Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42Clay v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 49Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50Director-General, Department of Transport v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADT AP 65Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117McDonald v Director-General, Social Services (1984) FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206Moroney v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 138Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 184Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10
Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28
Judgment (11 paragraphs)
[1]
Reasons for decision
The applicant Mr Allan John McDonald on 14 August 2020 applied to this tribunal for review of a decision by a delegate of the respondent on 13 July 2020 to revoke his category AB firearms licence.
The licence had been issued on 14 January 2019 to expire on 14 January 2024, but it was revoked on 16 June 2020. The revocation decision was affirmed following an internal review on 13 July 2020.
The applicant is aged 72, is married with two adult children, has no criminal convictions and operates a native tree nursery. He was first issued with a category AB licence on 30 November 1998 and had held a licence continuously until it was revoked on 16 June 2020. His most recent renewal was issued for the reasons of recreational hunting, vermin control and primary production. He had one firearm, a .22 rifle, registered jointly to him and his wife Mrs Monica McDonald, who also holds the appropriate licence. His firearms safe keeping has been inspected and approved by police on two occasions.
On 20 February 2020, his firearms licence was suspended and his rifle was impounded by police following their receipt of a notice under s 79 of the Firearms Act lodged by a geriatrician at Orange Health Service, Dr Phillip Butler (exhibit R1, p 32), following consultation with Professor Waite of Concord Hospital Cognitive Disorders Clinic (exhibit R2, p 15). Diagnosing a behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), Dr Butler stated that the applicant might pose a risk to public safety if in possession of firearms.
In February-March 2019, the applicant had been seeing a general practitioner, Dr Alison Beaumont, in connexion with his concerns about sleep disturbances and memory loss. On 1 March 2019, Dr Beaumont noted that he became angry at being kept waiting for an appointment, although the doctor had apologized to him and explained that she had to deal with an unexpected emergency (exhibit R2, p 41). She found him aggressive, rude, intimidating and upsetting, and referred his case to Professor Simon Hawke, a neurologist, who prepared a report dated 13 March 2019 (exhibit R2, pp 28 - 29).
Prof Hawke thought it very likely the applicant had behavioural variant FTD, a condition that was very difficult to manage. Mr McDonald was having memory problems and was unable to think of names of his trees. He was propagating up to 250,000 trees yearly, but that had reduced to less than 100,000. "He gets extremely short fused", the report said. His character and personality were completely different now from what they had been 5 or 10 years previously. He had given up employing people because he was never satisfied with the work his employees did. He had related several instances where people came to perform jobs on his farm and he commonly felt he was being ripped off, and would have altercations with those individuals as he "wants to get the job done right". He became aggressive on a number of occasions during the consultation with Prof Hawke, but the aggression did not last.
Prof Hawke thought that personality change was the most important element in the case. The patient was concerned about his memory, although his working memory was relatively intact. He probably had deficiencies in semantic or categorical memory.
Following the suspension of the applicant's firearms licence on 20 February 2020 as a result of Dr Butler's s 79 notice, a neuropsychological assessment was performed by a psychologist, Ms Perri Carlson-Hawke on 23 March 2020, followed by an occupational therapy driving assessment on 10 June 2020 (exhibit R1, pp 66 - 77). It was determined that the applicant met the criteria for a conditional driver's licence with a review recommended in six months. Ms Carlson-Hawke's evaluation was to determine the impact of his diagnosis of FTD on his cognitive functioning. Her report, dated 31 March 2020 (exhibit R1, pp 38 - 41), stated that the applicant's test results indicated "significant and clinical deficits in memory abilities", but "There [was] no current evidence of clinical deficits in orientation, attention, concentration, behaviour reasoning, judgment, planning or inhibition".
A medical specialist fitness assessment report for driver licences was completed by Professor Hawke on 19 June 2020 (exhibit R1, p 64), following the occupational therapy driving assessment on 10 June 2020. His report expressed the view that the applicant had early signs of dementia, but given the report of the occupational therapy driving assessment, he was currently fit to drive on a conditional class C licence, subject to review in six months.
On 18 May 2020, the applicant underwent a brain scan, which suggested that he might have Alzheimer's dementia with frontal lobe involvement or FTD (exhibit R2, pp 156 - 157). On 26 August 2020, Prof Hawke wrote that he "could not support the applicant's holding a firearms licence because in my opinion he has FTD". The question was, was he of 'sound' mind, a question that might best be determined by a psychiatrist. The other concern would be, if he is currently of sound mind, for how long would he be. FTD of course can be extremely slowly progressive, but it is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder" (exhibit R2, p 124).
