The applicant submitted that his firearms licence is essential to his employment as a farm manager in a rural community. The applicant provided an explanation for his non-compliance with the Act and submitted that the conduct forming the basis of his cancellation did not involve a risk of harm to himself or others due to the remoteness of his property. He further submitted that he had previously been compliant with the Act and had no significant criminal history or mental health issues.

The respondent submitted that the decision under review should be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision. The Registrar argued that there was a significant risk that the applicant would in the future fail to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms, and that the evidence establishes that he lacks the requisite fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence.

• In all of the circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence under the Act;
• The decision under review in this matter is both a correct and preferable decision;
• The decision is correct as consistent with the requirements of the Act, specifically it is consistent with the references in s 7(3)(a) and (b), as the applicant has not been compliant with the requirements of the Act, and has been found guilty of an offence under the Act;
• There is nothing in the applicant's circumstances to displace these considerations;
• It is also a preferable decision, having been made taking into account the applicant's circumstances and in the context of the primary purpose of the Act.

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

Firearms Act 2015 ss 3, 7, 15, 18, 20

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34, 37, 38

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 64 ALJR 462

Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40

Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is the determination of an application by Davin Keith Maslin for review of a decision made by the Registrar of Firearms (the Registrar).
2. On 31 January 2024 the Registrar was invited to reconsider a decision made on 30 November 2023. The Registrar subsequently made a new decision on 7 February 2024, to cancel Mr Maslin's firearms licence, pursuant to s 20(6) of the Firearms Act 2015 (the Act).
3. It is the decision of 7 February 2024 which is presently before the Tribunal for review.
4. In providing reasons for his decision of 7 February 2024, the Registrar referred to a number of matters relevant to his decision to cancel Mr Maslin's licence. In particular, he referred to Mr Maslin's possession of two unregistered Category A firearms, namely gel blasters, in an unlocked cupboard at Mr Maslin's premises, which were not secured as required by the Act; Mr Maslin's possession of a sound moderator in an unlocked cupboard, along with a box of .22 calibre ammunition; and three firearms secured in Mr Maslin's gun safe, two of which were loaded with magazines containing ammunition, and another firearm located in a gun bag in which a side pocket contained ammunition. These circumstances had been identified when police had attended Mr Maslin's home on 4 April 2023.
5. The Registrar noted that Mr Maslin was prosecuted in relation to these matters and on 20 November 2023 he pleaded guilty to five charges arising out of these circumstances. No conviction was recorded, and the gel blasters and the sound moderator were forfeited and a 12-month good behaviour bond was entered into by Mr Maslin.
6. The Registrar also noted that Mr Maslin had submitted that he required his firearms licence for employment purposes as he had worked as a farm manager since 2017, and required the firearms licence for primary production purposes. The Registrar noted that Mr Maslin's firearms licence from 1996 had been for hunting, and it was only in June 2023 he had applied for the licence category for primary production.
7. Mr Maslin had a former firearms offence in 1999, relating to storage of firearms which were not appropriately secured.
8. Taking these matters into account, as well as submissions from Mr Maslin, the Registrar concluded that Mr Maslin was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and possess firearms within the meaning of s 7 of the Act, having not complied with the requirements of the Act with respect to the safe handling, use and storage of firearms, and having been found guilty of an offence under the Act.

1. The Act makes it clear that possession and use of firearms is a privilege and not a right, and the overriding consideration in respect of decisions about firearms licences is public safety (see s 3 of the Act).
2. Section 20(6) of the Act empowers the Registrar to cancel a firearms licence in prescribed circumstances, including, in s 20(6)(d), "on any ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application by the licensee for such a licence". Section 15 of the Act sets out the grounds on which the Registrar may refuse an application for a licence, and under s 15(1)(b) the Registrar may refuse a licence if satisfied that "the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence".
3. The assessment of whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence under the Act is informed by s 7 of the Act. Sections 7(1) and (2) set out a range of non-exhaustive circumstances in which a person is deemed not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act, including where a person has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder ... that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition (s 7(2)). Section 7(3) sets out a range of circumstances in which a person "may be taken not to be a fit and proper person" for the purposes of the Act, and s 7(4) of the Act sets out certain mandatory considerations for the making of this assessment, including "any risks" that might be associated with the person having or using a firearm.
4. In outlining the considerations relevant to fitness and propriety within the meaning of the Act, s 7(3) in particular provides as follows:

A person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act if the person -

(a) has not complied with the requirements of this Act in relation to the safe handling, use, storage or transport of firearms; or

(b) has been found guilty of an offence under this Act ...

