Johns v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

Yaghi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 91. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Glenn Harry Johns (Applicant) Mr Jake Harry Johns (Applicant)

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Hartmann Lawyers (Applicants) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00120481 and 2021/00120483 Publication restriction: See above.

reasons for decision

1. The applicants Mr Glenn Harry Johns and Mr Jake Harry Johns applied to this Tribunal for review of decisions to revoke their firearms licences on 16 February 2021 and 25 February 2021 respectively (exhibit R1, pp 88 - 89, 101 - 102).
2. Glenn Johns had held a category ABG licence since May 1998, but his licence was suspended on 29 May 2020 and revoked on 16 February 2021 on the ground that on 8 September 2020 at Blacktown Local Court he had been sentenced to a two-year conditional release order (CRO) without conviction, concluding on 7 September 2022, for possession of silencers.
3. Jake Harry Johns was issued with a category AB firearms licence to expire on 4 August 2021, which was revoked on the ground that the Commissioner was satisfied that it was not in the public interest for him to continue to hold the licence. The Commissioner also believed that the applicant might not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of his way of living or domestic circumstances.
4. Both applicants applied for an internal review, on 19 March and 24 March 2021 respectively, but no review was conducted, with the result that the matters proceeded directly to the tribunal.
5. On 31 May 2021 Pearson PM directed that the two applications were to be heard at the same time. A telephone hearing was held on 14 September 2021.

Applicable legislation

1. Section 11(5)(d) of the Firearms Act provides that a licence must not be issued to a person who "is subject to a good behaviour bond, whether entered into in New South Wales or elsewhere, in relation to an offence prescribed by the regulations". Paragraph (iii) of that subsection defines a good behaviour bond to include a reference to a community correction order or a conditional release order, or both.
2. For the purposes of s 11(5)(d), cl 5(2)(a) of the Firearms Regulation prescribes "An offence relating to the possession or use of a firearm or any other weapon….". Section 4(3) of schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act defines the category of "Prohibited weapons" to include certain "Miscellaneous articles", including "Silencers or any other device designed for attachment to a firearm for the purpose of muffling, reducing or stopping the noise created by firing the firearm".
3. Section 11(4) provides that 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…."
4. Section 24(2)(a) provides that a licence may be revoked "for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind…." Clause 20 of the regulation states that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if "satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence".
5. In relation to Glenn Johns, the issue in this application is whether the correct and preferable decision is to affirm or set aside the revocation of his licence by reason of his being subject to a conditional release order for a prescribed offence, or because it is not in the public interest for him to continue to hold a licence, or both.
6. In relation to Jake Johns, the issue in this application is whether the correct and preferable decision is to affirm or set aside the revocation of his licence by reason of his domestic circumstances, or because it is not in the public interest for him to continue to hold a licence, or both.

The evidence

1. The respondent called no oral evidence but relied on documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibit R1), a video recording on a memory stick (exhibit R2) and confidential exhibit CR4.

Mr Glenn Johns

1. The applicants gave oral evidence by telephone. Glenn Johns adopted his written statement dated 5 August 2021 (part exhibit A1) in which he stated that he has held a firearms licence since approximately 1990, including for categories ABHG. In approximately 30 years of firearm ownership, he has strictly complied with all relevant legislation and had not previously come under police notice, even though he had traversed most firearms disciplines during that time. He was served with notice of revocation on 16 February 2021 on the ground that he is subject to a conditional release order without conviction for the possession of firearms silencers.
2. The one item he knew to be a silencer, as he conceded immediately to police, he had found in his late father's possessions among his belongings. At the time he believed that the state parliament was ratifying a change to the legislation governing silencers in the form of a "Silencer Amendment Bill", making them legal to own and use. Also, notwithstanding his responsibility in the matter, he determined to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity regardless of circumstances.
3. All the items he purchased were obtained on eBay Australia from sellers who listed themselves as being Australian. He believed they were already in this country, and having passed the litmus test of Australian customs were not subject to any regulatory discourse, given that they were as described.
4. The police fact sheet also reflected his cooperation in returning ammunition that police had left behind in the strong room where his firearms, fishing rods and other automotive tools and equipment were stored. The fact sheet also indicated his total cooperation in giving police the items as listed, without their needing to search for them. The items seized were still in the original Australia Post bags with the sender, seller and receiver details in place.
5. He was a member of NSWAPA, the Amateur Pistol Association, and was required to be a member in order to hold a category H licence, and notably from 1998 through to 2003. He had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, and even though he denied to police that he had purchased them for any other purposes, he realized that was not the case and feels deeply sorry for lying to police on that day. He feels he has left himself and his family down. He has focused on making himself a better person since being caught with those items, and if he is fortunate enough to regain his firearms licence, he would focus on ensuring strict compliance with all the requirements. He understood that firearms possession and use is a privilege that he had jeopardized by possessing illegal items.