Prof Hawke also noted that the applicant's cognitive testing was abnormal and in the dementia range and other testing was significantly below what was expected from him. He also thought from a clinical point of view that the applicant was "disinhibited and prone to outbursts and he exhibits a lack of judgment and insight… and his memory is impaired".
The applicant underwent a positron emission tomography (PET) scan on 3 February 2021 (part exhibit A1), which concluded that "Scan findings are consistent with early Alzheimer's dementia (frontal metabolic activity is intact)". A few weeks later, on 10 March 2021, Prof Hawke reported that "Mr McDonald has been under evaluation for cognitive issues and at one stage frontotemporal dementia (FTD) was considered a likely cause. A recent PET scan showed no sign of frontotemporal dementia and the pattern was most in keeping with early Alzheimer's type dementia, allowing a revision of the diagnosis of FTD. That being the case, and because cognitively he is pretty good apart from mild-to-moderate memory deficiency, I can support him holding a firearms licence" (part exhibit A1).
[2]
Applicable legislation
Section 24(2)(a) of the firearms act provides that the Commissioner may revoke a firearms licence "for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind". Section 11(4)(c) directs that "the Commissioner must not issue a licence to a person if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind".
Section 11(3)(a) provides that a licence must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that "the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace…."
Section 24(2)(d) gives the Commissioner (and this tribunal on review) a discretionary power to revoke a licence for any other reason prescribed by the regulations. Clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 provides that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if the Commissioner "is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence".
In this matter the respondent does not rely on s 11(4)(c) and does not contend that the applicant is of "unsound mind", but rather that for neuropsychiatric reasons he does not satisfy the criterion of "fitness", in the phrase "fit and proper person" in s 11(3)(a) and, further, that it would not be in the public interest for him to hold a licence.
The issues in this case are thus whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or the peace, and whether it would be contrary to the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence.
[3]
The evidence
In this case the respondent did not call oral evidence but relied on documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) and certain additional documentary material (exhibit R2).
The applicant on 15 September 2020 was directed by Britton PM to file and serve statements, documents and submissions, but instead filed some documents combining representations of fact and submissions (part exhibit A1), which these reasons will treat as witness statements in so far as they deal with matters of fact.
[4]
Mr Allan J McDonald, applicant
In a document filed on 12 November 2020, the applicant stated that he had never committed any legal offence and had never been a violent person. He had never used illegal drugs or consumed alcohol in excess, and in fact rarely ever drinks any alcohol. He is, however, hard of hearing. Speaking loudly is the way hearing-impaired people explain that others must raise their voice, as they will have trouble hearing otherwise. It is involuntary on their part. Hearing-impaired people may also be mistaken for having a bad memory, as in the applicant's case, he only hears about one in five spoken words and pieces a conversation together.
He wished to receive a report of the MRI scan and other reports, but he had been blocked from receiving them, including the report Dr Butler made on the only occasion when he saw the applicant, which lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
His wife Mrs Monica McDonald holds an appropriate firearms licence, but she has not been given back their rifle, which is being withheld by the police.
In a document filed on 30 April 2021, he referred to para 24 of exhibit R3, being the respondent's written submissions, which stated that on 20 June 2011, he was involved in a dispute with some casual employees who were assisting him on his farm. They described the applicant's behaviour as aggressive, rude and said he treated the employees "like dogs". The applicant rang Cowra police and later attended at the police station to complain about the employees. The police reported that the applicant was aggressive, rude, obnoxious and sarcastic to the officers who received the complaint.
In response to that report, the applicant stated that the two casual employees were under the influence of drugs, and that he had made them aware that they were doing the job wrongly, and as they were his employees, it was up to him to dismiss them, which he did, after they had threatened his wife's life. The police advised him to tell his wife to leave their home quickly and go to a safe place until he could be with her.
In relation to para 26 of exhibit R3, he explained that the reason for their reducing the number of trees they produced was that they had sold the business and had started a new business where they only produce what they can without employees. The names of the trees he cannot remember are their Latin and Greek names, and yet that is improving after selling their business and reducing the stress on them.
[5]
Professor Simon Hawke, neurologist
In oral evidence at the hearing, Professor Simon Hawke adopted his professional reports relating to the applicant, dated 13 March 2019 (exhibit R2, pp 28 - 29), 26 August 2020 (exhibit R2, p 124), 27 August 2020 (exhibit R2, p 123) and 10 March 2021 (exhibit A1, p 1).
Professor Hawke is a neurologist practising at Orange and Sydney. He first saw the applicant on 3 March 2019 and after examination had expressed the opinion that he was suffering from FTD. His diagnosis could not be definite on the basis of one meeting, but a PET scan would show clear features. There were also some behavioural factors, such as personality change, and age was a relevant factor. But there would need to be a psychiatric assessment, including a PET scan, as a quick cognitive assessment, or "bedside test", was not usually sensitive to FTD. He had later seen the applicant in June 2019, and in early 2020 had referred him to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, who could arrange for testing. To confirm the diagnosis, there would need to be a formal neurological assessment.
