The evidence
8The applicant gave sworn evidence, but as no witness statement had been filed for him, it was somewhat unstructured. He began by stating that he had commenced duties with the police force on 10 June 1988. After some time on general duties, he worked at the police ballistics unit in Surry Hills from June 1993.
9After a time a woman constable, Fiona, arrived in the unit. As the supervisor did not appear to welcome her presence, the applicant befriended her but was harassed for doing so. Because of the resulting stress and a pre-existing coeliac condition, he had to undergo major surgery in September 1994.
10While he was in hospital, Fiona took out an AVO against him but he did not know why. On 1 August 1994 he had said to her, "There is nothing between us, but for the sake of my career I will have to ignore you". Fiona had replied, "I won't be ignored" and had stormed out of the room, subsequently lodging a complaint against him.
11He was then moved to the bomb disposal section on the ground that he was thought to be violent and suicidal. That was untrue, but the supervisor wanted to put distance between Fiona and himself. He was fully operational while at the bomb squad.
12The firearms prohibition order issued by Phelan DCJ was expressed to be for 10 years, but the new legislation made the order for life unless the person made a new application for a licence. He wanted to resume 22 target rifle shooting as a relaxation. It is an enjoyable pastime and an Olympic sport.
13The applicant left Australia for the United States, remaining away from 2 September 1994 until 20 September 1994 as an official visit to enable him to inspect firearms manufacturing plants, including Colt and Winchester. On 2 August 1994 Fiona had said to him, "I'm sorry I've fd up your life and fd your career". He still did not know the nature of her complaint or of the investigation, if any. He had in any event wanted to move out of the section.
14The evidence against him was fabricated. For example, Const. Terry Shepherd alleged that he had said he had been molested by a priest as a boy, but that was not so. What had happened was that on Melbourne Cup day in 1980 he had suffered a fall and had been taken to Sutherland Hospital. While he was there a female nurse giving him a sponge bath had handled his genitals. The evidence about his being a paedophilia victim was false.
15As regards the public interest, his licence had been used for the public benefit. While working in a murder investigation he had used his licence to purchase ammunition for the investigation. On another occasion, while he was in the bomb squad he had purchased rifle powder for use on a bomb disposal course to demonstrate that it could be used as an explosive. He was fully qualified for the bomb disposal squad. He had always given the greatest emphasis to safety. While in the police force, he had made a standard practice of always carrying his gun unloaded as an additional safety precaution.
16When he had returned to the ballistics section, Fiona had said she would take him to the Hellfire Club in Sydney, apparently a venue for generalized libertinage. He had refused to accompany her.
17The applicant then turned to the various allegations of fact relied on by the respondent (exhibit R2). He said the statements attributed to him on p 3 were actually made by Fiona's then boyfriend, Const. Robert Langridge, who had been harassing her. The applicant had never wanted to marry her .Paras A and B were false, as the relationship between them was never sexual but purely in the nature of friendship. Fiona, however, had wanted marriage. He did advise her to "be safe" (para C), but that was because she discussed her sexual activities with him. He had given her a condom, but it was for use as a water bladder as part of a survival kit she was taking on an exercise. Condoms were sometimes issued for that purpose in the army. Paras D and E were false and the comment was made only in relation to her displaying a bare midriff. He had called her "a bikie's moll" because she was given to riding pillion on Const. Langridge's Harley-Davidson.
18Paras F and G were false. He had never said "If I can't have you, no-one will". It was Langridge who had said that to her. As regards para H, he had cleaned a number of weapons after a firing exercise at the range, and that had made his fingernails dirty. As she had taunted him about his nails, he placed the clippings in a bag, but not together with any lollies.
19In relation to para I, while in Seattle on the official trip mentioned above, he had telephoned the forensics unit for 10 minutes on 4 September 1994 Sydney time to confirm his permission to visit the Winchester factory, and later the Colt factory. Fiona had stated that he had called from a hotel room, but that was untrue as he had been staying with his brother Richard. Nor had he said the other things alleged. What had happened was that in the course of their conversation he had asked her to check the office fax machine. While he thought she was away doing that, he moved the telephone away from his face and said to his brother, "That bitch has caused me grief at work. I'll put a muzzle on my mouth and we'll go out for a beer". He had never said anything about $2000.
20The applicant tendered some September 1994 US West telephone records (exhibit A2) showing two calls he had made to his brother to assure him that he had arrived, as there had just been a major USAir crash. He was simply keeping in touch and was in no way suicidal.
21In relation to the particulars on p 4 of exhibit R2, he could not recall sending the card referred to (para (ii) (A), but had sent her postcards. He had never apologized to her and pointed out that the card had not been produced. He had no recollection of the apology in (ii)(B). The respondent had not mentioned that he had surrendered a number of prohibited items during an amnesty, having found them when he was preparing to sell a rifle and shotgun at a gun show. Para (ii)(C) was untrue. He had said he was proposing to ignore her. He had not received the direction in para (ii)(D). Exhibit A5 showed that S/Sgt Ransome had not made any note of the alleged conversation.