Mr Jake Johns

1. Mr Jake Johns adopted his signed statement dated 5 August 2021 in which he stated that he had held a firearms licence since 2015 and was served with a notice of revocation on 25 February 2021. The reason given for the revocation was information that he allegedly was residing with a convicted person (meaning his father, Glenn). He was alleged to have been given two "move on" directions sometime between 2013 and 2020 and to have close associations with persons with a criminal history.
2. He said that he had not been at the Quakers Inn as described in event report E 76991558 (exhibit R1, pp 42 - 44) and does not patronize that establishment. The person named as P.O.I. Bennett was not known to him and he does not share any association with him, but had been told that a person by that name is associated with his younger brother. The description given of him in that event report is not him and he strongly believes the description to be of his brother, who has used him as his alias on other occasions. He (Jake) is 195 cm tall, 120 kg with green eyes. He has full-length tattoos on his left arm, shoulder to wrist and a distinctive dreadlock hairstyle that has taken him approximately four years to grow. Those unique identifiers are not mentioned in the distinguishing features of the person of interest alleged to be him.
3. In relation to event report E 51187762, 16 March 2013 (exhibit R1, pp 45 - 57), which relates that a number of persons were searched by police for drugs at Baulkham Hills with nothing adverse found, the witness said he was a leader and mentor with Hillsong Church at the time of the incident, helping young people with problems such as drugs. He had been mentoring Jade Denny, who contacted him to collect him because he had been drinking and did not want to drive. At the time, Jake did not have a driver's licence and called Daniel Wong to assist him with transport to pick up Jade Denny.
4. As they pulled up close to the location, police pulled in behind them and made enquiries as to why Daniel Wong and Jake had pulled into the parking area of the park. Jake then explained that he was asked to pick up Jade Denny as described above. Police gave them all a move on order and asked him and Daniel Wong to help them by conveying all the participants from the scene, including not only Jade Denny but also Crump and Morrey, and deposit them at their individual residences. He had not consumed any alcohol at the time and had not been breathalyzed. The narrative, however, associated him with drug users.

Confidential session

1. On the respondent's motion, a confidential session was conducted as the respondent wished to tender evidence dealing with the criminal record of a person who is not a party to the proceedings.
2. [Not for publication]
3. [Not for publication]

