Haouchar v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 255;

1. Both parties made oral submissions at the hearing, and the Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined.
2. Pursuant to s 49 of the CAT Act, a hearing had previously been conducted in the absence of the Applicant and the public, in relation to the Respondent's application seeking orders for non-publication and non-disclosure of certain material provided in confidence to the Tribunal by the Respondent (the Confidential Bundle). Orders to this effect were made by the Tribunal on 20 May 2025.
3. A further confidential hearing was conducted at the close of the proceedings in the absence of the Applicant and the public, and the Tribunal was able to view certain additional materials. The Tribunal determined that it was in the interests of confidentiality and safety that these additional materials and disclosures be considered part of the Confidential Bundle and not be disclosed or released to the Applicant nor to any member of the public.
4. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether or not to affirm the Respondent's decision to revoke the Applicant's Licence or make other orders, including the imposition of one or more special conditions on the Applicant's Licence.

1. The Applicant was issued with an AB category Licence on 26 May 2021, for the purpose of recreational hunting on rural properties from time to time. The Applicant had previously held a junior firearms licence in Victoria.
2. On 26 June 2024, the Applicant's Licence was suspended on the basis that he had links to an organised criminal network, and it was therefore not in the public interest for him to hold a Licence.
3. The Applicant's Licence was subsequently revoked on 3 February 2025 on the basis that he has an "ongoing association with persons who have extensive adverse criminal holdings".
4. At the Applicant's request, an internal review was conducted and the decision was affirmed by the Respondent on 5 April 2025, on the grounds that the Applicant has a distant, but familial, relationship with persons who have extensive criminal histories, and this constitutes a risk to public safety.
5. The Applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal for a review of the Decision, on 24 April 2025.
6. On 11 July 2025, the Respondent asked whether the Applicant would consider reinstatement of his Licence with special conditions, namely, that he would not use, possess or store firearms at any location where Osman Haouchar or Nedal Haouchar were present, and that he would not associate with them. The Applicant declined to accept these conditions via email of 14 July 2025.

1. The Applicant submits the correct and preferable decision is to reinstate his Licence. His grounds for this review include the following:

(a) That he is of good character with a clean police record, and has never been charged with any offence, except for one parking offence.

(b) That the familial link between the Applicant and Nedal and Osman Haouchar (the Haouchar Brothers) is distant and tenuous, and he only sees them every few years or so, at a wedding or funeral.

(c) That he otherwise is an upstanding citizen and has held a Licence at various times since he was 8 years old, without incident.

(d) That he has never purchased or owned a firearm or ammunition. He simply uses the Licence to go on camping and hunting trips with friends, and borrow their firearms on those occasions.

(e) That, given the above, the Respondent's refusal to reinstate his Licence is baseless and unfair.