The PET scan showed no signs of FTD, and was more suggestive of early Alzheimer's, but on the basis of that test he could not give a definite diagnosis of Alzheimer's. Mild cognitive impairment is not dementia, nor is it a necessary precursor of it. Mild memory deficiency also is not dementia, and there tends to be over-reporting of PET results in that regard. The test shows the regional functional assessment of the brain that cannot be viewed as definitive unless it is gross. The test does not diagnose Alzheimer's.
There were no signs of dementia, but there was some mild memory deficiency, indicating mild cognitive impairment. That was the inference. If memory loss was mild, there was no problem with driving and the applicant had done an RMS assessment. His own report should have said mild cognitive impairment, but he had said FTD because of Mr McDonald's behaviour at the interview. He now thinks, however, that his behaviour only represents his brusque personality, and is not indicative of FTD.
He had found no evidence of severe frontal lobe dysfunction and had read the driving assessment (exhibit R1, p66). His letter of 27 August 2020 had been written before the PET scan and had been based on observation, which led him to say that he could not support his holding a firearms licence at that time, because he thought the applicant had FTD. There had not been a full investigation and it is not an easy diagnosis to make. Personality change is relevant, but his view was that it was part of the applicant's underlying personality.
[6]
Respondent's submissions
The respondent relied on written submissions filed on 21 April 2021 (exhibit R3) which outlined the applicable law and the history of the matter as set out above. The submissions pointed out that a neuropsychological assessment was undertaken by a psychologist, Perri Carlson-Hawke, to determine the impact of the applicant's diagnosis of FTD on his cognitive functioning. The report, dated 31 March 2020, concluded that the applicant's test results indicated "significant and clinical deficits in memory abilities", and "There is no current evidence of clinical deficits in orientation, attention, concentration, behaviour, reasoning, judgment, planning or inhibition" (exhibit R1, pp 38 - 41). Further, "Mr McDonald's attention, orientation, language, visuospatial planning, organization, abstract reasoning, problem-solving and visual discrimination skills are all intact and within the average range for his age".
The applicant's driver licence was cancelled following the report of Dr Butler dated 20 February 2020, which stated that his behavioural variant of FTD had resulted in "marked personality and behavioural change in the last 12 months. This diagnosis is associated with a greatly increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. His wife has not observed any incidents of dangerous or unsafe driving thus far, but it is my opinion (and that of colleagues with whom Allan's case has been discussed) that ongoing driving is unsafe. My recommendation is for cancellation of Allan's driving licence".
Following an occupational therapy driving assessment on 19 June 2020, it was determined that the applicant met the criteria for the issuing of a conditional driver's licence with a review recommended in 6 months. It is not known if the applicant has undertaken 6-monthly review. The assessment report was completed by Elissa Clark from Road to Rehab and noted that, "Although Mr McDonald demonstrated tolerance and ability to regulate his anger and frustration during this assessment, his frustration tolerance and ability to regulate his emotions remains a concern and will need to be closely monitored as his condition progresses" (exhibit R1, p 74). The submissions noted that the Firearms Act does not contain any provision for issuing a licence for a period shorter than either a 2 or 5 year term.
The applicant had a history of being aggressive and confrontational in his interactions with others, with reports dating back to 2011. He had never been charged with an offence involving violence or intimidation, nor had he been issued with an AVO. In his visit to his local general practitioner and specialists over the years, he had often displayed aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards others, including, when speaking to Dr Butler's secretary on 21 August 2020, words to the effect of, "I don't want to see Dr Butler again unless he is dead on the ground and I am standing over him" (exhibit R2, p 19). This behaviour led the doctor to report the threat to Orange police and to an extreme risk rating for community nursing staff attending his premises.
[7]
Consideration
Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) the tribunal's role is to determine whether, having regard to the underlying facts in the matter and the applicable law, the Commissioner's decision is the correct and preferable one. The tribunal is to review the merits of the original decision and is required to consider the evidence available at that time, together with any other or later material, so as to affirm the original decision, vary it or set it aside: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77.
The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the CAT Act (s 30) and the Firearms Act, including the Commissioner's revocation of a licence or permit: s 75(1)(c). The tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Commissioner's decision is correct: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357.
Clear guidance as to how the act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistently with that approach, s 11(3) states that a licence must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. Section 11(4)(c) also provides that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.