22The applicant then turned to the allegations on pp 4 and 5 of exhibit R2, para (ii). In the bullet recovery room at the range Sgt North had said that it was necessary for a third person to be in the room when the applicant was there with Fiona. The applicant had spoken only about some stolen ex-army F1 submachine guns that had been deactivated but re-machined so as to be operable again. That was his only concern. He had said that he treated Fiona like a sister only. There was no reference to a "green Mafia" and he had no desire to kill anyone connected with that alleged organization. He had simply asked what it was. He denied making any reference to the "Black and Tans". Further, the extract from the Victoria Police visitor log showed that he had been in Melbourne on 14 July 1994.
23The only white shape outside his window (p 5, para (vi)) had been the snow that had fallen while he was at Goulburn Police Academy. Para (vii) concerned his surrendering of certain items during an amnesty while he was preparing to sell some rifles and shotguns. The enjoyed target shooting but not killing and had never said anything about power in that connection.
24Dr Furst had prepared his most recent psychological report. He felt he should not have to pay for another examination, but was prepared to do so for the sake of his licence. It seemed that having a personality was regarded as a crime now. He had never been violent.
25In 1992 he had observed corruption at Cronulla police. He had a stubborn personality and as a result saw a psychiatrist, Dr R. Strum, who had stated that the applicant had been born in Sydney, which was untrue.
26Further in relation to the AVO, Sgt North had given him a handwritten note of Fiona's address in August 1994 (exhibit A7). He was having an affair with Fiona, had left his family and was hoping to move in with her. He gave the applicant her address in case he needed to contact him.
27He had seen Dr Roberts for the first report dated 25 August 2010, which was generated by the ambulance service on account of a case of PTSD that he had suffered because of two incidents in the course of his duties. One involved his helping an accident victim while he was off duty. He was not wearing gloves and had an open cut on his hand, which made him concerned that he might have contracted a serious infection. He was removed from all duties after the second report and took two weeks of stress leave. He had not harassed anyone but did have a tendency to get "hung up".
28He had not had any problems with Dr Gertler but was not cleared for return to normal duties after the second report. The ambulance service had redeployed him. He had seen Dr Heint in connection with stress and abuse in the ambulance service. Dr Heint was his doctor and had been helping him.
29Miss Cassie Garling's report (exhibit R1, tab 14) had also helped him, but he had not known that he was supposed to discuss the "green Mafia" allegation and she did not ask about it. After Miss Garling he had seen Dr Furst.
30He owned a match rifle and was planning to rejoin his club at Engadine, where he had been shooting until 1994 when he lost his licence. He had reapplied for membership in 2012 but had been rejected because of the prohibition order. He was currently taking eye drops for glaucoma, but believed he would lose his eyesight eventually, although his eyes were stable at present. The problem was diabetes related, but he was not yet taking insulin. He was willing to undergo another assessment, but said it would be based on false evidence. He said several times that "I'm anally retentive".
31In cross-examination it was put to him that as the Local Court and the District Court had made findings about his statements relating to the green mafia and the IRA, he should have raised those matters with Miss Garling. He replied that he had been advised not to take the courts' findings to task and could not fathom where the allegations were coming from.
32He agreed that he was obsessive by nature and was stubborn and difficult. Fiona's alleged fear of him was not reasonable or real, as evidenced by the fact that she agreed to shoot with him on the police pistol range. While he was there, a civilian woman was shooting on the range, in serious violation of regulations. After firing a round or two she became hysterical and pointed the gun at the applicant. The civilian was in fact Fiona's younger sister, and he later made a complaint about the incident. But he did not believe Fiona was fearful of him and accepted no responsibility in relation to the AVO.
33In relation to his absence in Melbourne on 14 July 1994, Mr Tran pointed out that Fiona had not claimed that he had been in Sydney on that date. He replied that she said he was harassing her in mid-July, and in addition he had been in Goulburn on 13 July. He denied Sgt North's account of his offering to drive Fiona home from the tech course (exhibit R1, tab 28; exhibit R2, p 3 para (i)(D)). The statement was wrong. He would not offer to drive her and had no intention or recollection of doing so.
34As regards exhibit R2, p 3, para (i)(E), he said that she had been harassing him and fondling his tie. He had not made the statements alleged, despite what Lisa Wood had said (exhibit R1, tab 27), and he had not driven her home or given her a Celtic cross on that date as he had no money at that time. Nor had he said anything about driving into a tree in National Park and did not know why she had verballed him. If he had intended to do so, why hadn't he?
35Sgt North's statement that he had accepted responsibility for all the troubles but could not help himself (exhibit R2, p 5, para (ii)(F)) was also incorrect. There had been a discussion, but it was not as North recollected. North had said Fiona wanted nothing to do with him but he recalled no reference to professional help. He had never threatened suicide -- he is Catholic and would never do such a thing.