Respondent's submissions

1. The respondent relied on written submissions dated 17 September 2021 in which, after outlining the background of the two matters and the applicable legislation, pointed out that when on 29 May 2020 police found a total of 5 silencers at Glenn Johns's home, he informed police that he did not know the items were firearms silencers and that he purchased them to use them to collect solvent from vehicles and firearms.
2. It would be an anomaly for the tribunal to exercise its discretion under s 24(2)(a) to not revoke Glenn Johns's licence in circumstances where he was the subject of the CRO until 2022 and had not demonstrated any special or exceptional circumstances that would lead to the setting aside of the revocation: Kalinic v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 227, [23]. Grant v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 158, [63], which took a different view, could be distinguished because the offences in the current matter related directly to the possession of a prohibited weapon and were indictable offences punishable with a maximum of 5 and 14 years' imprisonment. It demonstrated his complete lack of regard for the firearms licensing scheme.
3. The Commissioner's evidence showed that the applicant knew that all the items he had purchased and which were seized by police were firearms silencers and that the applicant possessed them illegally as he knew he required a permit under the Weapons Prohibition Act, but did not have one. At the hearing he admitted that he had not been honest with the police during the search and that he did in fact purchase the items to be used as silencers and that he had drilled a hole through the baffles of one item himself.
4. The circumstances were similar to those in Huggins v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 119, where the tribunal affirmed the revocation of the licence of a person who had pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm fitted with a silencer, noting that the offence was serious because of the maximum penalty of up to 5 years.
5. There is much higher threshold for obtaining a permit to own and possess a silencer than a firearm. A recreational or sporting shooter would have to demonstrate that the activity concerned requires the possession or use of the prohibited weapon for which the permit was sought: DMC v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 219, [15]. The fact that Glenn Johns pleaded guilty to six offences related to silencers was a significant reason for his licence to be revoked. Further, his licence should also be revoked because the CRO is still in force.

Applicant's submissions

1. On behalf of the applicant, Mr Kable explained that the basis of his client's submissions was contained in his internal review request dated 19 March 2021 (exhibit R1, pp 90 - 92), attaching a letter of apology by Glenn Johns, together with a reference by Pastor Dillon and statutory declarations by both applicants. It was clear from the case-law that when offending has occurred, there were a number of factors needing to be addressed for the tribunal to assess whether there is "virtually no risk to the public" if the applicant were to have a firearms licence. It was to be noted that his offending was not related to the misuse of firearms, but rather to possessing a suppressor for a firearm, a situation that could readily have been addressed if he had applied for, and received, a permit.
2. There had been much speculation recently in relation to sound suppressors for firearms being made legal, and in places such as England they are required to be fitted in many areas to comply with health and safety standards. That was not to downplay the law as it currently stands in Australia, only to raise awareness of the possibility of those items eventually becoming legal in New South Wales.
3. While a finding of guilt was sufficient to enable revocation of a licence, each case needed to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to establish whether the threshold had been crossed. Thus, in Ward and the cases that followed, including Yaghi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 91, decisions resulted in revocation being set aside after convictions were recorded in the Local Court for offences. In this case there had been no conviction recorded, a good indication of the objective seriousness of the offending. Further, the applicant had displayed good prospects for rehabilitation by submitting a letter of apology, together with a strong reference.
4. Reliance should also be given to Glenn's age and lack of adverse antecedents, his long experience with firearms and the remorse and contrition he had exhibited. Jameson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 25 and Hook v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 250 both involved more serious offending, but in both cases the revocation decision was set aside.
5. In oral submissions at the hearing Mr Kable reiterated those contentions, pointing out that the Local Court had not proceeded to a conviction. The applicant relied on his good character and his 30-year firearms licence history with no adverse notice. He was an outstanding member of the community with only a DUI on his record. He had believed that suppressors would soon be legal and that oil and solvent filters were illegal only if they were modified, and further work was required for that. He was open about his interest in experimenting with them but had not made any modifications, except that one of them had a hole drilled in it. There was no evidence that he had attempted to fit the them to a firearm or that he had ever used them. He admitted that his father's silencer was workable.

Consideration

1. Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) the tribunal's role is to determine whether, having regard to the underlying facts in the matter and the applicable law, the Commissioner's decision is the correct and preferabe one. The tribunal is to review the merits of the original decision and is required to consider the evidence available at that time, together with any other or later material, so as to affirm the original decision, vary it or set it aside: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77.
2. The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the CAT Act (s 30) and the Firearms Act, including the Commissioner's revocation of a licence or permit: s 75(1)(c). The tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Commissioner's decision is correct: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357.
3. Clear guidance as to how the act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistently with that approach, s 11(3) states that a licence must not be issued unless 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. Section 11(4)(c) also provides that 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 the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.
4. The standard of proof applying in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, the balance (preponderance) of probabilities. These are not adversarial proceedings. There is accordingly, no burden or onus of proof on either party (Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10, [28] - [34]) and the standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42, [89] - [91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10, [10] - [12]. They do, however, provide guidance for the tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction.

