Grenfell v Commissioner of Police

Applicable legislation

1. Section 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 ("the ADR Act") provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to an application for review of a decision of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review. The Tribunal has jurisdiction in regard to a number of firearms licensing issues conferred on the Tribunal by section 75 of the Act. The Tribunal's jurisdiction includes review of decisions by the Commissioner of Police to revoke a firearms licence.
2. This application is made under section 75 of the Act and the ADR Act.
3. The Act sets up a scheme to license people to possess and use firearms. One of the underlying principles of the Act is to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms.
4. Clear guidance as to how the Act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation. The principles and objects of the Act confirm that possession and use of firearms is a privilege that is conditional on public safety. Section 3(1) provides: (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.
5. Section 24(2)(a) of the Act provides that a firearms licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind.
6. Section 11(7) of the Act provides that the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that the issue of a licence would be contrary to the public interest.
7. Section 24(2)(d) of the Act provides that a licence may also be revoked for any other reason prescribed by the regulations.
8. Clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 ("the Regulations") provides that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence.
9. The Tribunal's function in relation to applications before it is set out in section 63 of the ADR Act: 63 Determination of administrative review by Tribunal (1) In determining an application for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following: (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision. (3) In determining an application for the administrative review of an administratively reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the administratively reviewable decision, or (b) to vary the administratively reviewable decision, or (c) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the administratively reviewable decision it set aside, or (d) to set aside the administratively reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal.
10. The issue in the present case is whether the correct and preferable decision is to affirm, vary or set aside the Commissioner's decision and, specifically, whether or not it is contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to hold a licence under the Act.
11. The standard of proof applying in these proceedings is the civil standard. That is, the balance of probabilities. These are not adversarial proceedings. There is accordingly, no burden or onus of proof on either party.
12. 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].
13. The discretion must be exercised keeping in mind the activities which are authorised by a licence/authority/certificate etc. under the Act. Accordingly, the objects and purposes of the Act are relevant.

The Public Interest

1. The Tribunal has considered the concept of 'the public interest' in a number of decisions. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 at paragraph [25] the Appeal Panel stated in regard to a decision to refuse to issue a security industry licence: "25 The "public interest" is an inherently broad concept giving the appellant the ability to have regard to a wide range 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."
2. The 'public interest' allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of the Applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16.
3. "Public interest' embraces standards acknowledged to be 'for the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members': Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; (1991) 1 VR 63. The purpose of a reference in legislation to 'the 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 decision-maker's consideration': Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Ors (1995) 131 ALR 657 at page 681. The relevant interest is therefore the interest of the public, as distinct from the interest of an individual or individuals.
4. The licensing regime is not about punishment but rather about protecting the public. It is about identifying the possible risks to the public, and then making decisions that are consistent with the need to reduce any risks to a minimum.
5. In Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 at paragraph [28] Hennessy DP 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. Although Ward was a case on the "fit and proper person" test, the formulation has been held to also apply to the public interest test as well: see Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89 at [23].
6. 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: Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110. Risk to the public includes risk to the Applicant himself: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117.

The material before the Tribunal

1. The Applicant has not provided a statement and he did not give evidence at the hearing. His solicitor, Mr Dains made submissions on his behalf. The Applicant also relies on a number of character references which all speak highly of him.
2. Also in evidence is a report from a psychiatrist, Associate Professor Gordon Davies and a 2011 psychological assessment report from a psychologist, Mr. Gerry Wenzel.
3. The Commissioner relies on the material provided pursuant to section 58 of the ADR Act as well as written and oral submissions. The Commissioner's material includes many reports of police dealings with the Applicant and his former partners. As noted, the Commissioner also relies on the recorded interview with Ms A and a statement by LSC Bentick.

Mr. Gerry Wenzel report

1. The Applicant was referred to Mr Wenzel by his general practitioner in 2011, for a psychological assessment in relation to possession and use of firearms. The Applicant saw Mr Wenzel for one consultation in September 2011.
2. In his report Mr Wenzel referred to a previous depressive episode that the Applicant had experienced but noted that it had been in full remission for the previous three years. He stated that there was no clinical indication suggesting that the Applicant was at risk of relapse at that stage of his recovery over and above that found in the general population.
3. Mr Wenzel's clinical opinion was that at that time there was no risk that the Applicant's condition or impairment may impact on his ability to exercise continuous or reasonable control over a firearm.