1. Mr Maslin's submissions were put to the Tribunal by Ms Florance, and he also provided a personal submission.
2. In his personal submission, Mr Maslin states that he has been living on a farm in rural Kangaroo Island since 2017 where he is employed as a farm manager. He states he is required to use his firearms to destroy sick and injured stock, and deal with vermin, especially feral cats and feral pigs. He acknowledges that until June 2023 he had a firearms licence only for the purpose of hunting, and he applied for a licence for primary production purposes in June 2023, after these events had occurred.
3. Mr Maslin states that when police attended at his home in April 2023 he had been in the process of cleaning his firearms. However, he states he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and was forced to go to the toilet urgently, so he quickly put the guns he was dealing with in the gun safe and locked it, and went to the toilet. The police attended while he was still in the toilet. The guns were loaded, but were securely stored in the locked gun safe.
4. In relation to the gel blasters, Mr Maslin states that his son purchased them online from China from a toy website and gave them to him as a present. He said the box and instructions were entirely in Chinese, and the only thing he recognised from the instructions was a symbol showing that they were not suitable for children under the age of three. He was not aware that gel blasters were categorised as firearms under the Act. Speaking at the hearing, Mr Maslin told the Tribunal he considered the Firearms Branch should have directly contacted him to advise of this change in the ambit of the Act, as he was too busy and otherwise occupied to keep up with any changes to the law.
5. Mr Maslin states that he lives on a remote farm on Kangaroo Island with his wife. He manages several farms, which includes managing more than 4000 sheep, including dealing with injured stock, and managing vermin. He states that not having a firearms licence will be detrimental to his employment and he is likely to lose his job if he does not have the firearms licence as it is essential to his work. He submitted he is not likely to gain any other employment on Kangaroo Island as the opportunities are very limited. Without income he is likely not to be able to manage his mortgage as his wife does not have paid employment and they have no other income. He states they were severely impacted by the 2020 fires and lost their home, which they have since rebuilt.
6. Mr Maslin states he is deeply embarrassed and remorseful in relation to the matters leading to the cancellation of his firearms licence.
7. Ms Florance told the Tribunal that Mr Maslin's own particular circumstances should be taken into account in considering whether he is a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act.
8. She submitted that Mr Maslin's conduct which led to the cancellation did not involve matters of risk to himself or the public, and he acknowledged and appreciated the principles set out in s 3 of the Act concerning the paramountcy of public safety. She submitted there was not a pattern of behaviour demonstrated by Mr Maslin which suggested any jeopardy to public safety.
9. Ms Florance told the Tribunal Mr Maslin's home on Kangaroo Island is very isolated, 3.3 kilometres from Pandana and 80 kilometres from Kingscote, and his nearest neighbours are 15 kilometres away. His property is accessible only from an unsealed road, through a gate which is kept locked. A further locked gate is 200 meters up the driveway. She said the firearms are kept in a locked gun safe inside a locked shipping container, in a shed about 30 meters from the house. She said Mr Maslin's guns are properly stored, with firearms and ammunition in separate safes with separate combinations.
10. Ms Florance said Mr Maslin was subject to a police audit in respect of his firearms licence in 2022, and was found to be compliant.
11. Ms Florance said there was a significant population of feral pigs and cats on Kangaroo Island, and these pose a significant threat not only to the Island environment but also to farm animals. Mr Maslin used his firearms to control these destructive pests.
12. Ms Florance submitted that Mr Maslin should be regarded as fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. She said he had two separate and isolated incidents, nearly 30 years apart, of non-compliance with the requirements of the Act; he had pleaded guilty to the charges at the earliest opportunity, he had no mental illness, and lived in a stable family environment. There are few other opportunities for employment in his small and isolated community, and a firearms licence is an essential element to his employment.
13. In considering the full circumstances of the offending, Mr Maslin had been shooting, and was cleaning his guns prior to putting them away. He has irritable bowel syndrome and had to urgently get to the toilet, but nevertheless he put the firearms away in the gun safe and locked it, and locked the shipping container the gun safe was in. She acknowledged the storage was not in strict compliance with requirements, but Mr Maslin faced urgency in getting to the toilet, but still put them away in the locked safe, and locked the container.
14. Ms Florance submitted that Mr Maslin appreciated and understood the risks associated with non-compliance with the Act, but in the circumstances did not perceive there was any major risk, bearing in mind that the firearms were secured within the gun safe. The firearms were not accessible to any other person, the property is isolated and also locked, and the firearms were locked up. The temporary method of storage while he urgently went to the toilet presented no danger to the community.
15. In relation to the gel blasters, Ms Florance told the Tribunal that Mr Maslin had pleaded guilty to the relevant charge, but there had been no conviction recorded. She submitted that any ordinary person would have regarded the gel blasters as toys only, as they were sold as such. She said that Mr Maslin was unaware they came within the terms of the Act: she said he had not been advised of this by the Firearms Branch, had no television reception at home, and limited telephone or internet connection, so was unaware of news items or matters advertised on social media.
16. Ms Florance told the Tribunal Mr Maslin had purchased the sound moderator as a spark arrester. She said that it did not fit any of his firearms and was fire damaged, and was not operable as a sound moderator. Mr Maslin had kept it in a cupboard, and pleaded guilty to the charge relating to it, but no conviction was recorded.
17. Ms Florance told the Tribunal it was alleged by the police that Mr Maslin had told them that he had put the firearms away already loaded because it took too long to load the gun, so he stored them already loaded. Ms Florance said that Mr Maslin denied he had said this to the police, and this statement is not recorded on the body cam worn by the police who attended at his home, and nor was it included in the police affidavits filed with the court in relation to the prosecution. Nevertheless the alleged statement was not challenged in court because Mr Maslin pleaded guilty, although Ms Florance told the Tribunal she had informed the police at the time of the prosecution that this allegation was denied.
18. Ms Florance told the Tribunal that after Mr Maslin cleans his firearms he fires them again to ensure all is clear, so after cleaning them he reloads them. She said that on the day the police attended his premises, Mr Maslin had cleaned his firearms and had reloaded them with the intention of firing them when he urgently had to go to the toilet. He placed them into the gun safe, already loaded, intending to return and take them out to fire them to ensure they were clear. She said he does not fire them close to the house but a distance away, and he had already loaded the firearms so he could fire them when he reached his designated firing area.