The standard of proof applying in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, the balance (preponderance) of probabilities. These are not adversarial proceedings. There is accordingly, no burden or onus of proof on either party (Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10, [28] - [34]) and the standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42, [89] - [91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10, [10] - [12]. They do, however, provide guidance for the tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction.
[8]
Fit and proper person
The first sub-issue is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Section 24(2)(c) provides that a licence may be revoked "if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence". Section 11(3)(a) (which must be read in conjunction with s 24(2)(a)) provides that a licence must not be issued unless "the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace".
The question of whether a person is fit and proper in the licensing context has been considered in numerous cases before the courts and the tribunal. In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127, 156 - 157, the High Court gave a general overview of the concept and the discretion that it embodies:
The expression "fit and proper person" is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocations. But their purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. "Fit" or "idoneus" with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability…. It is evident that the Commissioner is invested with an authority to accept or reject an applicant the exercise of which depends on no certain or reliable criteria and which in truth involves a very wide discretion.
In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11, 65; (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380, Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained that:
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, or 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.
[9]
The public interest
The other issue to be resolved in this application is whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold a firearms licence within the meaning of s 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act and cl 20 of the Firearms Regulation.
The "public interest" factor allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. They may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16.
The underlying principles of the Act as stated in s 3(1) stress the overriding need to ensure public safety. The tribunal is required to exercise its discretion in determining licensing reviews in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50, [23]. The applicant's personal interest in retaining his licence is subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety.
In a familiar passage, Hennessy DP in Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28, [28] said that in terms of public safety, "the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk", while acknowledging that the tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would never pose any risk to public safety. Ward was a case on the "fit and proper person" test, but the formulation has been held to apply to the public interest test under s 11(7) as well: Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89, [23]; Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206, [130].
Since then, Hennessy DP has cautioned against applying that language in a mechanistic way, pointing out in AML in 2013 that that the Ward decision itself had set aside the Commissioner's decision to revoke a firearms licence because her Honour was satisfied that despite the fact that he had assaulted his partner, he was a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence. "The 'virtually no risk' comment was made in the context of the 'fit and proper person' test. It should not be understood as a judicial gloss on the plain meaning of that test, or of the reasonable cause test. The relevant tests are set out in the Firearms Act and comments in cases should not be substituted for those tests" (at [7]).
[10]
Orders
1. Decision under review set aside.
2. A category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the applicant.
[11]
I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.
Registrar
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 27 May 2021
In relation to paras 34 to 38 of exhibit R3, he did not believe he was verbally aggressive to the occupational therapist. After the assessment, the therapist excitedly told his wife how well he had done. Nor did he know who the other general practitioners and specialists were towards whom he had allegedly been aggressive, and he had not spoken to Dr Butler's secretary. His wife had taken the call from the secretary on that day and she was, and is, not a rude or aggressive person and simply told Dr Butler's secretary on the day that he would not be having a further appointment with Dr Butler as he had lodged a complaint with HCCC. He had never been violent towards anyone.
His firearms licence had been taken from him because "an irresponsible doctor" [meaning Dr Butler] said he had FTD. There was no proof, no medical testing, just an opinion after a 10-minute consultation regarding home help in the future. He was told by a GP that he and his wife should book in now on the home help register, as it could take years before they would be eligible for home help. They do not need it now, but the future is unsure for all.
On his arrival for his only consultation with Dr Butler, the doctor's secretary insisted that he was Allan McDonald from Tweed Heads. His wife kept telling her that they were from Darby's Falls, but she insisted, asking if they had lived in Tweed Heads, were they sure they were not from Tweed Heads? His wife kept saying no, then finally the secretary shrugged her shoulders and told them to take a seat. They believed, and still believe, that they have the wrong Allan McDonald, as the secretary said there were six Allan McDonalds on their books.
He had owned a rifle since he was 16 years old and respects gun ownership. He has never been reprimanded in any way in connexion with firearms possession. His licences were taken from him because he was told he had FTD, and now it was proven to be incorrect. So one might come to the conclusion that he should now be given his licence back because it was taken from him on a false ground.
In oral evidence at the hearing the applicant reiterated those points and pointed out that the respondent had said he was not fit to drive a car, but that was not true as was shown by to driving tests he had undertaken. One test had lasted 1½ hours, and the second lasted 10 minutes. On that occasion the instructor had stopped the test, saying it was obvious that he could drive and only needed retesting every 12 months. Consequently the condition was changed from 6 months to 12 months.
He had seen Dr Butler only once, who had written that the applicant had said he hated everyone in Darby Falls, but their property is out of town and he only knows two people in Darby Falls. They are workers formerly employed by him, and they had been good workers. Dr Butler had also said that he engaged in road rage, but he has a very good driving record and it was irresponsible to make a statement like that after only 10 minutes. He then said "We can't have a grumpy old man walking the streets with a gun" and predicted that the applicant would become an alcoholic, but in fact he hardly drinks at all. He was not an alcoholic now and had never been. Dr Butler had also said he should be in a nursing home, but although he is 72, he is strong and still working.