Associate Professor Davies' report

1. The Respondent had suggested that the Applicant should obtain a psychological assessment however the Respondent had no directed that the Applicant consult with any particular psychiatrist.
2. Associate Professor Davies saw the Applicant for one consultation in January 2020. He reviewed Mr Wenzel's report and took a personal history from the Applicant.
3. In relation to the tests that the Applicant undertook he noted: On interview Mr. Grenfell presented reasonably well. There were no overt signs of depression or agitation or evidence of thought disorder or perceptual abnormality. Mr. Grenfell also completed the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale on which scored at the 3rd percentile for depression and anxiety and the 2nd percentile for stress, the reference population being patients presenting for psychiatric interview. Mr. Grenfell also completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory on which he obtained a profile (Welsh Code 48917-362/:0 K'-LF/) which essentially falls within normal limits.
4. Associate Professor Davies provided a response in relation to a series of questions that had been posed by the Respondent. His report stated: SUMMARY AND OPINION: Mr. Grenfell is a forty-seven year old man who is seeking to renew his shooters licence. He has a history of an episode of drinking while in acute distress in 2008 but has subsequently coped well despite a marriage breakup in which his ex-wife made unfounded allegations about his mental health. Currently he presents well and carries out a responsible management job within the health service. There are no significant areas of concern indicated on clinical interview and psychometric testing.
5. Associate Professor Davies noted that no psychiatric condition was diagnosed and noted no impairment that would affect the Applicant's fitness to possess and use firearms. In answer to the specific questions that had been posed he responded: In your expert medical opinion: i. Is there a risk that the customer's condition or impairment may impact on their ability to exercise continuous or responsible control over firearms ? It is wrong to phrase the question in this way, as some risk is always present. The question should be whether there is a significant or unusual level of risk and the answer to this is no. ii. Is there any history that the condition or impairment has affected their ability to exercise the desired control and responsibility over firearms in the past? No. iii. If there is a previous history, yet no concern, why have the circumstances changed? There has never been a significant concern regarding Mr. Grenfell's use of firearms. iv. Is it possible the customer will relapse? This question is not applicable however I would note that again the phraseology is inappropriate, the real issue being the level of probability. In your expert medical opinion, does the customer- i, Currently have the ability to form a rational judgement or to exercise will power to control physical acts in accordance with rational judgement? Yes. ii. Has the customer previously demonstrated an inability in this regard? No. iii. If there is a previous history, yet no concern, why have the circumstances changed? The history is of issues of acute distress not of particular concern regarding Mr. Grenfell's safety with firearms. iv. Is it possible the customer will relapse in this regard? Again the use of the word possible is wrong. Everything is possible. However it is unlikely. In your expert medical opinion: i Does the customer's condition or impairment have the potential to put public safety at risk if they were to have possession and use of a firearm?. (Please note that a reference to "public safety" includes the safety of the person being assessed.) No. ii. Has the customer previously posed such a safety risk? No. iii. Is there is a previous history, yet no concern, why have the circumstances changed? See above. iv. Is it possible the customer will relapse in this regard? Again the use of the word possible is inappropriate. In any case the question is not relevant given the above answers. ...

The Applicant's case

1. The Applicant relies on several character references, the report of Associate Professor Davies and the written and oral submissions of Mr Dains.

Wesley Abbott

1. Mr Abbott has known the Applicant for about two years in a professional capacity through their employment. The two share an office space and have come to know each other quite well as a result.
2. He speaks highly of the Applicant's execution of his duties and responsibilities and said that he is held in very high regard for his knowledge, guidance, insight and emotional awareness.
3. Mr Abbott is aware of the decision to revoke the Applicant's firearms licence and stated that he is of the opinion that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to continue to hold a firearms licence. He has absolute confidence in the Applicant's commitment to abiding by the restrictions and limitations of the having the privilege of a firearms license and giving it the complete respect that it deserves.