1. The Registrar's submissions were put to the Tribunal by Ms Penglis, who also provided written submissions on behalf of the Registrar.
2. Ms Penglis submitted that the underlying principles of the Act are clear from s 3 of the Act, which confirms that firearm possession and use is a privilege, not a right, and that public safety is the major focus in the purpose of the Act.
3. She submitted that taking these considerations into account the Registrar's decision should be affirmed.
4. She submitted that Mr Maslin's offending history, in 2023 and 1999, is sufficient to establish his failure to comply with the requirements of the Act, referring to s 20(6)(c) of the Act; and he had pleaded guilty to charges relating to the safe handling, use, storage or transport of firearms, which was relevant to whether he was not a fit or proper person within the meaning of the Act, pursuant to s 20(6)(d) of the Act.
5. Ms Penglis submitted that s 7(3)(a) and (b) of the Act referred to matters which "may" be taken into account by the Registrar in determining if a person is a fit and proper person within the meaning of the Act. She submitted that Mr Maslin's guilty plea to the charges of November 2023 established the terms of s 7(3)(b) of the Act (that he had been found guilty of an offence under the Act), and the offences contrary to the s 35 Code of Practice (to which he also pleaded guilty) demonstrated he had not complied with conditions relating to the safe handling, use, storage or transport of firearms for the purposes of s 7(3)(a).
6. Ms Penglis also noted that Mr Maslin's submission that he required his firearms licence for primary production purposes was not consistent with the purpose authorised for the firearms licence that he had held at the relevant time, as this authorised "hunting" only, and the purpose of "primary production" had never been an authorised purpose of his firearms licence. She submitted this demonstrated Mr Maslin's longstanding unauthorised use of his firearms licence, and this was demonstrative of his non-compliance and lack of attention over a long period with the requirements of the Act.
7. Ms Penglis told the Tribunal Mr Maslin's statements concerning his reputation for honesty and integrity should be treated with a degree of caution given his offending history and his use of firearms for the non-authorised purpose of primary production. She submitted that Mr Maslin's explanation to the police that the firearms were stored loaded "because it takes too long to load the firearm" if it was required, indicates his lack of recognition of the unsafe nature of his conduct.
8. Ms Penglis submitted that, taking all these matters into account, there was a significant risk that Mr Maslin would in the future fail to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms, and that the evidence establishes that he lacks the requisite fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence under s 15(1)(b) of the Act, and so the Registrar was empowered to cancel Mr Maslin's firearms licence under s 20(6)(d) of the Act. She concluded that although cancellation of his firearms licence may cause inconvenience and difficulties for Mr Maslin, non-compliance with the requirements of the Act can lead to a catastrophe.
9. Ms Penglis submitted that Mr Maslin should have informed himself concerning the status of the gel blasters, and it was not the responsibility of the Registrar to inform him of any changes in the law. She indicated that the amendments to the Act concerning gel blasters had occurred in 2021.

