At the review hearing the applicant submitted that as the Registrar had relied on information provided by the police which he considered unjustly obtained, the decision was wrong. During the course of the matter he decided he would no longer pursue his application and submitted he would donate his firearm to the police museum. He sought compensation from the Registrar. The Registrar applied to strike out the applicant's application and for costs. It submitted that the decision should otherwise be affirmed, and drew the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the applicant's licence would expire anyway in the days following the hearing.

• The applicant has not provided the requested report, and his firearms licence expired shortly after the hearing. In such circumstances there is essentially no utility in the review.
• Upon consideration of the merits, there was adequate and appropriate material before the Registrar to support the decision to suspend the applicant's firearms licence pending an investigation. It would not have been consistent with the primary purpose of the legislation, namely the safety of the public, for the Registrar to ignore such material.
• The Tribunal has no power to award damages or compensation as sought by the applicant.
• Despite the conduct of the applicant in prolonging the matter, an award of costs is not appropriate due to the nature of the jurisdiction and the applicant being self-represented.

Administrative Review - Firearms Act 2015 - Review of a decision of the Registrar of Firearms to suspend a licence pending an investigation - Lack of fitness and propriety - Mental and physical health concerns - Failure to provide a medical report

Administrative Tribunals - Procedure - Statutory powers - Dismissing proceedings for want of prosecution

Administrative Tribunals - Procedure - Statutory powers - Proceedings being conducted to cause disadvantage

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 34, s 37, s 47, s 49, s 57

Firearms Act 2015 s 7, s 15, s 20, s 53

Firearms Regulations 2017 reg 96

South Australian Housing Trust v Brady & Milera [2018] SACAT 2

Tronnolone v Edwards & Bryan [2016] SACAT 27

Ms L Knobel, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared for the respondent

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

1. This is the determination of an application made to the Tribunal on 29 December 2020 by Francesco Antonio Maurici, for review of a decision made by the Registrar of Firearms (the Registrar) on 9 November 2020. The Registrar's decision was to suspend Mr Maurici's firearms licence.
2. There have been a number of directions hearings concerning this application. The main concern of the Registrar has been Mr Maurici's failure to provide certain medical material requested by the Registrar. Ms Knobel for the Registrar made an application to the Tribunal on 19 April 2022 for Mr Maurici's application to be dismissed or struck out, pursuant to s 47 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act) for want of prosecution, or alternatively pursuant to s 49 of the SACAT Act, on the grounds the proceedings are being conducted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages the respondent.
3. By letter dated 9 November 2020 the Registrar suspended Mr Maurici's firearms licence pending an investigation as to whether he was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, because of concerns about Mr Maurici's mental and physical health.
4. In a separate letter of the same date Mr Maurici was requested, pursuant to s 53(1) of the Firearms Act 2015 (the Act), to provide a medical report within 28 days. The letter advised that if more time was required to provide the report Mr Maurici should contact the Registrar. The reports sought were the provision of a cognitive capacity assessment, and a report about Mr Maurici's eyesight.
5. Mr Maurici did not provide any medical report within 28 days, and nor did he seek any extension of time within which to do so.
6. Ms Knobel submitted that failure to provide the requested report constitutes a breach of a condition of the firearms licence, pursuant to s 15(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.
7. The Tribunal has granted Mr Maurici additional time in which to provide the required reports (on 1 April 2021 and 7 October 2021), and the Registrar (through Ms Knobel) has specifically identified to Mr Maurici the matters the required reports need to address.
8. On 14 April 2022 the Registrar received a notification pursuant to reg 96 of the Firearms Regulations 2017, from Dr Louise Fischer, Mr Maurici's general practitioner. Dr Fischer expressed an opinion that Mr Maurici's vision was very poor, and that it was unsafe for him to drive, and in her view for this reason it would be unsafe for him to have a firearm. It appears this notification was not made at Mr Maurici's request in response to the Registrar's requirement, but rather pursuant to the doctor's obligations under the Act.
9. Mr Maurici has still not provided any medical assessment or report to the Registrar as requested in November 2020.
10. Ms Knobel submitted to the Tribunal that Mr Maurici should not be granted additional time in which to provide the medical reports required. She submitted that Mr Maurici's conduct in his failure to comply with the requirement to provide the required medical reports was prejudicial to the Registrar because delays have cost implications, as well as being prejudicial to other litigants before the Tribunal who are waiting for their matters to be heard.
11. Ms Knobel also sought an order for costs against Mr Maurici in the case that he opposed the application to strike out.
12. Despite this submission, as the matter had been set down for a full hearing, the matter proceeded to hear the substance of the application and the Registrar's response.