When he had related to Prof Hawke what had transpired at Dr Butler's consultation, Prof Hawke had laughed, shaken his head and said, "I would never have done what Dr Butler did to you". All his problems had come about from one visit with Dr Butler, who had administered no tests. The applicant had incurred legal and other costs of over $10,000 endeavouring to rectify the situation. He had written 14 letters to HCCC, but had received no answers. If he was angry, it was because of what he had been through.
Dr Butler had lodged an AVO application against him, saying he had been intimidating him. That was untrue, all he had done was to write three letters to him, which he would be happy to show to anyone. The AVO application had been withdrawn because it was all untrue and was just an act of revenge against him because he had complained to HCCC. It was after that that he issued the AVO, but later withdrew it.
Asked about Dr Butler's statement in his letter to the GP dated 4 February 2020 (exhibit R2, p 21) referring to a "dramatic change in personality", he said he had only seen Dr Butler once and he could not possibly know whether or not he had changed. Dr Butler had "stunned us", saying he had dementia. He then asked how they had come to his surgery, and when he replied that they had driven, he said he would get the applicant's license disqualified. He asked about the applicant's gun, and he had replied that it was a tool, as he used it to shoot eucalyptus seeds down, so Dr Butler said he would get his licence cancelled. Now he cannot use it to collect seeds. He also needed his rifle to control ferals, but now he could not do that either.
He said he is seldom angry. He was then asked about Dr Butler's consultation note of 9 September 2020 (exhibit R2, p 19) which read in part, "When my secretary Tracey rang Mr McDonald the following day to arrange a telephone consultation, he responded with words to the effect of: 'I don't want to see Dr Butler again unless he is dead on the ground and I am standing over him'". He denied saying that, pointing out that his wife had taken that call, not him.
Mr Zoppo read to the witness part of Prof Hawke's consultation note dated 27 August 2020 (exhibit R2, p 123) which stated, "I mentioned that I could not support him holding a firearms licence because in my opinion he has FTD…. he is disinhibited and prone to outbursts and he exhibits a lack of judgment and insight, his memory is impaired and finally he had frontal release signs when I first examined him". He pointed out that he had held a firearms licence ever since they had been introduced and had been a SSAA member for 56 years.
He was then asked about an incident on 16 June 2017 (event E 64784848, exhibit R1, p 23) in which he attended at Cowra police station to express his concerns, claiming that he was no longer allowed access into the Verto Employment Agency premises for unknown reasons. According to police enquiries, "the informant is a nuisance customer and verbally abuses staff members when he requests their services". He agreed that he had been banned from the Verto premises but denied that he had abused staff. When he employs workers, he wants the job done right, but the agency did not care. He gave his workers three chances to do a job properly, but they still did not do it.
They then went to Verto and ran him down because they had been put off. Verto never asked him about them, because Verto receives a commission on the number of unemployed on their books, Mr Angus Taylor MLA had told him. They would not send him workers because they said the tasks he gave them were "repetitious". He had been banned because he kept going back to Verto because they would not give him any planters. He was firm with them, but Verto said they did not want to discuss the matter with him.
Commenting on a passage in event report E 52736723 (exhibit R1, p 16) that reads, "through his private and business dealings he has had many altercations with many people over the years. The owner appears to have very limited social skills and easily rubs people up the wrong way", he said he would give two examples. In one case he had wanted a 1 inch aluminium tube welded, but the company wanted $650 to do it. He gave them $300, as he had been a welder and knew what was involved, and would have done the task himself but he has no alloy welder. Again, he had an irrigation pump that needed work, which a business in the town agreed to do, but they charged him for the existing parts that they had put back in. They were external parts and he had photographed them, and you could see the rust on them. They charged him as if they had fitted new parts. He gave them the photographs and refused to pay, but they still billed him for it, but they have taken no action against him. He learned that the same thing had happened to another farmer who related a similar incident to him.
In his letter of 13 March 2019, Professor Hawke had said the applicant was "short fused" and his personality had changed. That opinion was based on the patient's history at the initial consultation in relation to dealing with particular incidents. Stressors had emerged that had given rise to his response. His conclusion was that the applicant had no dementia but did have mild cognitive deficiency, superimposed on his pre-existing personality.