Jeff Hurd

1. Jeff Hurd has known the Applicant as a work colleague and friend for 20 years and is his manager. He has no doubts about the Applicant's integrity and character. He said that the role the Applicant has in the workplace is a role that only an upstanding and committed person could undertake.
2. Mr Hurd is aware of the revocation of the Applicant's firearms licence. He said that he was very surprised to hear about the revocation knowing just how passionate the Applicant is about clay shooting and gun safety. In his opinion the Applicant does not present any possible danger to the public if the decision to revoke his fire arms licence was removed.
3. Mr Hurd appears to be aware that the Applicant's domestic issues may have influenced the decision to revoke the licence but the extent of his knowledge is unclear.
4. It is Mr Hurd's opinion that it would be unfair to allow the revocation decision to stand.

Lindy Squires

1. Lindv Squires is both a friend and colleague of the Applicant. She has known him in both a professional and personal capacity for approximately 12 years. She has worked quite closely with the Applicant and has always found him to be of good character, honest, fair and reliable team member.
2. She said that the Applicant's interpersonal skills where of a high standard and he is respected amongst his peers and the management team. The Applicant has always been a very supportive and loyal friend.
3. Ms Squires said that she has been able to see the impact that the current situation has had on the Applicant, it has been a very difficult time and he has shown significant resilience and strength of character. However she did not elaborate on the extent of her knowledge of the issues that the Commissioner has raised.

Peter Horsley

1. Peter Horsley has known the Applicant for at least eight years both in his capacity as a senior student in Kyokushin karate and socially. He said that the Applicant is very much an 'old school' gentleman, with a strong set of values and at his core he is a very caring and centred man. He said that the Applicant is one of the few people he knows that he can rely on for a measured, compassionate and brutally honest opinion.
2. He is aware of the decision to revoke the Applicant's firearm licence and said that it is clear to him that the Applicant takes his obligations in regard to firearms very seriously. He said that it is clear that the Applicant has a deep connection to his firearms and the skills he develops target shooting.
3. Mr Horsley appears to be aware that the Applicant's domestic issues. He has seen the Applicant reflect and critically analyse his role in those issues. He said that he believes that the Applicant has taken more than his fair share of responsibility for the situation. However, the extent of his knowledge of those issues is unclear.
4. Mr Horsley believes that the Applicant has demonstrated the respect and diligence needed for him to be allowed to continue his passion for target shooting. Mr Horsley he is personally very supportive of firearms regulation but that the gun laws were not designed to limit firearms access to people like the Applicant. He believes that the revocation of the licence is unjust.

Applicant's submissions

1. Mr Dains submitted that the Applicant has a history of compliance with the conditions of his firearms licence. He also complied with the Respondent's requests for a psychiatric assessment and the inspection of his firearm storage facilities.
2. The Applicant's storage facilities were inspected by Police and were accepted as suitable for the relevant storage requirements.
3. Mr Dains accepts that there is a difference between the public interest considerations and those of fitness and propriety. However, he notes that the Applicant's character references are glowing. It is clear that the Applicant holds a position of trust and authority in his employment and is spoken of highly by his peers and referees.
4. The Applicant has held a firearms licence for many years. The licence was reissued following the earlier allegations of domestic violence and therefore the Commissioner must have been satisfied that there were no issues that warranted the refusal of the licence. There have been no issues related to his compliance with the legislative requirements.
5. In relation to the domestic issues, Mr Dains submitted that there have been no final AVOs, no charges and no convictions. There has been no suggestion that the Applicant has ever used a firearm or threatened to use a firearm in any of the recorded incidents.
6. In relation to the incident involving Ms A, Mr Dains submitted that at its highest there was never more than allegations and Ms A withdrew those allegations. He says that the evidence that was prepared for the court proceedings refutes Ms A's evidence.
7. Mr Dains submitted that the Applicant refutes the contention that there have been ongoing incidents. However, as noted the Applicant did not give evidence to that effect.
8. In January 2020, at the request of Respondent, the Applicant attended on Associate Professor Gordon Davies, psychiatrist, for the purpose of the preparation of a report as to his fitness to possess and use firearms. The psychiatric assessment indicates no specific risk associated with the Applicant holding a firearms licence.
9. In regard to the Respondent's contention that little weight should be placed on Associate Professor Davies' report, Mr Dains submitted that if the Respondent was of the view that Associate Professor Davies had not been given material that was relevant to his report, the Respondent should have provided it. He further submitted that Associate Professor Davies' opinion is strong. If he had held any doubts he would not have expressed the view that there has never been a significant concern regarding the Applicant's use of firearms and that there is no significant or unusual level of risk associated with his use of firearms
10. Mr Dains submitted that the revocation of the Applicant's licence has prevented him from participating in the sport of target shooting and limited his involvement with social shooting.
11. He submitted that in all the circumstances, the Respondent erred by finding that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold his licence. The Respondent's decision to revoke the Applicant's licence should be overturned.

