August 2023 or in her letter submitted as part of the internal review application.
14. I have previously referred to the August 2023 footage and the responses provided by the Applicant in relation to her affiliation with OMCGs. I have taken into account the Applicant's oral evidence that she did not recall having been evasive and that because of her circumstances on the day, she was short with her answers. I accept that the Applicant was of the view that she was entitled to find out why the police were asking her questions about her associations with OMCGs and that she would not be "pressured" into responding to questions that were not directly relevant to the Application.
15. However, it is clear however from the August 2023 footage that after the Applicant asked the attending officer "What's this got to do with it?" he told her that this information was important in relation to whether it was in the public interest for her to have a firearms licence. The officer then asked the Applicant again who she knew in the Bandidos and instead of telling the officer the name of any Bandidos member that she knew, she replied, "Who have you got information about and I'll you if am or not."
16. The attending officer then asked the Applicant if she was going to be honest in her interview and the Applicant responded with words to the effect of, "Well, I am but I don't see what - why that's stopping me" and then made reference to being employed by a primary producer, namely Mr A's mother. It was only when later asked by police about the wedding at the property did she indicate that it was the wedding of "Mr C", and it was then only when specifically asked if there were Bandidos at the wedding, did the Applicant state that it was "him that I know of and that's it".
17. I am satisfied that the Applicant was not frank and candid with the attending police on 3 August 2023 in relation to her associations with OMCGs, even after the police had explained to her what their questions had to do with the Application.
18. The Applicant gave evidence about having known Mr C through her employment at a haulage company, which appears to be owned by Mr A's family as the company had the same name as Mr A's family name. It follows from the Applicant's evidence about the reasons for Mr C's wedding reception being held at the property that Mr C must have had attended or viewed the Applicant's property on at least one occasion prior to his wedding reception taking place there on 18 March 2023.
19. In any event, where the questions being put by police to the Applicant on 3 August 2023 related solely to "who" the Applicant knew, in either an OMCG or in the Bandidos OMCG, it is not clear why the Applicant considered the issue of how she knew such a person to be relevant. This is particularly so where the Applicant clearly knew that Mr C was a member of the Bandidos OMCG and where her evidence was that whilst she had met him through her employment: she had socialised with him outside of work; he had attended the property where she lived; his wedding reception had been held at that property and she had attended both his wedding and the wedding reception on 18 March 2023.
20. Of further note, the Applicant relied on various character references in her internal review request, including from two Directors of the livestock company at which the Applicant works. The Applicant told police on 3 August 2023 that Mr A was her employer's son and also confirmed that her employer was Mr A's mother. It is apparent from these two references that the authors are Mr A's mother and father, and that they both refer to the Applicant as their "employee".
21. The character reference from Mr A's mother is dated 6 September 2023 and indicates that she has known the Applicant personally for more than ten years, in which time she interacted with the Applicant regularly whilst she cared for the author's grandchildren at the Applicant's Family Day Care Business. It was noted that the Applicant had been employed by the author's agriculture and transport businesses for around six years. Whilst it is not expressly stated, it is assumed that the transport business referred to in this character reference is the same haulage business that the Applicant referred to in her evidence and at which Mr C was also employed.
22. The character reference from Mr A's mother acknowledges the points made in the refusal notice and notes that she does not agree "that they are accurate" and nor does she agree "that the risks are as adverse as they are put across in the report." No reasons were given for this view. The character reference refers to the Applicant residing as a "care taker at one" of the author's properties. No reference is made by the author to the Applicant being in a relationship with the author's son since at least January 2021 or to the Applicant residing at that property with Mr A and their children from previous relationships or to the Applicant being the stepmother of the author's grandchildren.
23. The other character reference dated 7 September 2023 and assumed to be from Mr A's father, refers to the Applicant being an employee of the business and having been employed for 6 or so years. The author indicates that he has read through the individual points of the refusal of her Application and that he "cannot fathom how such a conclusion has occurred". No reasons for this view were given and no reference is made by the author to the Applicant's relationship with Mr A.
24. The Applicant made no reference in her evidence to the length of her employment by Mr A's parents or to being a "care taker" of the property in which she lives with Mr A and to the contrary, advised police on 3 August 2023 that the property belonged to Mr A.
25. It is clear that there are circumstances in which applicants may be employed by family members, and that this is in no way a bar to that employer providing a character reference for an applicant or for an applicant relying on such a character reference in an application for review. It would be expected however that any such character reference would disclose the extent of any personal relationship between the author and an applicant, particularly where this would be relevant to the issue under consideration by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of this matter, the Applicant's association with Mr A and Mr C are clearly relevant, and yet there is no mention in these character references to the family or employment relationship between the authors, Mr A and Mr C.
26. Whilst the Applicant did not author these character references, she has relied upon them as part of her case, in circumstances where no reference is made to her relationship with Mr A, who is the son of the two authors or to Mr C, who appears to have also been employed by them. In my view, the reliance on these two character references which do not acknowledge any connection, particularly with Mr A ,adds further weight to my finding that the Applicant was not candid with police and has attempted to minimise the relationship between herself and both Mr A and Mr C for the purpose of the Application.
27. The Tribunal in DMC v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 219 said at [57], that "[t]he level of co-operation and frankness demonstrated by a licensee in dealing with the regulator is indicative of the licensee's character" and at [58], "[a] licensee has an obligation to act in a manner that demonstrates candour and frankness in his or her dealings with the regulator."
28. Whilst the Applicant is not, and has never been, a licensee, she did apply for a firearms licence on 7 June 2023 and these proceedings relate to that Application. In Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Lee [2016] NSWCATAP 234, the Appeal Panel of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal said at [25] that "...it is uncontentious that a relevant consideration is the applicant's previous conduct. More weight may be given to conduct which directly relates to the regulated activity, but anything that the applicant has done which could affect the public interest is relevant." Further, "the case law indicates that when considering future risk, the Tribunal must consider the past conduct of the applicant as a significant guide": Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 156 at [141].
29. I have already found that the Applicant was not candid in her responses to police on 3 August 2023. The Applicant had an opportunity in her oral evidence at the hearing to provide further details about her relationship with Mr A and her associations with OMCG members including Mr C. Yet, when asked in cross-examination if Mr A was her partner, she simply replied "currently" and did not disclose that she had a three-month-old child with him until asked by the Tribunal.
30. Whilst the Applicant did indicate that she knew that Mr C was a Bandidos member and that she had met him through work, she did not provide the Tribunal with a detailed explanation of her relationship with him, including the length of time that she had worked with him and known him, the extent of their interaction outside of work or the extent of her knowledge about his membership with the Bandidos OMCG. The Applicant did not provide evidence about Mr C's association with Mr A or to indicate whether Mr A was also employed by the haulage business and gave no evidence about the haulage company being owned or run by Mr A's parents.
31. When the Applicant was asked to acknowledge in cross examination that she now knew that her response that the only OMCG member at the wedding was Mr C was wrong, she failed to do so and instead responded "potentially."
32. In light of my findings above, I am satisfied that the Applicant's level of candour and frankness in this matter, particularly with the police, in relation to her relationship with Mr A and her associations with OMCGs has been very low. In my view, this suggests that there is real cause to be concerned that the Applicant, if granted a licence, is likely to demonstrate these same characteristics in any future dealings with the regulator, namely the Respondent in these proceedings.
33. Section 3(1)(a) of the Act provides that it is an underlying principle of the Act to "confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety" and this principle has been applied by the Tribunal on many occasions: see Cusumano at [24]. It is clear from the provisions in the Act that the Respondent, and by extension this Tribunal, has a discretion whether or not to issue a licence and in certain circumstances, the Act provides that a licence must not be issued at all and that any discretion must be exercised having regard to the overriding need to ensure public safety.
34. I have had regard to the various decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Applicant, including those set out the submissions made by the Applicant's legal representative in the internal review request dated 8 September 2023 (part exhibit R1) and in the oral submissions made on behalf of the Applicant. It remains the case that each application for review must be considered on the facts of the particular matter. I accept that being a member of an OMCG or knowing members of an OMCG is not in itself an automatic block to being issued with a firearms licence.
35. I accept that in El Saadi v Commissioner of Police (No 2) [2021] NSWCATAD 336, the Tribunal identified at [66] that "Continued associations with "known criminals" is a consideration worthy of reasonable weight (Salter v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 37, (at [42]))."
36. I agree with the comments by the Tribunal at [20] - [21] in Addison v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 99, involving the review of a Firearms Prohibition Order, as follows:

17. I agree with the following discussion of the public interest in Tolley v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2006] NSWADT 149 at [31] that 'given the breadth of the Commissioner's discretion and the overriding object of public safety, there is no basis for differentiating between conduct of the Applicant themselves and conduct of another which may impact on public safety in the context of a firearms licence":

18. In both Hamid v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 43 and Dalziell v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 79, it was held that where an applicant voluntarily associated with persons having significant criminal histories or involvement with criminal organisations and activities, that association may create the danger to public safety with which the Commissioner is concerned and that person may therefore be not fit, in the public interest, to be in possession of a firearm. In those circumstances, a firearms prohibition order may be justified.

1. I accept that these comments are also applicable to the Application in this matter and that the level of the Applicant's associations with persons having significant criminal histories and/or associated with the Bandidos OMCG is a relevant issue.
2. In the context of this matter, I have found that the Applicant is in a relationship with Mr A and have made certain findings in relation to his past conduct. I have found that the Applicant knew Mr C, a Bandidos OMCG member, and that she attended Mr C's wedding on 18 March 2023, which was also attended by Mr B, a Bandidos OMCG member wearing colours and having prior criminal matters. Mr C's wedding reception was held at the property at which the Applicant and Mr A resided, and at which the Applicant was also present. I have also found that other Bandidos OMCG members attended the wedding, although it is unclear how many.
3. In these circumstances. the Applicant's ongoing lack of candour and frankness in relation to her relationship with Mr A and her associations with the Bandidos OMCG means that it is not possible for me to assess the level of risk if the Applicant was to be issued with a firearms licence and to possess firearms, nor to reach a view that this risk could be negated through the imposition of conditions on such a licence. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this matter, I am not able to be satisfied that there is virtually no risk if a firearms licence was to be issued to the Applicant and she was to possess firearms.
4. The Applicant has indicated that if granted a firearms licence, she would be able to use firearms in association with her employment, but that it was not a condition of her employment to do so. In considering an application for a firearms licence, the Applicant's individual interest must be subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety.
5. Having regard to the principles and objects of the Act, I am satisfied that the issue of the licence to the Applicant would be contrary to the public interest.
6. In light of this finding, it is not necessary for me to consider the further evidence relied upon by the parties, or to make a determination in relation to the other grounds raised by 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.