The witness was then asked about the driver licence assessment, which recommended review every 6 months because of concerns about possible deterioration. He replied that there was indeed a proportion of cases where there was deterioration into dementia. The therapist had said six months, and he had agreed as deterioration is always a concern in this situation because of memory deficiency. About 40 percent of such patients get dementia, but some drive well with mild Alzheimer's. He thought review every 12 months would be sufficient in this case. It would be better to repeat the neuropsychological assessment, but as it is not on Medicare, it is hard to get it done.
Prof Hawke could not say if the applicant would deteriorate, but he was unlikely to improve because of his age. His tendency to be short-fused was a long-standing trait, and if he were stressed, it could become more obvious.
The applicant also tendered a detailed statutory declaration made by Mr John R Baker, a former Australian ambassador, of Griffith A.C.T. (part exhibit A1). Its contents will be outlined later in these reasons.
The applicant was diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and the psychological report from Perri Carlton-Hawke was conducted to determine the impact of his condition on his cognitive function. The report's author provides no advice or opinion to demonstrate her unconditional support, or otherwise, of the return of the applicant's firearms licence.
On 18 May 2020, the applicant undertook a brain scan which suggested that the applicant may have Alzheimer's-type dementia with frontal lobe involvement or FTD. In February 2021, he undertook a PET scan, and the finding was that he had early Alzheimer's dementia (with frontal metabolic activity intact). This latest study did not compare the brain scan of May 2020.
On 26 August 2020, Prof Hawke again restated that he could not support the applicant holding a firearms licence because of his presumed FTD. Prof Hawke stated that it would be best for a psychiatrist to determine whether the applicant was of "sound mind' and that even if he were, for how long would he remain so. Further, Prof Hawke stated that from a clinical point of view, the applicant is "disinhibited and prone to outbursts and he exhibits a lack of judgment and insight….and his memory is impaired". That clinical evaluation aligns with the numerous notes made by general practitioners attending to the applicant and his threatening language against Dr Butler.
As a result of a PET scan undertaken in February 2021, Prof Hawke wrote a letter dated 10 March 2021 stating that because there is no sign of FTD and the scan showed a pattern most in keeping with early Alzheimer's-type dementia, it allowed a revision of the FTD diagnosis. As a result, Prof Hawke concluded that because cognitively the applicant is "pretty good apart from mild-to-moderate memory deficiency", he can support the applicant holding a firearms licence. In reaching that conclusion, Prof Hawke provided little by way of explanation as to why he believed he could support the licence application. As such, the report should receive little weight, as it provides an opinion without providing any detailed rationale or reasoning behind the opinion. Further, Prof Hawke had not provided an opinion as to whether he was prepared to support the applicant holding a firearms licence for a period of 5 years.
The information before the tribunal included evidence of violence and aggression directed by the applicant to the many people that he comes in conflict with. It appears that this behaviour has changed from the applicant being a happy gregarious person to an aggressive angry person, and that conduct had been exhibited since 2011. In matters whereby the crux of the case is within the medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence, the tribunal has held the view that while evidence may show a definite improvement, if it is subject to qualifications about the need for regular reviews, reassessment of medications and neuropsychiatric testing, that attests to a not insignificant risk of relapse (Moroney v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 138, [50]).
The applicant has little in the way of criminal antecedents and has held a licence since 1998 with no reported incidents. The respondent did not contest that the applicant as a primary producer has a genuine need to hold a firearms licence and that revocation might impact him financially. But the loss of income is to be weighed against the primary and overriding need for public safety. It is noted that the applicant's wife is appropriately licensed for firearms. While Prof Hawke supports the applicant holding a firearms licence, the brevity of the report does not provide the tribunal with evidence to remove the concerns or risks to public safety, presently or in 5 years' time. A special condition in the circumstances would be unworkable and inappropriate in the circumstances (Clay v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 49, [40] - [42]).
Fitness and propriety is a question of fact to be determined objectively, taking into account all the evidence: Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184. The Appeal Panel has pointed out that public interest considerations play a role in the assessment of fitness and propriety: Director-General, Transport New South Wales v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65, [37]; Smith, [30].
The applicant does not have a criminal record, or a history of violence and has never had an AVO issued against him. It has never been suggested that he has any criminal associations or other undesirable connections. The respondent's case is that the combined effect of certain overt incidents and a rather complex history of neurological and psychological diagnosis is that his behaviour is aggressive and erratic, and although it is not contended that he is of "unsound mind", he could potentially represent a danger to the public if he had access to firearms.
The respondent appears to rely principally on three overt acts, the first recorded as police event No. E 45282879, on 4 July 2011 (exhibit R1, pp 8 - 10). The applicant was the complainant in this incident, and the report labels him as "VIC" (victim). He said he owned a tree planting business and on 29 June 2011 he was planning hundreds of trees on the property in the town of Vittoria (halfway between Orange and Bathurst). He had engaged two employees to help him but they "did everything wrong and did not follow any instructions properly". According to the "person of interest", the applicant was aggressive, rude and treated him and his workmate "like dogs".