1. Mr Maurici held a firearms licence endorsed for the purpose of primary production. The licence expired on 31 May 2022.
2. On 18 August 2020 police officers attended at Mr Maurici's home at about 10:30 at night. Their purpose was to conduct an audit of his firearms and secure storage arrangements, and to speak with him concerning his attendance earlier that day at the Office of Public Integrity in Adelaide where his conduct had caused some concern.
3. Mr Maurici was apparently asleep at the time the police attended.
4. The police reported that they found the house in some disarray, and Mr Maurici denied any knowledge of his reported attendance at the Office of Public Integrity earlier in the day. He was unable to provide the police with his identification information or his firearms licence, and told the police his identification documents had been stolen, although he was not sure when this had occurred.
5. Mr Maurici was unable to find the key for the gun safe, but the police officers were able to undo the safe. The police concluded that the gun safe did not comply with the requirements of the Act. The police found Mr Maurici's firearm inside the safe, and it was covered with rust. Mr Maurici did not know whether he had any ammunition, and the police did not find any in the house, although the condition of the house made it difficult for them to search thoroughly. The police seized the firearm.
6. The police officers reported they had concerns about Mr Maurici's cognitive functioning and about his vision, reporting that one of his eyes was "cloudy".
7. On 9 November 2020 the Registrar suspended Mr Maurici's firearms licence pursuant to s 20(8) of the Act, pending an investigation as to whether there were grounds to cancel the licence pursuant to s 20(6)(d) of the Act. Mr Maurici was notified of this decision and requested to provide a medical report from a health practitioner concerning his fitness to hold a firearms licence. On 8 October 2021 the Registrar provided Mr Maurici with further particularity concerning the medical evidence required.
8. Mr Maurici has not provided any medical report as requested.

1. Mr Maurici told the Tribunal the matter had arisen because a woman from the Office of Public Integrity had accused him of going to the office and threatening members of the Port Adelaide Council, and that he had made death threats. Mr Maurici said this had not happened.
2. Mr Maurici told the Tribunal the police action against him was unjust and should not have happened, and he had been hurt by this injustice. He said the police had come to his home at 1:30 in the morning when he was asleep. He said he had been confused because he had been awoken in the middle of the night.
3. He initially told the Tribunal he needed to keep his gun for self-protection, but then said he would no longer pursue his application for the review of the Registrar's decision as he no longer wanted to have a licence or keep a firearm. He said he was now prepared to donate his firearm to the police museum.
4. Mr Maurici said there was nothing wrong with him, and he wanted all references to "me being crazy" to be "cancelled". He said he did not want his name being tarnished by being accused of having mental issues, or being blind. He wanted all these references removed from any documents, and he wanted the police, or this Tribunal, to pay him for all the injustice and inconvenience which had been caused to him.
5. At previous directions hearings Mr Maurici had told the Tribunal he had tried to obtain the medical information sought by the Registrar, but he had not been able to get appropriate appointments: the doctors he went to either did not provide such reports, or did not have appointments available. He had contacted the Royal Adelaide Hospital to obtain an appointment to have his vision checked, but had not heard back.