1. Section 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with a matter that involves a review of a decision. An application to review a decision comes within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, and the Tribunal is required to examine the decision under review by way of a re-hearing (see s 34(3) of the SACAT Act), and must reach the correct or preferable decision, having regard to and giving appropriate weight to the decision of the original decision-maker (see s 34(4) of the SACAT Act). The Tribunal in conducting a review of a decision and exercising those powers is taken to be standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker, but may also have reference to additional relevant evidence, as the review is by way of a re-hearing and the correctness of the decision at the time of the Tribunal's consideration may require a consideration of additional material not before the original decision-maker. The Tribunal "may make any order the Tribunal considers appropriate" (see s 37(1) of the SACAT Act), and the Tribunal's decision on review is to be regarded as and given effect as a decision of the original decision-maker (see s 37(3) of the SACAT Act).
2. In determining this application, I have before me the material taken into account by the Registrar in making the decision to cancel Mr Maslin's firearms licence. This includes the Registrar's reasons for the reconsidered decision now before the Tribunal. In addition I have written submissions on behalf of the Registrar and from Mr Maslin, and Ms Florance's oral submissions on his behalf. I also have a statement from Mr Maslin's wife, Shandelle Maslin, and from his employer, Mr Smith, dated 29 January 2024. I take all this material into account.
3. The Registrar cancelled Mr Maslin's firearms licence, having concluded that, for the purposes of the Act, Mr Maslin was not a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence. In particular, in making the decision the Registrar referred to s 7(3) of the Act, which provides that the Registrar may take into consideration matters relating to a person's compliance with the requirements of the Act.

1. Section 15(1)(b) of the Act provides that the Registrar may only refuse an application for a firearms licence if the Registrar is satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. Section 7 of the Act deals with who is not, and who may be taken to not be, a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act.
2. Section 7(3) of the Act provides that a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act where that person:

(a) has not complied with the requirements of this Act in relation to the safe handling, use, storage or transport of firearms; or

(b) has been found guilty of an offence under this Act ...

1. These were the considerations referred to by the Registrar in concluding that Mr Maslin was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
2. Section 7(7) of the Act provides that the specific matters referred to in s 7 do not limit the grounds on which a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Act.
3. In commenting on the assessment of whether a person is "fit and proper" for the purpose of the Act, President Hughes, in Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40, at [51] observed:

The phrase "may be taken not to be fit and proper" provides guidance but is not determinative of whether a person is fit and proper. Other circumstances may diminish or supplement the significance of circumstance as part of a broader set of matters that the decision-maker relies on to form a final position as to an applicant's fitness and propriety.