Glenn Johns - Possession of silencers

1. At Blacktown Local Court on 8 September 2020, the applicant was made subject to a conditional release order without conviction for two years, commencing on that date and concluding on 7 September 2022, in respect of one offence of buying a prohibited weapon when not authorized and five offences of possessing or using a prohibited weapon without a permit (exhibit R1, pp 3 - 5).
2. The police fact sheet for charge H74494411 related that on 16 October 2019, the Australian Border Force examined a package from China addressed to the applicant which contained a prohibited weapon, a firearm silencer. The consignment item description was "Car screw". Checks revealed that the applicant had not attempted to obtain a prohibited weapons permit, and a silencer is classed as a prohibited article under Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. A search of the applicant's PayPal account showed five similar items purchased between September 2019 and October 2019.
3. The items were commonly sold online as solvent traps and fuel filters, in an attempt to conceal their purpose as firearm silencers and legitimize their purchase. On 29 May 2020, a search warrant was executed at the applicant's residence. He cooperated in the process, later notifying and assisting police in collecting further ammunition from his premises. He showed police the location of four firearms silencers located in a locked room containing firearms and ammunition and for safes containing his firearms.
4. Mr Johns said he purchased the items as solvent fuel traps to be used to collect the solvent from vehicles and firearms, saying he was unaware that the items were commonly sold on the Internet as firearms silencers. He continued to deny knowledge of the use of the fuel traps as sound suppressors and gave his reason for possessing them as filters in vehicles. The searchers also located an older silencer and asked Mr Johns about it. He said he was aware it was a silencer and said he had inherited it from his father but was not sure what to do with it and had never used it.
5. On examination the items were examined and were found to contain internal baffles and had small indents in the metal to allow holes to be drilled to permit a bullet to pass through. One of the items had the baffles drilled through. The internal structure of the seized items would have no purpose for filtering fuel or trapping solvent but was required for reducing the sound of a gunshot. The lack of rubber o-rings meant that they would leak fuel or another liquid if it were placed into them. As the applicant had extensive knowledge of firearms, police believed that he was aware that the items were firearms silencers and purchased and possessed them for that reason. They did not, however, have any information to suggest that he had possession of them for nefarious purposes.

References

1. Mr Adam Clark is employed by Ability Options as a Vocational Counsellor as part of their therapy team. He has known the applicant for over 10 years since Mr Clark and his wife joined the Blacktown Christian Reformed Church, now known as New Life. During that time he had numerous interactions with Glenn, both at church services and in various social settings. Glenn had informed him about the firearms offences and supplied him with full details of the charges and the fact sheets.
2. Many times he had personally witnessed Glenn giving up his time for the betterment of the community and the church. He had attended several events and had witnessed the support he had provided to others. What strikes him most about Glenn is his genuine and unwavering empathy and compassion for people. After the passing of Mr Clark's stepson aged 13 years in November 2019, Glenn was one of a handful of people outside his immediate family with whom he felt comfortable about discussing the personal and familial implications.
3. He supports Glenn in this review as he attests to his ethical and moral standards and has every confidence that, given his self-conviction, he has learned from this unfortunate event. Mr Clark is correspondingly certain he will never place himself in a position that holds him to the wrong side of the judiciary in the future.
4. Rev. Chaplain Richard Thackray, retired chaplain of Cobham Juvenile Justice Centre, related that during all the time Glenn has been involved as an employee with the centre, he has shown himself a very caring and responsible worker with a deep love and concern for the most troubled youth. He is a very gregarious and much-loved member of staff at Cobham, often going the extra mile to support his fellow workers.
5. Rev. Richard said that Glenn has for many years been involved with a men's group interested in motorcycles and used to voluntarily run a church service for any boys who were interested, which were always well attended. The group would use motorcycle workshops on maintaining the machines in conjunction with other healthy motorcycle groups to help boys' self-esteem and their learning of skills that might aid in breaking them out of the cycle of crime. That was all voluntary on Glenn's part.
6. He has known many members from the church that Glenn currently attends, and it is a church well known in Blacktown and Mount Druitt for its loving community and active involvement in community affairs. He had shown remorse and shame over having to ask for the reference and shame over the effects of the breach of the law on his family and Christian community. It was impossible to imagine that he would have had any criminal or morally suspect intentions regarding that lapse.

