The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal regarding his mental health difficulties and submitted that he is mentally in a good spot. He provided a letter from his general practitioner in support of his application but told the Tribunal that he was unable to obtain a report from a psychiatrist. He further submitted that he has not broken any rules or laws, complied with the surrender of his firearms and that he has no intention of misusing firearms.

The respondent submitted that the decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence should be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision.

• The Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant can safely have access to firearms;
• The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is currently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant's licence should be cancelled and that the decision made by the Registrar should be affirmed.

Administrative Review - Firearms Act 2015 - Review of a decision of the Registrar of Firearms to suspend or cancel a licence, permit or registration -- Lack of fitness and propriety - Mental illness

Firearms Act 2015 ss 3, 7, 15, 20, 47, 53

Firearms Regulation 2017 reg 96

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 60

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 r 55

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321

Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58

Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40

Coff v Registrar of Firearms [2016] SADC 140

D'Orazio v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 15

Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149

GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68

Jaworski v Police [2009] SASC 284

Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51

Offe v Police [2002] SASC 259

Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171

Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112

Pollitt v Police [2007] SASC 382

Registrar of Firearms v Gitsham [2002] SASC 301

Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236

Zammitt v Registrar of Firearms [2010] SADC 100

Ms Abumustafa, Crown Solicitior's Office, appeared by telephone for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The name of the applicant has been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to their identification may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. This is the Tribunal's decision on an application made under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) and s 47 of the Firearms Act 2015 (Firearms Act) for review of a decision of the delegate[1] of the Registrar of Firearms (the Registrar) under s 20 of the Firearms Act.
2. The Registrar's decision was made on 22 December 2024 to cancel the applicant's firearms licence.
3. I have had regard to the material that was before the Registrar, including the documents in the Registrar's Book of Documents provided under s 35 of the SACAT Act, and to the additional evidence and submissions put before the Tribunal at the full hearing. The parties' submissions and evidence are discussed in various places later in these reasons.
4. The issue in dispute is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence notwithstanding his mental health difficulties. In this review, the burden of demonstrating fitness and propriety lies on the applicant.[2] I find that he has not discharged that burden. I explain in these reasons why I have come to that conclusion and why I have agreed with the Registrar's decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence.
5. I acknowledge that the Tribunal's decision will be upsetting for the applicant. However, his personal safety and the safety of those around him must take priority over that consideration.

1. The applicant, JZW, is a 51 year old gentleman.
2. From 2005, he held a firearms licence endorsed with category A and B firearms for target shooting and hunting. The licence was due to expire on 31 October 2025.
3. The Registrar's Book of Documents indicates that the applicant has several convictions from 1993 to 2006 for certain controlled substance and road traffic offences. The Registrar has not sought to place any weight on these convictions for the purposes of cancelling the applicant's firearms licence. While any history of non-compliance with the law is prima facie relevant to a decision as to fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence, I also do not place weight on these matters. They can be placed to one side.
4. The applicant has a recent history of experiencing difficulties with his mental health.
5. On about 10 January 2024, the Registrar received a medical notification about the applicant.[3] I infer that this is a mandatory medical notification under reg 96 of the Firearms Regulations 2017.
6. Regulation 96 relevantly states:

96 - Medical practitioners, employers etc to report unsafe situations associated with firearms > > (1) If a designated person has reasonable cause to suspect in relation to a person whom the designated person has seen in the designated person's professional capacity -

(a) that the person is suffering from a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or that other circumstances exist, such that there is a threat to the person's own safety or the safety of another associated with the person's possession or use of a firearm; and

(b) that the person has, or might be intending to acquire, a firearm,

the designated person must make a report to the Registrar under this regulation.

...

(3) A report under this regulation -

(a) must be made as soon as practicable after the suspicion is formed; and

(b) must include -

(i) the name and address of the person the subject of the suspicion; and

(ii) the suspected threat to safety and circumstances giving rise to the threat (including the nature of any physical or mental illness, condition or disorder contributing to the threat).