1. Ms Florance told the Tribunal that Mr Maslin is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. She emphasised that Mr Maslin had no significant criminal history in relation to firearms offences, and that his living environment, where the firearms are stored and used, is extremely isolated and difficult to access, so any minor deficiencies in relation to storage or transport of firearms is highly unlikely to present any danger of misuse by others. She also emphasised that Mr Maslin used his firearms for the management of vermin, including feral cats and pigs, thereby providing a significant public service in the local area.
2. Ms Florance conceded Mr Maslin had not strictly complied with the requirements of the Act in several respects, and that he had a conviction under the Act in the past. However she submitted that Mr Maslin had a credible and understandable explanation in respect of the incorrect storage of the firearms in the recent events, and that the prior conviction was significantly in the past, and there had been no intervening offences under the Act, and he had been found to be compliant with the Act on a recent audit. She explained he had pleaded guilty to the charges arising out of the police search of April 2023 so the matter could be dealt with most conveniently and at least cost to all, and he had been respectful to the police throughout.
3. She also emphasised the value of Mr Maslin having access to his firearms. These constituted an essential aspect of his work as a farm manager, as the firearms were an essential tool for the management of livestock and control of vermin. She told the Tribunal that Mr Maslin was conscious of the importance of public safety in relation to the use of firearms.
4. While I accept that Mr Maslin does not have an extensive history of non-compliance with the Act, he has a conviction from 1999 as well as the convictions which led to the cancellation of his licence. While the 1999 conviction is now fairly old it cannot be completely disregarded in the context of a submission that Mr Maslin has respect for and understanding of the requirements of the Act and its emphasis on public safety.
5. More significant however are the circumstances found by the police (and not denied by Mr Maslin) in April 2023. Unregistered gel blasters and a sound moderator (a "silencer") were found unsecured at Mr Maslin's premises. Ms Florance told the Tribunal Mr Maslin had purchased the sound moderator to use as a spark arrester, and that it did not fit any of his firearms. I find it difficult to accept this explanation as providing any justification for this breach of the Act, and it is inconsistent with any understanding of the significance of the requirements of the Act in the context of public safety.
6. Mr Maslin also submitted that he was unaware that gel blasters were to be considered as firearms and were required to be registered as firearms.
7. I do accept his explanation in this respect. I note he is isolated and does not have easy access to internet or other news sources and may have been unaware of the amendments to the Act concerning gel blasters. However I consider Mr Maslin's comments at the hearing of this matter that the Firearms Branch had failed to do its job in not notifying him of amendments to the Act in respect of gel blasters to be completely unreasonable and unacceptable: the Firearms Branch is hardly likely to be aware that Mr Maslin had been given gel blasters, and as a holder of a firearms licence the onus is on Mr Maslin to maintain familiarity with the requirements of the Act. In my view this comment indicates Mr Maslin's lack of commitment to maintaining his own awareness of the Act and its requirements. Nevertheless, I do accept that Mr Maslin assumed that because the gel blasters had been obtained from a toy distributor they were regarded as toys, but that he failed to otherwise investigate or further consider this matter, despite the fact that they fire projectiles and are designed to look like serious firearms.
8. The other circumstances which became apparent from the police search of Mr Maslin's premises in April 2023 was the incorrect storage of the firearms. The firearms were secured in a locked gun safe, but they were found to be loaded, and the requirement under the Act is that ammunition is required to be stored separately from the firearms. Mr Maslin pleaded guilty to the charges relating to this matter, but he also provided various explanations for the breach.
9. Mr Maslin is reported by the police as telling them that he stored the firearms loaded because it took too long to load them if he needed to quickly shoot a sheep. At this hearing Ms Florance told the Tribunal Mr Maslin had denied saying this to the police, and she said that, as Mr Maslin's solicitor at the criminal prosecution, she had relayed this denial (despite the guilty plea) to the police at the time. She told the Tribunal that the police did not allege this at the prosecution, and it was not included in the prosecution case, and further, that it was not recorded on the police bodycam from the time of the police attendance at Mr Maslin's premises in April 2023. The Tribunal has not seen the police bodycam of the police attendance.