Assessment

1. The applicant Glenn Johns, aged 55, is a married man from a stable family background who works for Cobham Youth Justice Centre and other community aid organizations. Until facing the silencer charges, he had an unblemished personal record, subject only to a medium-range PCA in 1987. He has no history of violent or threatening behaviour or of handling firearms in a careless or dangerous manner and had not previously received any adverse reports on his firearms licence history. He has shown genuine remorse for his contravention.
2. Though he is still subject to 12 months of his CRO, the likelihood of his reoffending can be assessed as slight to non-existent. While the direct effect on public safety may have been minor (as the Local Court's relatively light sentence suggests), the gravamen of his offences was his failure to maintain conscientious compliance with all the requirements of the legislation.
3. Although it is common for applicants to tender character references, those presented by the applicant are unusual, both for their quantity and for their content. They are not mere formal endorsements but detailed descriptions of his moral character, his associations and his extensive contributions to community life, especially in helping and supporting troubled youth and those who have fallen on difficult times.
4. The fact remains, however, that Glenn Johns is still subject to part of a CRO for indictable prescribed firearms offences potentially subject to substantial penalties. The contraventions were committed knowingly and probably with some planning. I therefore conclude that in the circumstances they cannot be overlooked and the period remaining on the applicant's CRO for the prescribed offences requires his licence revocation to be affirmed.

Glenn Johns - Public interest

1. The second ground on which the respondent argues for revocation of Glenn Johns's licence is that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold a licence, within the meaning of s 24(2)(d) and cl 20.
2. The "public interest" factor allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. They 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, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16.
3. The underlying principles of the Act as stated in s 3(1) stress the overriding need to ensure public safety. The tribunal is required to exercise its discretion in determining licensing reviews in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50, [23]. The applicant's personal interest in retaining his licence is subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety.
4. In a familiar passage, Hennessy DP in Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28, [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.
5. Since then, Hennessy DP has cautioned against applying that language in a mechanistic way, pointing out in AML v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 that that the Ward decision itself had set aside the Commissioner's decision to revoke a firearms licence because her Honour was 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 [7]).
6. 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, [64] - [66] 66].

Jake Johns - Domestic circumstances: s 11(4)(a)

1. The first ground for revocation of Jake Johns's category AB firearms licence on 25 February 2021 (exhibit R1, pp 101 - 102) was that information maintained by the police reported that a person with whom he was residing had been convicted of a prescribed offences relating to serious firearms offences. The person with whom he was residing was his father, Glenn Johns, and the prescribed offence was as described above.
2. Section 11(4)(a) provides that 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 the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances. Consequently, s 24(2) confers on the Commissioner (and on review this tribunal) a discretionary power to revoke an existing licence for that reason.
3. Jake Johns's evidence was that he had been living in Lalor Park and had his own business as a roofing contractor, when on 31 December 2020 he suffered a broken leg in 10 places and had to move back to live with his father at Bankstown. Glenn Johns explained that Jake had previously lived with him for several years but had moved out, returning after injuring his leg and as a result of the breakup of his intermittent relationship with his partner.
4. Jake Johns is now living on a permanent basis at Nyngan, where he works in a copper mine operated by a company called Spinifex Mining.
5. The respondent also expressed concerns about Jake's possible links with his brother Brodie Johns, who has a substantial criminal record. In a statutory declaration dated 22 March 2021 (exhibit R1, p 98), Jake stated that Brodie did not reside with him (at Blacktown) and had not done so for approximately 10 years. He makes no contact with him and Brodie has no access to the property or residence at Blacktown, and has no keys to the house and absolutely no access to the safe storage facilities for the firearms then located in that residence.
6. In oral evidence he said he did not know when he last saw Brodie, but he had not seen him for "a very, very long time". Glenn Johns also gave evidence that Brodie did not live with him, as he would not have him in the house, and he has no keys. He does, however, make contact by telephone.
7. None of the evidence about domestic arrangements was disputed. The respondent argued that it was not necessary to hypothesize whether, for example, Brodie would return to reside with his family and whether the applicants are at greater risk of theft or home invasion. It was enough that there was a risk to public safety by the existence of the firearms on premises where Brodie and his associates may be aware that firearms are present. That is speculative possibility, however. It is what is termed in Webb a "theoretical" risk rather than a "real and appreciable risk [that] needs to be taken into account".