The Respondent's case

1. As noted, Mr Zoppo has provided both written and oral submissions. The Commissioner relies on the bundle of material provided pursuant to section 58 of the ADR Act. In particular the Commissioner has referred to a number of reports relating to complaints made by the Applicant's former partners which are contained in that material.
2. Some details are set out above in relation to the AVOs made for the protection of those persons. In regard to the incident which concerned Ms A in March 2019, Mr Zoppo noted that the Applicant had prepared evidence for the local court proceedings. He submitted that the Applicant's evidence did not dispute most of Ms A's account of the incident although he disputes the date on which it occurred. The Applicant had confirmed that he had consumed a large quantity of alcohol and does not have much of a memory of that evening.
3. In relation to the incident Mr Zoppo submitted that the Commissioner's evidence indicates that: 1. The Applicant had accused Ms A of having an affair. 2. The Applicant had consumed a large amount of alcohol and became very drunk. 3. At around 1 am, the Applicant said to Ms A: "I'm going to set you on fire. I'm going to set the house on fire. I'm going to chop you into little pieces." 1. Ms A was very terrified by what the Applicant had said to her and she held fears that the Applicant would do what he had threatened. 2. The Applicant told Ms A that he was too drunk to remember what he said to her. Ms A believes that he was so drunk he may not remember.
4. Mr Zoppo noted that the Applicant has not filed any further evidence in relation to this incident in these proceedings. However, his request for an internal review states that: 'due to the weakness of the alleged grounds for the A VO application, the Application was formally withdrawn by the Police on 4 September 2019 before Registrar Moore at Port Kembla Local Court (withdrawal no. 2019/740677). The interim AVO obviously fell away when the Application was withdrawn by the Police. 'our client's instructions that all of the AVO Applications were withdrawn, and that any allegation made therein was vehemently denied by our client and did not result in our client being charged with any associated domestic violence offence, this does not of itself support the Decision.'
5. The Commissioner's evidence demonstrates that the reason the Police withdrew the application for an AVO to protect Ms A was because she became uncooperative and hostile. It was not due to weakness in the alleged grounds of the AVO.
6. Mr Zoppo further submitted that the Applicant is not in a position to deny that he threatened Ms A as he was too drunk to remember what he said to her.
7. Clause 20 of the Regulations provides that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if satisfied that it is no longer in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence. The Commissioner contends that the relevant issue is whether it is in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold his licence, in light of his history of domestic violence and AVO history since 2003.
8. The applicant has a history of alleged domestic violence incidents. Allegations have been made against him by three former long term partners including Ms A.
9. In addition to the allegations regarding Ms A, it has been alleged that in July 2003, November 2004 and in August 2008, the Applicant made threats to two different people, being the new partners of two different former partners.
10. The Commissioner contends that the most recent allegations involving Ms A have a number of similarities to previous incidents like: 1. threats of violence, including a threat to kill the victim(s) who include children; 2. intimidation by threatening words, aggression and violence; 3. use of mobile phones and the invasion of privacy. Ms A alleged that the Applicant had forcibly taken her phone and scrolled through previous messages. In August 2008 it was alleged that he has texted a previous partner's new partner with explicit photographs; and 4. jealousy over new partners.
11. On the Commissioner's records, the Applicant has been the subject of AVO orders in 2006 and in 2008 to protect two different former partners. Mr Zoppo submitted that in domestic matters a victim, after considering the report and the potential consequences, will often choose not to proceed with the complaint and withdraw the application and support the perpetrator of the domestic violence. He argued that this does not diminish the serious nature of the threats of violence alleged by Ms A.
12. The provisional AVO for the protection of Ms A was withdrawn. It was not revoked. Although the Applicant has not been convicted, the Commissioner contends that the Applicant's conduct could amount to an offence of intimidation, as defined under section 7 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. Mr Zoppo submitted that Ms A's audio recorded statement sheds light on the nature of the relationship between her and the Applicant. Ms A told LSC Bentick that she had fears for her safety and the safety of her children as she feared that the Applicant would carry out his threats.
13. Mr Zoppo submitted that the Tribunal has recognised that victims do not always report incidents of domestic violence in fear of repercussions. In Manning v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 111, Senior Member Walker placed significant weight on the interim domestic violence order on the Applicant, even though the common assault charges related to the domestic violence incident were withdrawn. He stated at paragraphs [51] and [62]: [51] The applicant was made subject to IAVOs for the purpose of protecting his wife and children, which were amended (by deletion of the reference to the children) and ultimately withdrawn on 7 June 2019 when the common assault charges were withdrawn. Although the two counts of common assault (domestic violence) arising from the incident were withdrawn as a result of Mrs Manning's not attending court, the episode is a serious matter that must be taken into account when assessing the applicant's fitness and propriety. Victims of domestic violence do not always report incidents or pursue proceedings because of fear of repercussions, and it is possible that she did not attend court for that reason. It is also possible that Mrs Manning may have opted out of the prosecutions in the hope of salvaging the marriage, as they have three children. There is, however, no direct evidence from either spouse on that point or on any other matter. … [62] Taking a balanced view of risk to the public, there are real grounds for concern in this matter. The most significant factor in this case is the nature of the domestic violence incident involving the applicant and Mrs Manning. Any involvement of a firearm in a domestic argument, whether it is pointed or brandished or not, is a matter of serious concern ...
14. Mr Zoppo noted that the Commissioner's evidence suggests that the Applicant has a propensity for violence, especially after drinking and the aggressiveness and threats of violence are reasons for serious concern.
15. Ms A was very fearful of the Applicant. Nevertheless, she withdrew her complaints against the Applicant. Mr Zoppo submitted that, similar to the circumstances in Manning, it is possible that Ms A's support of the Applicant was because of her fears of repercussions in the hope of saving the marriage. This ultimately lead to the withdrawal of the AVO.
16. For these reasons, the Commissioner submits that the allegations of accumulative incidents of domestic violence against former partners should be given significant weight as a public interest reason to revoke the Applicant's licence.