1. In addition to her application for the matter to be dismissed, Mr Knobel also provided submissions on behalf of the Registrar concerning the substantive aspects of this matter.
2. She submitted that the decision should be affirmed as both correct and preferable, although she drew the Tribunal's attention to the fact that Mr Maurici's firearms licence expired on 31 May 2022, so the review of the decision to suspend the licence was of little utility.
3. With respect to the evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Knobel provided the Tribunal with an affidavit sworn on 12 May 2021 by Georgina Goodwin, an Operations Support Officer employed at the Office of Public Integrity in Adelaide. Ms Goodwin asserts Mr Maurici had attended at the Office on 18 August 2020 and made certain threats which were reported to the police.
4. The Registrar also relied on observations made of Mr Maurici by police officers when they attended at his premises on the night of 18 August 2020 to conduct the firearms audit. The observations are contained in the Occurrence Enquiry logbook and in the Summary Occurrence report, provided with the s 35 documents to the Tribunal. The police officers observed the disarray of Mr Maurici's house, and his confused demeanour and apparent difficulties with his eyesight.
5. Ms Knobel submitted the onus was on Mr Maurici to satisfy the Tribunal that the decision of the Registrar was not correct or preferable. She submitted that although Mr Maurici disputed the events alleged to have occurred at the Office of Public Integrity on 18 August 2020, it was the police officers' observations of Mr Maurici when they attended at his home that night to conduct the audit which resulted in the suspension of the firearms licence. She submitted that even if the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Maurici was involved in the incident at the Office of Public Integrity, he had nevertheless failed to establish that the decision of the Registrar was not correct.
6. Ms Knobel also referred the Tribunal to a notification provided to the Registrar by Mr Maurici's General Practitioner, Dr Louise Fischer, dated 14 April 2022. In that notification Dr Fischer indicates that Mr Maurici was apparently examined at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Ophthalmology Clinic on 28 September 2021. It was reported that he "has very poor vision", with "nil" vision in his left eye and poor vision in his right eye, with "left dislocated intra-ocular lensci; right blind/phthisicial; extreme myopia with advanced myopic degeneration; with no currently available treatment for this". Dr Fischer concludes:

It appears that his vision is so poor that he would be unsafe to drive. Therefore, it stands to reason that his vision is also so poor that he would be unsafe to possess a firearm/gun.

1. Section 34 of 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 rehearing.
2. The decision subject to review in this matter is the decision of the Registrar on 9 November 2020 to suspend Mr Maurici's firearms licence, which expired on 31 May 2022, pending an investigation as to whether Mr Maurici was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Mr Maurici was requested to provide medical information concerning his cognitive abilities and his eyesight to assist the Registrar in the investigation.
3. In considering this application I have taken into account all the material before the Registrar, including the observations provided by the police officers who attended at Mr Maurici's home on 18 August 2020, as well as the additional material provided, including Mr Maurici's evidence at this and earlier hearings, and the sworn affidavit of Ms Goodwin, and the notification to the Registrar of Dr Fischer, dated 14 April 2022.
4. It is not disputed that Mr Maurici did not provide any relevant medical report to the Registrar.
5. The Act sets out a system for the regulation of the possession of firearms, and s 3 of the Act confirms that firearms possession is a privilege, not a right, and is conditional upon the overriding need to ensure public safety. The Act imposes strict controls on the possession and storage of firearms and ammunition. Section 20(8) of the Act empowers the Registrar to suspend a firearms licence pending an investigation as to whether grounds exist for the taking of action against the holder of the licence.
6. Section 7(2) of the Act provides that a person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder that would make it unsafe for them to possess a firearm or ammunition, is not a fit or proper person for a purpose (including holding a firearms licence) under the Act.
7. Section 7(3) of the Act provides as follows:

(3) 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

...

(g) has failed to comply with a requirement made under section 53.

(1) The Registrar may, as reasonably required for the purposes of determining whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act, require the person to -

(a) ...

(b) provide a medical report from a health professional ... specified by the Registrar