On 29th of June, the worker "had enough of the VIC abusing him and he lost it", yelling and abuse at the applicant and threatening to pull out all the trees they had planted. The applicant dismissed the two workers and told them to leave the property. The person of interest then threatened the applicant, saying he would get his south-western biker friends to "get him". He then entered his vehicle with the other worker and drove his utility truck towards the applicant. "The VIC stared the POI down and did not move. The POI braked and his vehicle stopped 1 meter from the VIC". After the workers had left the property, the applicant telephoned Cowra police and subsequently attended Cowra police station, although the incident was not in their area. "The VIC was obnoxious, aggressive, rude and sarcastic. The VIC did not appear to want police help, but rather a chance to yell at anyone who would listen".
According to the applicant's evidence, the two workers were "high on drugs" and repeatedly failed or refused to carry out his instructions. At all events, the only actual or threatened violence in the episode was perpetrated by one of the workers, who drove his utility truck at the applicant, who stood his ground and may have been fortunate in escaping injury. At the same time, the report is an early illustration of the applicant's well-documented propensity for noisy and belligerent oral outbursts.
The second report, dated 3 September 2012 (event E 48810375, exhibit R2, p 12) was a complaint by an employee of Land Care that he had received numerous abusive calls from the applicant over an ongoing dispute with his employer (Land Care). The employee had had no direct contact with the applicant in the previous 12 months, besides both attending an AGM where they did not speak to each other. The complainant stated that on 21 August he received a voicemail on his mobile telephone from the applicant saying, "your [sic] not out of trouble yet" and thought that the message could be deemed a threat. "Police advised him that as the incident was two weeks prior, it would be difficult to see it as a threat as nothing else had happened".
When police contacted the applicant, he was "very hostile" and said he had been receiving hangup calls for over 12 months and believed that the police and Telstra would do nothing about it. This is another instance of the applicant's belligerent matter, although, again, quite an old one, but it does not involve any threat of violence. Further, as he had apparently been receiving hangup calls for the last 12 months, he may have had understandable grounds for defensiveness.
The third incident is more concerning. A consultation note by Dr Phillip Butler dated 9 September 2020 (exhibit R2, p 19) begins by confirming his earlier diagnosis of behavioural variant FTD and observes that the applicant is physically fit and robust. "I have not reviewed him since my initial consultation in February", he continued, "but have received correspondence from Mr McDonald expressing his dissatisfaction with the removal of guns from his property and my recommendation for cancellation of his driving license…. When my secretary Tracey [Brown] rang Mr McDonald the following day [21 August] to arrange a telephone consultation, he responded with words to the effect of: 'I don't want to see Dr Butler again unless he is dead on the ground and I am standing over him'. I have made a formal police report regarding this threat (Orange Police Station)…."
It will be noted that Dr Butler did not make the call himself and did not hear the threat. There is no direct evidence from the respondent about it. The applicant's evidence does refer to the incident, however: "I did not speak to Dr Butler's secretary. My wife took the call on that day and she was and is not a rude or aggressive person and simply told Dr Butler's secretary on the day I would not be making a further appointment with Dr Butler as I have lodged a complaint with the HCCC [Health Care Complaints Commission]" (part exhibit A1).
The applicant also added some surrounding circumstances: "on our arrival to my one and only consultation Dr Butler's Secretary insisted I was Allan McDonald from Tweed Heads. My wife kept telling her no we were from Darbys Falls but she insisted did you ever live in Tweed Heads, are you sure you're not from Tweed Heads. By wife kept saying no and finally the secretary shrugged her shoulders and told us to take his seat. We were and still now believe they have the wrong Allan McDonald as they said there were six Allan McDonalds on the books".
As there is no direct evidence from the respondent in relation to this incident, the most likely explanation emerges from the applicant's own evidence. Ms Brown spoke to Mrs Monica McDonald, not to her husband, and the threatening language was used on a call with one of the other men named Allan McDonald who was a patient of the unit. Orange Hospital is presumably quite a busy establishment, and as a geriatrician, Dr Butler probably has a number of rather cantankerous old people on his patient list. I therefore conclude on the preponderance of probabilities that the applicant was not the person who made the threat in question.
The respondent refers to a number of other events, including E 52736723 (27 October 2013), in which the applicant complained to Cowra police that unknown persons had let his sheep into his house paddock. This report contains the comment that "The owner is well known to Cowra Police. He is a local businessman and through his private and business dealings he has had many altercations with many people over the years. The owner appears to have very limited social skills and easily rubs people up the wrong way" (exhibit R1, p 16).