Character Evidence

1. In relation to the Applicant's references the Commissioner submits that the public interest considerations go beyond the 'character' of a person and includes concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system. Mr Zoppo submitted that the character references should be given little weight given they hold little relevance to the incidents of domestic violence.

Associate Professor Davies' report

1. Mr Zoppo also submitted that little weight should be placed on Associate Professor Davies' report. The assessment was based on one interview in January 2020, the Applicant's self-assessment results and the Applicant's account of his own personal history. The report does not refer to the history of alleged domestic violence incidents, nor his past admission for depression. In that regard, Associate Professor Davies' report cannot be considered to be an assessment of whether the Applicant is a risk to the wider public safety, which is the underlying public interest consideration.
2. The Commissioner submits that the objectives and principals of the Act make it clear that public safety is the primary consideration in firearms related matters and the public interest overrides any private interest that the Applicant may have with respect to the possession and use of firearms.
3. Further, the mere fact that the AVO was withdrawn by Police in 2019 is of no great moment. The transcript of Ms A's evidence is consistent with other allegations against the Applicant identifying a history of domestic violence against former partners. The allegations identify threats to harm three former partners and the new partners of former partners.
4. The Applicant has shown his inability to control his anger. This has resulted in both threats of violence and actual violence, including in the presence of children.
5. The Commissioner submits that the circumstances of the Applicant's domestic violence history when considered together should be given significant weight and preferred over the character references and the evidence of Associate Professor Davies.
6. In the circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that it is in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a licence to possess or use a firearm. Nor can the Tribunal be satisfied that there is virtually no risk, should the Applicant be given the privilege of a firearms licence that allows him to possess or use firearms. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed.