1. I am satisfied that the decision made by the Registrar on 9 November 2020 was made pursuant to s 20(8) of the Act, and the requirement in the second letter of 9 November 2020 for Mr Maurici to provide a report from a health professional was made pursuant to s 53 of the Act.
2. I note that Mr Maurici has not provided the Registrar with the report requested in the second letter of 9 November 2020, and further, that his firearms licence has now expired (although it had not expired at the date of the hearing of this matter, on 27 May 2022). In these circumstances, there is essentially no utility in the review. I note that the hearing of this application has been extended by Mr Maurici's conduct and ongoing failure to provide the required information to the Registrar and the Tribunal, although there were recent delays outside his control. The issue of whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, raised by the failure to comply with the request made pursuant to s 53 of the Act, is not before the Tribunal.
3. The Registrar made an application and presented submissions for the dismissal of the application for want of prosecution. At this hearing, my understanding was that Mr Maurici essentially withdrew his application for the review of the Registrar's decision, indicating he no longer wanted to hold a firearms licence and he would donate his firearm (which is presently held by the police) to the police museum.
4. Despite these circumstances, I decided to hear and determine the application on its merits. The Registrar's application for dismissal was heard at the time the matter was listed for its full hearing. Mr Maurici was unrepresented throughout the proceedings, and I accept he had difficulties in understanding the process before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had encouraged Mr Maurici to obtain legal representation but he considered he did not require this.
5. In considering the evidence and submissions before me, I note Mr Maurici denied he had attended the Office of Public Integrity on 18 August 2020 and made threats. He also asserted that the police attended at his premises at 1:30 am in the night of 18 August 2020, and behaved "unjustly" to him. He asserted there was nothing wrong with his cognitive ability, or his eyesight, and he had appeared confused because he had been awoken from sleep. This essentially represented his submissions: his position appeared to be that because the Registrar had relied on information provided by the police which he believed was unjustly obtained, and in his view incorrect, the decision was wrong and he should not be required to address an incorrect decision.
6. I am satisfied however that Mr Maurici did attend at the Office of Public Integrity on 18 August 2020 and made threats there. It was because of his conduct there that a report was made to the police and the police attended at his home that night. I accept this was not at 1:30am as Mr Maurici alleged, but I note it was late at night and I accept it was quite likely Mr Maurici was asleep and so was confused in his dealings with the police. I accept that the police observations of Mr Maurici at that time, that he appeared confused, and his poor eyesight seemed to be a significant issue, formed the basis of the Registrar's decision to suspend his firearms licence.
7. Mr Maurici asserted the police acted "unjustly" in attending at his premises and seizing his firearm and making the observations which led to the Registrar's decision. There is nothing before me however to suggest this was the case.
8. I am satisfied that the observations made by the police in respect of the audit of Mr Maurici's firearm and ammunition storage amount to appropriate material for the Registrar to take into account in making an assessment and a decision as to the suspension of a firearms licence pending an investigation as to whether the licensee is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. I note that compliance with the requirements of the Act in terms of storage of firearms and ammunition is an essential aspect of the regulatory scheme of the Act, which has public safety at its heart, as is the capacity of the licensee in terms of physical and mental health.
9. I am satisfied that the Registrar's decision of 9 November 2020, to suspend Mr Maurici's firearms licence pending an investigation, is both correct and preferable.
10. I am satisfied that there was adequate and appropriate material before the Registrar to support the decision of 9 November 2020 to suspend Mr Maurici's firearms licence pending an investigation as to whether he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. It is clear the Registrar has this power pursuant to s 20(8) of the Act, and I am satisfied the nature of the material, in particular the observations of the police officers who conducted the audit on 18 August 2020 concerning Mr Maurici's health, made the decision a preferable decision.
11. The police officers' observations related to Mr Maurici's physical and mental capacity to safely have access to firearms. It would not have been consistent with the primary purpose of the Act, namely the safety of the public, for the Registrar to ignore such observations. The appropriate response was that taken, to investigate whether those observations had identified any reason Mr Maurici was not fit and proper to hold a firearms licence.
12. On this basis I will affirm the Registrar's decision rather than dismiss the application.
13. As noted above, Mr Maurici did not comply with the request of the Registrar, pursuant to s 53 of the Act, to provide a report from a health professional concerning his cognitive abilities and his eyesight, necessary to support the investigation as to whether he was fit and proper to hold a firearms licence. However, Mr Maurici's general practitioner, Dr Fischer, has independently provided a notification to the Registrar reporting that Mr Maurici has severely compromised eyesight, providing support to the observations of the police officers which were taken into account by the Registrar.
14. In addition, I note that Mr Maurici's firearms licence has now expired, and he indicated at the hearing that he no longer wanted to maintain a firearms licence.
15. I note further that even had Mr Maurici's application been successful, the Tribunal has no power to award damages or compensation as sought by Mr Maurici in this matter.

1. Ms Knobel, on behalf of the Registrar, sought an order for costs against Mr Maurici, although she did not make any specific submissions in support of that application.
2. I will not make any order for costs against Mr Maurici.
3. Section 57(1) of the SACAT Act makes it clear that the starting point pursuant to the SACAT Act concerning the award of costs is the obverse of the usual position in most courts, namely, that costs follow the event. In the conventional circumstances, this position would support the award of costs against Mr Maurici. Subsections 57(2) and (3) of the SACAT Act specify circumstances where the Tribunal may make an order for costs despite the starting point set out in s 57(1), but I am satisfied it would not be appropriate to make such an order in this case.
4. Section 57(2) of the SACAT Act provides that the Tribunal may make an order for costs against a party if the Tribunal thinks it is appropriate to do so, after taking into account the following factors:

(a) the main objectives of the Act that are relevant to simplifying proceedings and issues before the Tribunal and to keeping costs to parties in proceedings before the Tribunal to a minimum insofar as it is just and appropriate; and

(b) the need to ensure that proceedings are fair and that parties are not disadvantaged by proceedings that have little or no merit; and

(c) provisions made by the rules; and

(d) any other matter considered relevant by the Tribunal.