1. The Applicant gave oral evidence under oath, and asserted that he needs the Licence to participate in camping and hunting trips that his friends organise from time to time. The Applicant was unable to recall the names or locations of any of the properties he had visited on the approximately ten to fifteen trips he claimed to have taken, and refused to name any of the friends he accompanied on such trips, for fear they might 'get in trouble', despite the Tribunal's assurances otherwise. The Applicant nonetheless insisted that he had viewed the firearms licences of all of his friends on such trips.
2. The Applicant stated that he had attended a legitimate firearms safety course, and lodged the attendant paperwork online with his application for the Licence, but could not recall the name or location of the provider, and did not recall the names of any of the persons listed on his paperwork or how he came to receive those documents.
3. The Applicant had stated that he could not recall much about the safety training course, but confirmed that he did not handle a firearm at any time during such course.
4. The Applicant advised that he did not recognise the names noted on the documents he had lodged in support of his application, of either the provider of the course, or the person signing off on permission to use their property for hunting purposes. He further stated that he could not recall the documents themselves or where he obtained them.
5. The Applicant admitted to knowing about the criminal histories of the Haouchar Brothers, which are a matter of public record and have been detailed extensively in the press. However, he was adamant that whilst they were technically part of the same large family, he had virtually no relationship with them, and rarely saw them.
6. A photograph published on social media was produced by the Respondent, with the Applicant and his brother, arm in arm with the Haouchar Brothers from August 2022, in response to this claim. The Applicant stated this was taken at a wedding, and was likely one of only two times that he had seen any of the Haouchar Brothers in the last five years, the other time being a funeral involving one of the Applicant's first cousins who had been married to one of the Haouchar Brothers' first cousins.
7. The Applicant stated that he had refused the special conditions offered by the Respondent, on the basis that if he accidentally bumped into one of the Haouchar Brothers at the local mall or mosque (which he acknowledged had never happened before), or encountered them at a family wedding or funeral in the future, he feared he would therefore be in breach of the conditions. The Applicant admitted that he did not seek clarification from the Respondent regarding what 'associate with' means, and what conduct or circumstances might actually trigger a breach of this condition.
8. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was described in his cousin's reference as a good person who will always lend a helping hand, and expressed concerns that he might therefore be inclined or pressured to help one or more of the Haouchar Brothers at some point in the future. The Applicant stated that he had never been in trouble with the law, and intends never to be, and that he is not easily intimidated or threatened, and did not consider this to be a realistic concern.

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

(a) Whilst the Applicant has no criminal record and is considered to be of good character, his familial relationship, however distant, with the Haouchar Brothers is a public interest concern, given their extensive and serious criminal conduct.

(b) The Haouchar Brothers have been variously charged and/or convicted of, offences including armed robbery, the supply of commercial and large quantities of cocaine, dealing with millions of dollars of proceeds of crime, directing the activities of a criminal group, and other crimes. Together, the Respondent considers them to be part of an organised crime network and they have been described in the press as a well-known Sydney crime family.

(c) That the Applicant was invited to consider the reasonable imposition of special conditions relating to the Haouchar Brothers, and the Applicant chose to reject such conditions.

(d) That the Applicant claims he attended a firearms safety course which turns out to have been operated by an individual who was charged with filing fraudulent firearms paperwork, for accepting money and signing off on firearms safety course attendance, without providing any actual training.

(e) That as a result of (d), the Applicant had not been properly trained in the use of firearms, as he has not complied with the practical component of the required training, as per chapter 10 of the Firearms (longarms) users guide, which requires all course participants to demonstrate how to load and unload a firearm safely and correctly, and load and unload magazine/single shot, amongst other skills. The Applicant stated under oath that he did not touch a firearm during the training session he attended.

(f) That the Applicant submitted paperwork in support of his Licence application, which included a forged letter of authority in regard to hunting on the named person's property. This means he did not satisfy, and has never satisfied, the relevant conditions detailed in the Table in s 12 of the Act.

(g) Whilst the Applicant was not implicated in either of the offences involved in (d) and (f) above, he was noticeably and unreasonably lacking in curiosity and due diligence in his approach to the safety training and the supporting paperwork he received. This gives rise to the question of whether the Applicant knew that the letter of authority was false in contravention of s 24(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

(h) That the issue of public interest allows for matters beyond the Applicant's character to be taken into account, and include public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system.

(i) That the Applicant has a sufficiently close familial relationship with the Haouchar Brothers, to encounter them at certain family events, as evidenced by the photograph of the Applicant, his brother and two of the Haouchar Brothers, on facebook in August 2022, with arms around each other, labelled "cousin love".

(j) The Respondent further relied on the content of the Confidential Bundle, which notably did not include any information regarding the Applicant himself.

1. The Respondent submitted that they exercised their discretion in accordance with the statutory objects of the Act, notably to advance public safety above personal interest.