(4) A person incurs no civil or criminal liability in making a report in good faith in compliance, or purported compliance, with this regulation.

(5) In subregulation (1) -

designated person means -

(a) a medical practitioner; or

(b) a nurse; or

(c) a psychologist; or

(d) a professional counsellor; or

(e) a social worker.

1. The medical notification indicates that the applicant was "examined/spoken to" on 10 January 2024. The author of the notification stated:

[JZW] is a 50 year old man with a moderate to severe depressive disorder. He should not have access to firearms given his mental state and untreated illness.... > > [JZW] has been experiencing difficulties with sleep, mood and concentration; he asked wife about 4 days ago if it was okay if he was not here anymore. He denied active plans to harm himself today however the severity of depression warrants that he not have any access to potential means at least until the condition is adequately treated.

2. The Registrar's Book of Documents contains a Summary Occurrence Report of a "mental health incident" concerning the applicant that occurred on 26 February 2024.[4] The document contains a summary that states [sic]:

The subject in relation to this matter is [JZW] > > On Monday, 26th February 2024 the subject suffered a MH breakdown and made suicidal threats and dellusional comments to his psychiatrist (via phone), resulting in [SA Ambulance Service] and police attendance for a MH assessment. > > Subject taken to Hospital by [SA Ambulance Service].

3. On about 7 March 2024, the Registrar received a further "medical notification" regarding the applicant.[5] The notification indicates that the applicant was "examined/spoken to" at Noarlunga Health Services on 6 March 2024 and that a provisional diagnosis of major depression was made. The author of the notification indicated that the applicant was considered not safe to possess firearms due to "concerns for suicide".
4. On 19 April 2024, the Registrar wrote to the applicant suspending his firearms licence pending an investigation into these matters.[6] Reference was made in this letter to the Registrar having received information from a mandated notifier which raises concerns about whether it is safe for the applicant to possess firearms and ammunition as the notifier advises the applicant is suffering from depression and the notifier holds concerns that he presents a risk to himself.
5. The applicant was also given a notice that same day under s 53 of the Firearms Act requiring him to provide the Registrar with a medical report from a registered psychiatrist providing certain information to assist the Registrar to determine whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.[7] The information sought about the applicant was set out in the notice as including but not limited to:
   1. the nature and severity of any mental illness, disorder, or condition defined in the DSM V[8] that he may be suffering at this time;
   2. his long-term prognosis regarding the illness, disorder, or condition;
   3. the number and frequency of visits with a practitioner other than his regular general practitioner;
   4. any prescribed medication and any side effects or issues arising from taking medication which could adversely impact his ability to safely possess and use firearms;
   5. the likelihood of the illness, disorder, or condition recurring, either with or without prescribed medication;
   6. the manner in which any illness, disorder, or condition mental or otherwise affects his behaviour, judgement and suitability to possess and use firearms;
   7. the impact the mental illness, disorder, or condition if any may have on his suitability to possess and use firearms; and
   8. the medical opinion of the treating health professional with respect to his fitness to safely possess and use firearms and ammunition.
6. The applicant was required to provide the report within 90 days. He did not provide a psychiatrist's report to the Registrar within that period.
7. On 7 August 2024, the Registrar wrote to the applicant indicating that the Registrar was considering cancelling his firearms licence due to the lack of a psychiatrist's report. The Registrar's letter invited the applicant to provide submissions addressing the areas of concern that had been previously identified, and other matters he might consider relevant, before the Registrar made a final decision.
8. It would seem that, aside from a telephone query about the licence suspension the applicant made to the Firearms Branch on 3 December 2024, he made no other contact with the Firearms Branch. The applicant did not provide a psychiatrist's report to the Registrar and did not provide any submissions or further information in response to the letter of 7 August 2024. The applicant also did not seek an extension of time to do so.
9. The applicant's general practitioner has written a letter on his behalf dated 25 March 2025 in relation to his firearms licence. The letter states:

[JZW] has been under my care for the past decade. A few years back, he went through a difficult period with his mental health and, as a consequence, his firearms licence was taken from him. > > With regular medical care intervention, [JZW] is doing very well now. He attends my practice on a regular basis to touch base, and I can confirm that he is in a good mental place with his mental health. > > He continues to be compliant with treatment and therapy, and I have supported his decision to try and reapply for his firearms licence.[9]

10. The applicant has not provided a psychiatrist's report to the Tribunal. He was given an opportunity to do so in directions made by the Tribunal on 29 April 2025. At a further directions hearing on 26 August 2025, the applicant indicated to the Tribunal that he had been unable to obtain a psychiatrist's report and that he wished to proceed to the full hearing without one. At the full hearing, the applicant said that he had been unable to afford a psychiatrist's report.[10]

1. The applicant said that his mental health difficulties commenced about Christmas 2023 when he had what he described as a mental breakdown.
2. He said that he was hospitalised for seven days at Noarlunga sometime in the period between January and March 2024 and was placed on medication. He said that he cannot remember his specific diagnosis.
3. The applicant said that he does not know if he was hospitalised on a voluntary or involuntary basis. He said that his brother forced him to seek treatment and that he did not want to.
4. He said that before, during and after his hospitalisation he had consultations with psychiatrists. After discharge from hospital, he saw a psychiatrist (who he thought was named Dr Matt Holland) once per week for about three to four consultations.
5. The applicant said that, since then, he talks to his general practitioner about his mental health about every three months. He said that he still takes the medication duloxetine for depression and that his general practitioner proposes to wean him off duloxetine slowly.
6. The applicant said that he considers there would be no issue if he had his firearms licence back. He said that he has not broken any rules or laws; that he complied with the surrender of his firearms; and that he has no intention of misusing firearms.
7. He said that he is mentally in a good spot and feels he is being punished for having had a mental breakdown.

Review under s 34 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

1. The Tribunal conducts its review of the Registrar's decision as an independent body. The Tribunal will, in exercising its review jurisdiction, examine the decision of the decision‑maker by way of rehearing. On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision‑maker.
2. The procedure on a rehearing will include an examination of the evidence or material before the decision‑maker and consideration of any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit for the purposes of rehearing the matter.
3. Any factual findings made by the Tribunal must be established on the balance of probabilities.
4. The review conducted by the Tribunal is on a basis resembling a de novo hearing, where the Tribunal Member conducting the review effectively stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker in determining the correct or preferable decision.[11]
5. After making its decision, the Tribunal can affirm or vary the decision under review or can set the decision aside and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration.

Firearms Act

1. The relevant provisions of the Firearms Act are ss 7, 15 and 20.
2. Under s 20(6)(d) of the Firearms Act, the Registrar may, by written notice served personally or by registered post on the licensee, cancel a firearms licence on any ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application by the licensee for such a licence.
3. Section 15(1)(b) of the Firearms Act (relevantly) states that the Registrar may only refuse an application for a firearms licence if the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.
4. Section 7 of the Firearms Act deals with who is not, or who may be taken not to be, a fit and proper person.
5. Section 7(2) states that a person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act.
6. Relevantly, s 7(3)(g) states that a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person if the person has failed to comply with a requirement under s 53 of the Act.
7. Section 7(4) contains factors that the Registrar may consider or is required to consider in deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person. In particular, the Registrar is required by s 7(4)(b) to consider the risk of future behaviour.[12] Section 7(4) states (my underlining):

(4) In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act -

(a) regard may be had to the reputation, honesty and integrity of the person, close associates of the person and any people with whom the person associates; and

(b) regard must be had to -

(i) any risk of the person using a firearm for an unlawful purpose; or

(ii) any risk of the person using a firearm to harm himself or herself; or

(iii) any risk that the person will cause injury or harm to another by the use or threatened use of a firearm; or

(iv) any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm,

and, in that connection, regard may be had to the person's past behaviour, instability, intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances.