In South Australian Housing Trust v Brady & Milera [2018] SACAT 2 (Brady & Milera) President Hughes emphasised that these factors are all subservient to the overarching proposition set out in s 57(1) of the SACAT Act for the operation of the Tribunal, that parties bear their own costs.

1. The main objectives of the Tribunal are set out in s 8 of the SACAT Act, and these objectives must inform any order for costs made by the Tribunal, and consideration must be given to how any costs order reflects or furthers these objectives.
2. President Hughes in Brady & Milera points out that the need to ensure proceedings are fair and parties are not disadvantaged by proceedings that have little or no merit, recognises that legal proceedings can be used as a tool by one party to achieve ends other than to resolve a legal dispute.
3. In Tronnolone v Edwards & Bryan [2016] SACAT 27 Justice Parker (then President of the Tribunal) made the following comment on the operation and application of s 57 of the SACAT Act:

The clear effect of section 57 of the SACAT Act is that SACAT is generally a no costs jurisdiction, and costs will rarely be awarded. In particular, section 57(2)(b) indicates that costs should only be awarded where a party has been disadvantaged by proceedings that have little or no merit. I do not consider that to be the situation with the present matter. The proceedings were no more or less meritorious than most of the cases that come before the Tribunal. There was clearly a dispute that required adjudication [at para. 25].

4. Rule 27 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (the SACAT Rules) addresses the details required in making an application for costs, but does not add to the factors the Tribunal needs to consider in relation to an application for costs. Rule 4 of the SACAT Rules requires that Tribunal proceedings be conducted efficiently and in a manner proportionate to the matter in dispute.
5. Section 57(3) of the SACAT Act provides that where the Tribunal dismisses or strikes out an application in prescribed circumstances the Tribunal should make an order for costs. However this matter was not dismissed in the circumstances prescribed in the Act.
6. Section 58 of the SACAT Act sets out some additional considerations relevant to a costs order. This matter arose in the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, and accordingly s 58(2) should also be considered, which requires the Tribunal in those circumstances to have regard to whether the party genuinely attempted to enable and assist the decision-maker to make a decision on its merits, and whether the party (being the decision-maker) genuinely attempted to make a decision on its merits.
7. Pursuant to s 57(2)(d) of the SACAT Act the Tribunal may also take into account any other relevant matter, and this gives the Tribunal a wide discretion to consider a wide range of facts, circumstances and conduct in determining if it is appropriate to make an order for costs.
8. Although she did not make specific submissions concerning costs, the tenor of Ms Knobel's submissions, both on the merits of the application and concerning the striking out of the application, was that Mr Maurici's application was of little or no merit, and in addition that he had, in failing to provide or consistently delaying in providing the health practitioner report requested by the Registrar, he was conducting the proceedings in a manner which disadvantaged the Registrar as respondent.
9. While I appreciate this general concern, I am satisfied there are other factors to take into account in relation to this application for costs. Mr Maurici is an elderly man, who clearly (despite the lack of the health practitioner report) has some health issues. His English language proficiency is not high, and it was apparent that he did not have a good or clear understanding of the nature or purpose of the police audit, the Registrar's decision or the role of the Tribunal. Although it was the case that Mr Maurici's delaying in the provision of the health practitioner report greatly delayed the resolution of the application and this was to the disadvantage of the respondent, I am satisfied that these delays arose in part from Mr Maurici's firm (though misplaced) belief that the request was not appropriate or justified, and from his lack of understanding of the Tribunal process and role; and also because it was indeed quite difficult for him to obtain the appointments he required.
10. Access to the Tribunal in circumstances where a person is seeking review of a government decision is an essential and central objective of the SACAT Act. I am satisfied that awarding costs against Mr Maurici in this matter would not be consistent with that objective.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.