1. It is a fact that the Applicant has no criminal convictions, and his good character has not been challenged by the Respondent.
2. What is predominantly at issue in these proceedings is whether it is in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to be denied his Licence. The principal issue in determining public safety is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if the Applicant is permitted to hold a Licence, and whether any special conditions should be imposed in relation thereto.
3. The Applicant previously rejected the offer of special conditions on his Licence, and stood by this decision when examined at the hearing, despite exclaiming vehemently that he 'just wants his Licence back'. Given this offer appears to have been the fastest pathway to regaining his Licence, the Applicant's adamant refusal to accept the special conditions is somewhat confusing. Rather than draw any negative assumptions from his refusal, it appears to me that the Applicant did not fully understand the meaning of 'not associate with' and did not seek to obtain further clarification so as to make an informed decision.
4. Further, on cross-examination, the Applicant was unable to recall any detail or relevant information in relation to almost every aspect of this matter, including how he found the course, where it was located, who provided the training, who provided the paperwork, the names on the paperwork, who submitted the paperwork with his licence application, which (and how many) hunting trips he had participated in, which properties or areas of NSW he had camped and hunted in, or who had organised and/or participated in those trips with him.
5. Whilst the Applicant's good character is not in question, the above does support the Respondent's contentions that whilst the Applicant likely had no involvement in the fraudulent course operation and documentation provided to him, he also displayed an astonishing lack of curiosity and diligence regarding the nature of the training and paperwork provided.
6. The key issue for determination otherwise in this matter, is whether the Applicant's relationship to the Haouchar Brothers is a public interest consideration pursuant to s 11(7) of the Act, justifying the refusal to reinstate the Applicant's Licence.
7. In Hamid v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 43 (Hamid) at [53] the Tribunal notes that "The matter thus appears to be a case of first impression. The language used, "not fit, in the public interest", is obviously materially different from the "fit and proper person" test in the Firearms Act's licensing provisions. It implies that even though a person may, like the applicant in this case, have an unblemished record, public interest considerations may render the person unfit and make it appropriate to issue an FPO against him or her."
8. At [56] in Hamid, the Tribunal states that "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" as per Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16.
9. As per the unreported case of Barrow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (6 September 2004), the question as to what is in the public interest is closely equated with the question is there a threat to public safety. Hamid, at [57] notes "the threat to public safety may not result from any act or omission by the person against whom the order is issued".
10. Hamid continues in [58] to state that "it is well known that criminal organizations often seek to make use of persons who have no criminal record in the furtherance of their criminal activities. One of the forms that can take is arranging for such persons to store prohibited firearms on behalf of gang members." It is this category of risk, which the Respondent noted as a particular concern.
11. In Tolley v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2006] NSWADT 149 at [31], the Tribunal states "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".
12. Apart from the other grounds raised by the Respondent, they have indicated their concern for the Applicant's relationship and therefore possible association with the Haouchar Brothers as a basis for the continued revocation of the Applicant's Licence, given the Haouchar Brothers' extensive and serious criminal history.
13. The concept of the "public interest" has been considered in numerous matters before this Tribunal. In Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) ALR 657, it was noted at [681] that "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."
14. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 and [25] the Appeal Panel found that public interest is "an inherently broad concept giving the appellant [the Commissioner] the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual".
15. In Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50, it was noted at [23]: "There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these discretions should be exercised. In my view, the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the" Act.
16. Key to the balancing of these considerations is the emphasis in s 3 of the Act which emphasises that firearm possession and use is a privilege which is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Therefore, it is ultimately the community's interests which take precedence over the private interests of an individual.
17. In Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28 (Ward) at [28], Deputy President Hennessy noted that "The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk." Ward concerned the "fit and proper person" test, which is not at issue in these proceedings, however the formulation has been held to apply to the public interest test as well: see Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206 at [130].
18. In Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 110 (4 June 2004), the Tribunal when considering the question of public safety stated at [32]: "The principal issue that I have to decide is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if Mr Webb's licence is reinstated. 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."
19. The Tribunal is cognizant that the Applicant is self-represented in this matter, and notes that Hijazi v Commissioner of Police NSW Police [2014] NSWCATAD 148 (Hijazi) provides some support for the Applicant's case. In Hijazi, the applicant had links with members of a motorcycle gang, of which his brother was a high-ranking member. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's character had not been 'tainted' and noted at [39] that "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour, and in that regard, I am satisfied that Mr. Hijazi's continued holding a firearms licence does not place public safety at risk".
20. In considering whether it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to retain his firearms licence, the Tribunal places public safety as a paramount concern as set out in the Objects and Principles of the Act.
21. It has also been stated that the public interest requires that all licensees be aware of, and comply with, the legislative requirements: Cook v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 30. Responsibilities extended to licence holders are of a serious nature and licence holders must not only understand and comprehend the guidelines and laws that govern them, they also must act in accordance with them: Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police [2005] NSWADT 75 at [25].
22. In determining the risk involved in these particular proceedings, there is an Applicant whose character and record are not in question. However, it is acknowledged that his 'cousins', the Haouchar Brothers, who the Applicant asserts are very distant relatives, are people who clearly pose a risk to public safety.
23. Regardless of the alleged infrequency of their interactions, a familial bond exists between the Applicant and the Haouchar Brothers, and their paths cross from time to time at family events. The Applicant has no criminal convictions and has not been alleged to have engaged in any criminal activities. However, as per [65] in Hamid, it is his "associations that create the danger to public safety with which the respondent is concerned."
24. In Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 (Martin) the Tribunal held at [66] that "The question of risk is therefore not 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."
25. In order to honour the principles of the Act and ensure the public interest is properly and sensibly served, I have applied the test in Ward, in the context of the particular circumstances of this matter.