1. Section 7(7) also states that s 7 does not limit the grounds on which a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act.
2. The Parliament, the Supreme Court and this Tribunal have been clear that firearm possession is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.[13]
3. The principles and objects of the Firearms Act are critical to the decision-making of the Registrar and this Tribunal. Section 3 of that Act relevantly states (my underlining):

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as 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, use, acquisition, supply and manufacture of firearms; and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage, transport and use (whether for recreational or other purposes) of firearms; and

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

(2) The objects of this Act are as follows:

...

(g) to minimise the risk of persons becoming victims of crimes involving the use or threatened use of firearms;

(h) to minimise the risk of persons causing injury or harm (including psychological harm) to themselves or others by the use or threatened use of firearms.

1. As was observed by the District Court in a 2016 firearms decision, the term 'fit and proper' does not have a precise definition and the matters relevant to its consideration will vary in any given case.[14] The Court referred to Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[15], where Justices Toohey and Gaudron said at page 380:

The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

1. The Registrar's Book of Documents contains redacted versions of the two mandatory medical notifications referred to in these reasons.
2. The redacted portions are on pages 10 and 14 of the Book of Documents. The redactions are those that would identify the designated person, including their name, qualifications, organisation, email address and phone numbers. All of these details have the stamp "PRIVACY" applied to them. I infer from this that the Registrar considered that these details must not or should not be provided to the Tribunal due to some undefined and unexplained concerns about the notifier's privacy.
3. There is a process in the Tribunal's rules for a respondent that wishes to file a redacted Book of Documents.[16] This process was not followed in this case. Ordinarily, two volumes of the Book of Documents would be filed in the Tribunal. One of the volumes would be fully unredacted and provided for the Tribunal's use (Volume 1). A version with redactions would be supplied to the applicant (Volume 2).
4. Usually, the respondent would then make an application for confidentiality orders under s 60 of the SACAT Act in respect of Volume 1. This also did not occur in this case.
5. During the course of the full hearing, counsel for the Registrar was able to supply me with the unredacted versions of pages 10 and 14. She then made an oral application for confidentially orders over those pages. This application was not opposed by the applicant.
6. I will make those orders. I consider it appropriate to do so in the public interest. This is in accordance with previous decisions of the Tribunal that allow confidentiality orders over the details of mandatory or voluntary notifiers to government authorities to ensure that a valuable source of information is not discouraged.
7. To be clear, my decision under s 60 is made on a narrower basis than unspecified "privacy" concerns.
8. The Registrar should ensure in the future that it complies with the Tribunal's rules when filing redacted materials.