10. At this hearing Ms Florance told the Tribunal that the reason the firearms were in the gun safe loaded was because Mr Maslin had been handling the firearms and had needed to quickly get to the toilet, as a result of suffering from irritable bowel syndrome. Ms Florance said Mr Maslin had to urgently go to the toilet, so he had quickly put the firearms, which he had been cleaning, into the gun safe, locked it, locked the container in which the gun safe was placed, and then rushed to the toilet in the house 30 meters away. It was while he was in the toilet that the police attended at the premises. He did not provide this explanation to the police then or later.
11. Ms Florance told the Tribunal that Mr Maslin had completed cleaning the firearms but his habit was then to take the firearms to some area away from the house and shed (where the gun safe was located) and discharge them again to ensure they were clear. He had intended to do this when he had been compelled to get to the toilet, and he had already loaded the guns to take them, loaded, to where he intended to discharge them.
12. I find it difficult to accept these accounts. Mr Maslin did not provide the Tribunal with any copy of the police bodycam demonstrating that he had not told the police he habitually locked the firearms away already loaded. He pleaded guilty to the charge which arose from these circumstances. He did not provide any medical support for his assertion that he has irritable bowel syndrome, which could have supported his account that he had been suddenly obliged to get to the toilet. I appreciate Mr Maslin may have felt some embarrassment at providing this explanation to the police, but embarrassment alone does not seem an adequate explanation to tell a lie to the police to explain a clear breach of the Act. Mr Maslin did not give evidence to the Tribunal on this matter.
13. In addition however, I understand that the gun safe and container in which it was placed was in the shed some 30 meters away from the house. It appears from the information before the Tribunal that Mr Maslin was handling the firearms in the shed, had to urgently get to the toilet in the house, but was able to quickly put the firearms (loaded) in the gun safe, lock it, lock the container, and then get to the toilet in the house.
14. This seems an unlikely set of events to occur in the context of an urgent need to get to the toilet as a consequence of irritable bowel syndrome. Mr Maslin did not give evidence to the Tribunal on these matters.
15. The final part of Mr Maslin's explanation relating to this aspect of the matter is that the firearms were loaded because he had been about to take them out to discharge them to ensure that after cleaning they were clear. He had loaded them to take them away from the house to fire them when he was overtaken with the need to get to the toilet. He did not proffer this explanation to the police. That all the firearms were loaded does not seem consistent with Mr Maslin's account that they were being cleaned. It would seem more consistent with that scenario that all the firearms would be unloaded, and that if Mr Maslin intended to move away from the house to discharge them again, he would have loaded them when he got them to where he intended to use them.
16. Especially in the absence of any direct evidence from Mr Maslin, I find it difficult to accept the explanations provided to the Tribunal for the fact that the firearms were locked away already loaded. It seems to me it is more likely that Mr Maslin was in the habit of locking the firearms away in the gun safe, as was the requirement, but that he locked them away already loaded, for whatever the reason, contrary to the Code of Practice. I note Mr Maslin pleaded guilty to this charge and no alternative explanation was provided to the court at the time, as it could have been by way of mitigation.
17. I have spent some time on the information before the Tribunal on this issue because it is relevant to the central issue in this matter, that is, of fitness and propriety. I am not satisfied that Mr Maslin was entirely clear or candid, either in his account of how the breach of the Code of Practice came about, or of his understanding of its significance. This lack of clarity suggests to me at least a lack of appreciation of the importance of the requirements of the Act in terms of safe and proper storage of firearms and ammunition. I am satisfied that, although they were in a locked gun safe, Mr Maslin did not store his firearms as required, (which he did not deny), but I do not accept that this was necessarily a singular event the result of his pressing personal circumstances, as he suggested in the account he put before the Tribunal. It seems more likely it represents a more common practice adopted by Mr Maslin, as stated by him in his account made to the police in April 2023.