Consideration

1. The Applicant's interest in holding a firearms licence is, primarily for enjoyment of shooting. He has been unable to pursue those interests as a consequence of the revocation of his licence. Private interests, however, are not the only matters to be taken into account. The interests of the whole community are matters for consideration.
2. The Applicant has been the subject of many allegations regarding domestic violence. However he has not been charged or convicted in relation to any of those allegations. There are no AVOs in place. The Respondent nevertheless maintains that the Applicant's conduct could amount to an offence of intimidation.
3. In relation to the allegations concerning Ms A, the Respondent has provided a recorded interview with Ms A and a statement from LSC Bentick. The allegations are clear as is LSC Bentick's evidence of Ms A's demeanour at the time he attended Ms A's property and spoke with her.
4. As noted, the Applicant did not give evidence in these proceedings. However, in a statement prepared for the court proceedings he stated in relation to the incident: Unfortunately, as a result of the amount of alcohol I consumed that evening I do not have much of a memory of that evening.
5. In the circumstances I accept that the statement that Ms A gave on 20 March 2019 is probably an accurate account of the incident insofar as it asserts that the Applicant threatened to harm her and insofar as she stated that she had fears for her safety or the safety of her children. I accept that she feared that the Applicant would actually do what he said he would do.
6. It is clear that Ms A made the decision to not proceed with her complaints against the Applicant and as a result the AVO was withdrawn. I have no evidence before me to explain why she chose to adopt that course. I note the comments by Senior Member Walker in Manning that are referred to above. It is possible that Ms A's support of the Applicant was because of her fears of repercussions or she may have done so in the hope of saving the marriage. However, there may be an unrelated explanation.
7. Nevertheless, it is my view that weight can be given to the fact that she asked police to attend her property on about 3 March 2019 and to the statement that she gave on 20 March 2019. This is the case notwithstanding that the matter was not pursued.
8. The issue of the history of allegations regarding domestic violence was not addressed by Associate Professor Davies' report. The report touches on Ms A's allegations but does not address the allegations made by the Applicant's other former partners. If Associate Professor Davies did explore those issues with the Applicant, it is not clear from his report. For that reason I agree with the Respondent that little weight should be given to the report.
9. While the references provided on behalf of the Applicant are extremely positive, there is no reason to believe that any of the referees were aware of the extent of the allegations made against the Applicant. For that reason I also agree with the Respondent that little weight should be given to the references.
10. The material before me supports the Commissioner's contention that the Applicant has a propensity for aggressiveness and threats of violence and actual violence, especially after heavy alcohol consumption. It appears that this has been the case since at least 2003 and it is an issue of which the Applicant should have been aware. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the Applicant has taken steps to address that issue. If he has done so, he has not presented me with evidence to show what steps he has taken. Evidence of that kind would have been a relevant consideration.
11. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the issue of the Applicant's propensity for aggressiveness and threats of violence and actual violence will probably remain an issue should domestic issues arise again and particularly if they arise in circumstances where they coincide with periods of heavy alcohol consumption. In my view, this poses a risk to the public should the Applicant be given access to firearms. That risk is not minimal, fanciful or theoretical.
12. There is no suggestion that the Applicant has ever misused firearms or that he has ever threatened to do so. However, I accept that there is general concern in the community about firearms in homes and the potential for domestic violence incidents to involve firearms. Taking a balanced view of the risk to the public, it is my view that there are real grounds for concern in this matter. The licensing regime is about identifying the possible risks to the public, and then making decisions that are consistent with the need to reduce any risks to a minimum. I cannot be satisfied that the risk to the public would be reduced to a minimum if the Applicant has access to firearms.
13. On the material before me, it is my view that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision to revoke the licence.

Orders 1. The decision under review is affirmed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 May 2021