1. In making my decision, I have given substantial weight to the applicant's history of mental health difficulties. I consider that I am required to do so because the objects of the Firearms Act are principally concerned with the overriding need to ensure public safety.
2. Also, s 7(4)(b)(ii) of the Firearms Act requires that, in determining whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, I must take into account any risk of the person using a firearm to harm himself or herself.
3. I give substantial weight to the views and concerns of the applicant's suicide risk expressed in the two medical notifications to the Registrar in January 2024 and March 2024. Having seen the full unredacted versions of those notifications, including the identity and qualifications of the respective notifiers, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to give these notifications such weight in my decision. I consider that, in establishing a mandatory notification regime, it is the intent of Parliament that the Registrar and the Tribunal give mandatory notifications serious and influential weight under the Firearms Act.
4. I give considerably less weight to the letter from the applicant's general practitioner even though it is more recent than the medical notifications. This is because of the relatively limited and sketchy information provided in the general practitioner's letter compared to the detailed nature of the information sought by the Registrar in the letter of 19 April 2024. I note also that there is no evidence that the applicant's general practitioner is a psychiatrist.
5. I also give little weight to the applicant's own evidence about the current status of his mental health. The applicant appeared to have little real insight into his mental health diagnosis and prognosis and was unable to supply critical information about his mental health history.
6. In short, the information provided by the applicant and his general practitioner is not sufficient to address the serious concerns arising from the mandatory medical notifications about the applicant's mental health and the risk to himself and others if he were to hold a firearms licence and possess firearms.
7. I agree with the written submissions of counsel for the Registrar that issues of public safety may arise where there is any combination of mental illness and firearms possession and that, to ensure that any issue of public safety can be appropriately assessed, a considered report from a properly qualified mental health practitioner is likely to be of significant use to the Registrar.[17] In fact, I consider that this submission somewhat understates the critical importance to the Registrar of a psychiatrist's report in assessing these matters.
8. I also place significant weight on the decision of the original decision-maker, as I am required to do under the SACAT Act. I consider that the decision-maker has acted reasonably. It was entirely correct and appropriate to require the applicant to provide a detailed report from a psychiatrist addressing the serious concerns raised about his mental health and his risk of suicide. I also take note that the Registrar has treated the applicant fairly in giving him adequate opportunity to provide the report and additional submissions before the decision was made to cancel his firearms licence.
9. Therefore, on all the material before the Tribunal, I am unable to be satisfied that the applicant can safely have access to firearms. This means that the applicant's own safety and considerations of public safety must override his particular reasons for wishing to hold a firearms licence.
10. I have also adopted in making my decision the observations made by the Supreme Court that I should have regard to not only the likelihood of harm occurring but also the gravity of the harm should it eventuate.[18] In particular, I adopt the observation that:

Having regard to the principles and objects of the Act, the regard that must be had to the risk of future failure, which may be informed by past behaviour, looks to the likelihood of a future event of potentially highly serious consequences.[19]

11. In other words, even if there is a small risk of something occurring, I must take into account that, in a firearms context, the outcome of that risk eventuating could involve serious injury or death.
12. As noted above, s 7(2) of the Firearms Act states that a person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act. I consider s 7(2) applies in this case.
13. I conclude for all the above reasons that, under s 7 of the Firearms Act and in accordance with the principles and objects of that Act, I am not satisfied that the applicant is currently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

1. Having come to my conclusion on the applicant's fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence, the exercise of the discretion under s 20(6) of the Firearms Act has been enlivened. This means I should consider whether there are cogent reasons to grant the applicant a firearms licence even though I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. However, I am not satisfied that there are any such reasons to exercise this discretion.
2. Due to the potential risk that the applicant poses to himself and others, I also do not consider that it would be appropriate that the discretion in s 20(9) be exercised in this case to limit the firearms that can be used or possessed by the applicant.
3. I am therefore satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant's licence should be cancelled and that the decision made by the Registrar should be affirmed.

[1] Although strictly speaking the decision-maker was the Registrar's delegate, for brevity and clarity in these reasons I will refer to the decision-maker as simply the Registrar.

[2] D'Orazio v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 15 at [28]; Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58, [38].

[3] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp 13 - 14.

[4] Respondent's Book of Documents, p 22.

[5] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp 9 - 10.

[6] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp 24 - 25.

[7] Respondent's Book of Documents, pp 28 - 29.

[8] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.

[9] Respondent's Book of Documents, p 5.

[10] In all the circumstances, I have placed no adverse weight on the applicant's failure to provide a report under s 53 of the Firearms Act.

[11] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [140].

[12] Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40 at [76].

1. [13] Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51; Offe v Police [2002] SASC 259 at [22], [26]; Registrar of Firearms v Gitsham [2002] SASC 301 at [23]; Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149 at [23]; Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112 at [21]; Pollitt v Police [2007] SASC 382 at [20] - [23], [27]; Jaworski v Police [2009] SASC 284 at [22] - [25]; Zammitt v Registrar of Firearms [2010] SADC 100 at [36]-[38]; Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171 at [8]-[12].

[14] See Coff v Registrar of Firearms [2016] SADC 140 at [45] - [46].

[15] [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321.

[16] See rule 55 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014.

[17] Respondent's Outline of Argument, 15 September 2025, [24].

[18] Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236.

[19] Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236 at [30].