1. I acknowledge that the Applicant has not had access to, and therefore the opportunity to make submissions against, the material provided to the Tribunal within the Confidential Bundle. To this end, I note that such material bolsters, but is not integral to, my determination in this matter.
2. There were a number of competing factors informing this decision, as summarised in the following paragraphs.
3. I find that the Applicant appears to be of good character and clean criminal history, and there has been no suggestion otherwise by the Respondent. Similarly, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the Haouchar Brothers have or would attempt to intimidate or pressure the Applicant into providing assistance in their criminal endeavours, nor that he would succumb to such.
4. I find that the Applicant is in the unfortunate position of having to prove a 'near-absolute negative' as per Martin, in terms of his relationship with, and potential proximity to, the Haouchar Brothers.
5. However, I find that these matters are, on balance, outweighed by the following matters:

(a) the Applicant's continuing refusal to accept a special condition requiring the Applicant to commit to not associating with the Haouchar Brothers;

(b) the established extensive and serious criminal conduct of the Haouchar Brothers, combined with the lack of clarity and consistency in the Applicant's evidence under cross-examination regarding his relationship therewith;

(c) the Applicant's lack of proper training in respect of the requirements of s 11(3A) of the Act and the Respondent's Safety Training Manual, by virtue of his (presumed inadvertent) submission of a fraudulent training course completion certificate;

(d) the Applicant's failure to comply with the requirements of the Table in s 12 of the Act, and Reg 30(1) of the Regulations, in respect of obtaining the requisite proof of permission to hunt on rural property, due to his (presumed inadvertent) submission of a forged authority; and

(e) the concerns raised by s 24(2)(b)(i) of the Act as to whether the Applicant knowingly supplied information which was false or misleading in a material particular in connection with a licence application, with regard to the documents referenced in (c) and (d) above. The Respondent has not pressed this matter, and I make no findings as to whether or not the Applicant knew the documents provided in support of his licence application were fraudulent. However, I accept the Respondent's contention that the Applicant was indifferent to, and incurious about these matters, and his inability to recall any details regarding any of these and other matters during cross-examination, did little to dispel this impression.

1. It follows that the Commissioner's decision to revoke the Licence should be affirmed.

(2) Pursuant to s 64(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the material filed or disclosed by the Respondent on a confidential basis prior to and during the hearing, the evidence given in private before the Tribunal and the record of that part of the proceedings conducted in private pursuant to s 49 is not to be disclosed or released to either the Applicant or to the public.

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.