1. Ms Florance submitted that the "full circumstances" of Mr Maslin's offending should be taken into account in considering if he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. I accept this, and it is consistent with the view expressed by the President in Breeding v Registrar of Firearms.
2. Ms Florance referred to Mr Maslin's lack of any mental illness (as a relevant consideration referred to in s 7(2) of the Act), and his stable family environment. She suggested that the earlier 1999 conviction should not be maintained as of significance, as it is isolated and significantly old; and she referred the Tribunal to the character reference provided by Mr Maslin's employer. I take all these matters into account, and accept Ms Florance's submissions concerning them. She also drew the Tribunal's attention to the fact that having pleaded guilty to the charges arising out of the April 2023 events, no conviction was recorded against Mr Maslin, but all the relevant items were forfeited, and a 12-month good behaviour bond, with which Mr Maslin was compliant, was imposed, and he has no other police history.
3. Ms Florance also emphasised the low risk of any danger to the public as a result of Mr Maslin's circumstances, in particular his isolation and difficulty of access, and that nevertheless Mr Maslin had secured the firearms in the gun safe.
4. In considering what amounts to being fit and proper for the purposes of the Act, the Tribunal must consider the purposes of the Act. These are articulated very clearly in s 3 of the Act, and the pre-eminent purpose of the Act is on the issue of public safety.
5. Section 7 of the Act identifies some matters which may be taken into consideration in determining whether a person is fit and proper to have a firearms licence and possess firearms, and some that are required to be taken into account. None of the mandated considerations are relevant to Mr Maslin's circumstances, but a number of the other considerations referred to are pertinent. These include whether the person has complied with the requirements of the Act in relation to the safe handling, use, storage or transport of firearms, or has been found guilty of an offence under the Act (see s 7(3)(a) and (b) of the Act).
6. There was no dispute that Mr Maslin has been convicted of offences under the Act (both in 1999 and in 2023), and that he has not complied with requirements of the Act relating to the storage of firearms. Mr Maslin submitted that the 1999 matter is sufficiently old, with no intervening offences, and should be disregarded; and has provided explanations for the more recent matters, and I have discussed these above. Ms Penglis submitted that either or both of these matters provided a sufficient basis for the decision to cancel Mr Maslin's firearms licence.
7. However, these are not the only considerations relevant to the assessment of whether Mr Maslin is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. I accept Ms Florance's submissions on this issue concerning Mr Maslin's personal circumstances, and note it is accepted by President Hughes in Breeding that broader considerations may be relevant. However, consistent with the purpose of the Act as articulated in s 3, these considerations should in particular address the concern of public safety.
8. An assessment that a person is not "fit and proper" for the purposes of having a firearms licence is not a broad assessment of the person's general character. I accept the submissions (reflected in the reference from Mr Maslin's employer) that Mr Maslin is well respected and regarded in his community, and note he has no other criminal record. However, I note the comments of the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond ((1990) 64 ALJR 462 at 488 - 489, per Toohey and Gaudron JJ), that the phrase "fit and proper person" 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 context in this matter is that of the Act with its emphasis on "the overriding need to ensure public safety" (see s 3(1)(a)).
9. In considering what may be relevant to a determination of whether Mr Maslin is "fit and proper" within the context of the Act, I cannot overlook his guilty pleas to the charges brought against him in 2023. Ms Florance submitted Mr Maslin entered a guilty plea essentially as a matter of convenience and cooperation, to avoid time and cost imposts, and to signal his understanding of and commitment to the requirements of the Act. Nevertheless, I note the 2023 charges raised a number of issues of considerable significance to the concern of public safety under the Act: inappropriate storage (the firearms were securely stored, but the ammunition and bolts were not stored separately from the firearms, and the firearms were loaded, raising a significant safety issue); unsecured and unregistered firearms in the form of the gel blasters: and the unregistered, unsecured, sound moderator. Mr Maslin did not deny these circumstances, and I do not accept that his explanations for how the events arose either justify the circumstances or indicate any significant insight by Mr Maslin as to the issues of safety. Nor did I accept his explanation to the Tribunal for why the firearms were stored in a loaded state. I note further that for a lengthy period (including the period in which these offences occurred) Mr Maslin did not have a firearms licence for the purpose for which he said he mainly used his firearms, namely, primary production: Mr Maslin's firearms licence was for the purpose of hunting, up to his application for a licence for primary production in June 2023. I note he has been working in primary production from 2017.
10. All of these matters militate against Mr Maslin being considered fit and proper under the Act to hold a firearms licence. Each of these matters raises significant issues concerning public safety, either directly, or in terms of respect for and awareness of requirements of the law concerning firearms use and ownership.
11. Ms Florance's submissions also emphasised Mr Maslin's personal and situational circumstances. These include the geographical isolation of his home, suggesting that any issue of security and public safety is minimised or decreased; and that Mr Maslin's home and job is dependent upon maintaining his firearms licence as he is required, as a farm manager, to be able to manage stock, including dealing with injured or ill stock, and eliminating predatory feral animals as required.
12. In my view, these are not considerations I can take into account in respect of the outcome of this review. That it is unlikely, because of its isolation or difficulty of access, someone could obtain access to Mr Maslin's home or shed is not in any circumstances a reason to minimise lack of security in respect of firearms. I note that in Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236, Bleby J noted (at [30]) that the issue of "risk" in the context of fitness and propriety should not be reduced to a question of the likelihood of risk to the public occurring (he was specifically referring to the matters referred to in s 7(4)(b) of the Act):