Jake Johns - Public interest

1. The other ground advanced for the revocation of Jake Johns' firearms licence was that it was not in the public interest for him to continue to hold a licence. The revocation notice dated 25 February 2021 stated that, "Between 2013 and 2020 you were issued with two move on directions by Police as you were located in areas known for drug use and supply and with others located with cannabis…. When determining whether or not it would be in the public interest for you to be issued a licence, a review of your criminal history involving move on directions from known drug areas and your associations with criminal activity raises significant concerns for public safety should you be issued with a licence" (exhibit R1, p 101).
2. The first incident (event E51187762) took place on 15 March 2013 at Torry Burn Reserve, Baulkham Hills at 10:20 p.m. Police patrolling the area approached a group of five persons, including Jake Johns and Daniel Wong, some of whom had been drinking. They were searched for drugs, but nothing was found on them. The group was given a move along order from the location and Daniel Wong drove them home (exhibit R1, pp 48 - 49).
3. In his signed statement (part exhibit A1), the applicant said that at the time he was a leader and mentor with Hillsong Church and had been mentoring Jade Denny, who contacted him to collect him because he had been drinking and did not want to drive. As at the time Jake did not have a driver's licence, he called Daniel Wong to assist him with transport to pick up Jade. As they stopped where Jade was, police pulled in behind them and asked why he and Daniel Wong had pulled into the parking area at the park. He explained to police that he was asked to pick up Jade Denny as described. Police asked him and Daniel Wong to help them by conveying all those present from the scene, including not only Denny, but also Crump and Morrey, and deposit them at their residences.
4. In oral evidence at the hearing, Jake reiterated that account, explaining that he did not know any of those there except Jade and Wong. He had not been drinking and had not used marijuana but he did not know about the others, as he had not been there.
5. Daniel Wong, a registered nurse, in his reference for Jake (part exhibit A1) corroborates that account. He writes that, on the night in question, Jake had called him to see if they could pick up Jade Denny because Jake did not have his licence at that time. Daniel had agreed, and had collected Jake Johns. They pulled into a parking lot where Jade Denny and his friend were, when a police vehicle pulled into the parking lot and the officers asked why they were there. Jake told the police officer that they were there to pick up Jade Denny and take him home. He (Daniel Wong) proceeded to drive all the men home. Jake had not been drinking any alcohol at the time of the incident.

Orders 1. Decision under review relating to Glenn Harry Johns is affirmed. 2. Decision under review relating to Jake Harry Johns is set aside. 3. Pursuant to s 64(1)(c) of the CAT Act, the publication of the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR4, or matters contained in the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR4 is prohibited. 4. Pursuant to s 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the disclosure of the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR3, or matters contained in the Confidential Material and confidential exhibit CR4, is restricted to the Commissioner, the legal representatives for the Commissioner and the tribunal. 5. Pursuant to ss 64(1)(b), 64(1)(c) and 64(1)(d) of the CAT Act, the publication and recording of the confidential material, including confidential exhibit CR4 and any evidence given during the hearing, is prohibited, and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked "[Not for publication]" are not to be published or released to the applicant.

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: 28 September 2021