36He could not have been directed by Sgt Ransome to stay away from ballistics, as he had been directed to go there to collect some items (shouting at this point), as exhibit A10 showed. His only reference to the green mafia had been to ask Sgt North what it was, some time in 1993, and he had said nothing about the IRA at that time. The allegations about a covert agency harming his dog were not accurate (exhibit R2, p 5, (iii)). Their claim about his wanting to kill a member of the green mafia who had sexually assaulted him as a child was false, as it was a nurse who had molested him (p 5, para (iv)). The alleged conversation about the Black and Tans was also untrue (p 5, para (v)). He had no idea what Fiona and North were talking about in para (vi), despite what Lisa Wood had said, as the only white shape outside his window had been snow at Goulburn. He thought the reference to "killing things" in para (vii) was to an occasion when he had had to shoot an injured dog. The police evidence was based on false information.
37On the secondl hearing date the applicant had tendered a number of medical and psychological reports, including a detailed evaluation by Dr Richard Furst, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 14 September 2013 (part exhibit A8). The report detailed the applicant's background, the discord with Fiona and the ensuing litigation, and his subsequent work and personal history. It reviewed the previous psychiatric and psychological reports and the background materials supplied by the applicant. The conclusions reached were favourable to Mr Green's application. Mr Tran objected to the tender of that report on several grounds, including that it failed to deal with a number of specific points relevant to the application. The report was admitted subject to weight.
38In the interval between the second hearing date and the third, the applicant obtained a further report from Dr Furst, dated 19 March 2014 (exhibit A11). The document listed 29 sources of information about the applicant which he had reviewed, described further aspects of his personal history, and dealt seriatim with the specific questions raised by the respondent in its letter to him dated 16 April 2013 (exhibit R1, tab 13). Dr Furst stated that he remained of the opinion that Mr Green meets the criteria for the diagnosis of a personality disorder with obsessional and narcissistic features, an enduring pattern of maladaptive social relatedness, rigidity in thinking and perceptions and an inflated sense of his own abilities and self-worth. But there were no indications that he has any antisocial or borderline features, which traits are more commonly associated with impulsive or aggressive behaviour. He does not suffer from a mood disorder, anxiety disorder or psychotic disorder, as defined by DSM-V, and has no substance use disorder.
39There is no impairment in his fitness to possess and use firearms, and there is no indication that people with obsessional or narcissistic disorders, or both, would be so impaired. In Dr Furst's view, his condition does not have the potential to put the public (including his own) safety at risk. Having reviewed the additional evidence in that matter, Dr Furst remains of the view that Mr Green presents as a man of at least average intelligence who has lived a rather controlled and obsessional existence, but there were no indications of abnormal or violent fantasies. He has no history of violence and no criminal antecedents. He never breached the AVO taken out by Fiona. In that respect the applicant had now had nearly 20 years of opportunity to pursue or act in a violent matter towards her, but had not done so.
40He is not psychotic, is not depressed, has never self-harmed and has no identifiable risk of suicide at the present time or in the foreseeable future. His rigid personality would probably encourage him to be law-abiding. He does not drink alcohol or use illicit drugs. With respect to his risk assessment for future violence, any standardized testing instrument commonly used in forensic and legal settings would score him as a low risk of future violence.
41The applicant also called as a witness Mr William J Wilcher, barrister, who has known the applicant for about 23 years, having first become acquainted with him through their mutual service in the police force. In his written statement (exhibit A12), he stated that he became aware that he shared with the applicant an interest in recreational shooting. The applicant was also a very active member of the army reserve, serving in an infantry battalion, and through his recommendation Mr Wilcher also joined the reserves. He accompanied the applicant on recreational shooting trips to a property owned by his relatives in the Booligal area, west of Hay, on between three and five occasions. Through his involvement with the applicant in a policing context and in recreational settings, he states unreservedly that Mr Green demonstrates the utmost care in carrying and using firearms. Indeed, in his observation, Mr Green is absolutely pedantic about ensuring that any firearms under his control, and the control of others, are handled, transported and stored safely, and only used in circumstances posing absolutely no danger to any person. If the smallest amount of alcohol was consumed by anyone participating in a camping trip, all firearms and were stored and secured safely and not used again until eight hours after the last drink was consumed. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of firearms and his ambition is to work in a institution such as the Australian National Museum, which has a firearms collection. The tertiary studies he is currently undertaking would, he hopes, qualify him for such a position.
42Mr Green also went on to serve as an ambulance officer, putting the interests of others above his own. Mr Wilcher is aware of the difficulties with Fiona. In his discussions with him about the matter, which was resolved last century, at no time did he ever witness any perceived or actual threat made by Mr Green towards the person involved. Nor did he ever witness any behaviour that would give rise to any apprehension of danger towards her or any other person, including himself.
43In Mr Wilcher's view, the applicant is a suitable person to hold a firearms licence.
44The respondent did not adduce any oral or affidavit evidence, but tendered the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) and a number of other documents, some of which have been referred to above.