The concept of risk in this context directs attention not only to the likelihood of an occurrence, but also the gravity of the occurrence should it eventuate. 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 serious consequences.

13. Accordingly, that the risk is not very high is not the only consideration: the possibility of risk, informed by past events, is significant; and the possible nature of the outcome, if the risk eventuates, must not be disregarded. This is not an assessment that such a risk will or is likely to arise, but is an assessment that, taking into account past conduct or events, there is a real possibility that it may do so, and that if a person in such circumstances has a firearms licence and possesses firearms there is accordingly a risk of harm, and the consequences of such risk could be catastrophic.
14. Likewise, Mr Maslin's dependence on his firearms licence for his employment is not a matter that can outweigh the Act's overarching focus on public safety. The Act does not attempt to weigh public safety against the value and significance of a person maintaining their employment. That value and significance is undoubted, but in the context of the legislative focus on public safety in the use of and access to firearms, that consideration is of limited impact.
15. Mr Maslin's isolation was also of significance in respect of his lack of awareness of the changes in legislation with respect to gel blasters: there is limited and patchy television, telephone and internet access where he lives, and he said his circumstances are such that he does not have much awareness of outside events. However, Mr Maslin's lack of interest in maintaining any ongoing knowledge of matters that might be relevant to the privilege of having a firearms licence (as expressed in the Act) was underlined by his insistence before the Tribunal that his lack of awareness of changes to the Act was a consequence of a failure on the part of the Firearms Branch to inform him, rather than any obligation on him.
16. Taking all these considerations into account, I cannot be satisfied that Mr Maslin is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence under the Act.
17. While I understand this decision may have significance for his ongoing employment in his present circumstances, this is not a consideration that can displace the Act's focus on public safety. It appears to me likely that, as Mr Maslin's employment will entail far more than the management of stock and feral animals through the use of his firearms, there may be other means by which this aspect of his employment can be managed without him having direct access to the use of a firearm.
18. The issue was also raised in the course of the hearing as to whether the potential to impose conditions on a firearms licence could pre-emptively mitigate the effects of the risk of harm: that is, whether Mr Maslin could be issued a firearms licence subject to conditions to address the issues which have been raised in this matter.
19. I note the terms of 18(3) of the Act, which provides as follows:

(3) A firearms licence is subject to (in addition to the limitations and conditions prescribed by other provisions of this Act) -

(a) any limitations or conditions prescribed by the regulations; and

(b) any limitations or conditions imposed by the Registrar.

1. I did not have any detailed submissions on this aspect of the matter. However, I am satisfied s 18(3)(b) of the Act cannot assist Mr Maslin if he lacks the fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence. "Fitness and propriety" are central considerations relevant to the holding of a firearms licence: if a person is not a fit and proper person, the licence may not be granted. In my view the requirement of fitness and propriety comes within the limitations and conditions prescribed by other provisions of this Act referred to in s 18(3) of the Act. These provisions make it clear that fitness and propriety are at the heart of the central purpose of the Act in terms of the overriding need to ensure and improve public safety (see s 3 of the Act), and there is nothing in the Act to suggest that a person can become fit and proper by the placing of conditions on a licence.
2. The imposition of conditions upon a firearms licence by the Registrar, referred to in s 18(3)(b) of the Act, refers to the imposition of conditions pursuant to s 20 of the Act. Those conditions can only be imposed where a firearms licence is granted or is in place, and if the Registrar forms the view that a person is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence the Registrar can decline to grant a firearms licence. It is only where a firearms licence is held by a person that the Registrar can place conditions on it. Section 18 has no relevance if there is no licence in place. This is consistent with the view I took in earlier decisions of Wauchope v Registrar of Firearms (2022/SA002284) and _Hill v Registrar of Firearms (_2022/SA003678).
3. Finally, I note s 34(4) of the SACAT Act directs the Tribunal to have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision-maker, in this case, the Registrar's delegate. The Registrar and his delegates are well placed to understand the key objectives of the Act and whether a person's actions constitute a risk to public safety, as well as the risk of possession of firearms. I note the comments of Hughes J in Breeding v Registrar of Firearms where Her Honour endorsed this approach. I am satisfied that the delegate who made the decision was well placed to understand, assess and determine the key provisions and objectives of the Act as they applied to Mr Maslin's circumstances, and he did not significantly mistake or misunderstand those circumstances, and so was able to make a proper assessment of whether Mr Maslin was a fit and proper person within the meaning of the Act to hold a firearms licence. Under these circumstances I place significant weight on the decision of the decision-maker in this case, based on his expertise and capacity.
4. I am satisfied the decision under review in this matter is both a correct and preferable decision. I am satisfied it is correct as consistent with the requirements of the Act, in making an assessment consistent with the Act as to whether Mr Maslin is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Specifically, it is consistent with the references in s 7(3)(a) and (b), as he has not been compliant with the requirements of the Act, and has been found guilty of an offence under the Act. These circumstances do not necessarily mean such a person is not fit and proper for the purposes of the Act, but I am satisfied there is nothing in Mr Maslin's circumstances to displace these considerations.
5. I am satisfied it is also a preferable decision, having been made taking into account Mr Maslin's circumstances in the context of the primary purpose of the Act being "to confirm firearm possession and use as a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety" (see s 3(1)(a) of the Act), and to "improve public safety" by imposing strict controls of the possession of firearms, and promoting the safe and responsible storage, transport and use of firearms (see s 3(1)b)(i) and (ii) of the Act).
6. The decision under review will be affirmed.