In event E 65548163 (16 June 2017, exhibit R1, p 23), the applicant was again the complainant, this time expressing his concern claiming that he was no longer allowed access into the building housing the Verto Employment Agency in Cowra, which had in the past provided him with staff through their employment program, but was refusing service to him for reasons unknown to him. The report states: "Further enquiries have proven that the informant is a nuisance customer and verbally abuses staff members when he requests their services".
The applicant explained that people often think he is shouting at them because he is deaf and by speaking loudly tries to encourage people to speak loudly so he can hear them (why he does not acquire a hearing aid was not stated). His manner at the telephone hearing partly supports that explanation, but there is rather more to it. At first he adopted a rather combative tone, but as the proceedings progressed, he became cooperative and indeed appreciative, but all the time speaking very loudly and occasionally appearing to shout. Nevertheless, the number of reports from diverse sources about his angry and aggressive manner cannot be discounted.
In his defence he related some instances of unscrupulous conduct by suppliers or contractors, including an episode when an irrigation pump needed work. The business that agreed to carry out the repairs charged him for new parts when they had simply put the old parts back in. He was able to prove it because they were external parts and were rusted, as could be seen by the photographs he took and handed to the contractor. An altercation ensued and he refused to pay, but the contractor took no action against him, which he took to mean that they admitted the truth of his claim. He maintains that he only has arguments with people when he has to stand up for himself when faced with unfair treatment. Righteous indignation would indeed appear to be justified in the case of the irrigation pump.
But the evidence contains multiple instances of seemingly unwarranted displays of anger, sarcasm and abusive language or, as one police report tactfully put it, a marked lack of "social skills". But there is no reliable evidence of language threatening violence. On balance I do not consider that the evidence relating to the applicant's conduct leads to the conclusion that he is not a "fit and proper person" to hold a firearms licence. The respondent's case on this issue has, however, a second arm, which is his record of medical and neurological evaluations.
The applicant's medical and neurological history is complicated and multi-layered, but the relevant stages may be outlined. First came Professor Phillip Hawke's report of 13 March 2019 following a referral by Dr Alison Beaumont (exhibit R2, pp 28 - 29). It stated that it was likely that the applicant was suffering from behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia [FTD] and had been having memory problems for a few years, being unable to think of the names of his trees. He had been propagating up to 250,000 trees yearly, but had reduced it to less than 100,000. "He gets extremely short fused. His character and personality are completely different now from what they were 5 or 10 years ago".
The following year, on 2 March 2020 (exhibit R2, p 146), on a referral from Dr Nyi Nyi Hlaing, Professor Hawke concluded that the applicant "had an emerging frontotemporal dementia (behavioural variant)". Following Dr Butler's recommendation (noted below) that his licence be suspended and his firearms licence also, "His guns have therefore been removed by the police. As you can imagine this has induced a huge amount of anger and he has wanted to spend thousands on solicitor's fees".
On 26 August 2020, Prof Hawke in a letter to Dr Hliaing stated that he could not support the applicant holding a firearms licence because of his presumed FTD and that it would be best for a psychiatrist to determine whether the applicant was of "sound mind", and that if he were, how long would he remain so (exhibit R2, p 124). The following day, again writing to Dr Hliang, he repeated his view, adding that that it was not possible to support the applicant holding a firearms licence because of his likely FTD, adding that "From the clinical point of view, he is disinhibited and prone to outbursts and the exhibits a lack of judgment and insight, his memory is impaired and finally he had frontal release signs when I first examined him" (exhibit R2, p .123).
On 18 May 2020, the applicant undertook a brain scan which suggested that he might have Alzheimer's dementia with frontal lobe involvement or FTD. A neuropsychological assessment by Ms Perri Carlson-Hawke dated 31 March 2020 (exhibit R1, pp 38 - 41) noted significant and clinical deficits in memory abilities, but stated that "Mr McDonald's attention, orientation, language, visuospatial planning, organization, abstract reasoning, problem-solving and visual discrimination skills are all intact and within the average range for his age".
"Whilst today's results demonstrate impairments of memory", the report continued, "there are no signs of executive functioning deficits when compared with others his age. There is no current evidence of clinical deficits in orientation, attention, concentration, behaviour, reasoning, judgment, planning or inhibition".
Prof Hawke had earlier expressed the view that the proper assessment of Mr McDonald's condition required a positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Such a scan was undertaken in February 2021, following which Prof Hawke wrote a letter dated 10 March 2021 stating that: "Mr McDonald has been under evaluation for cognitive issues and at one stage frontotemporal dementia (FTD) was considered the likely cause. A recent PET scan showed no sign of frontotemporal dementia and the pattern was most in keeping with early Alzheimer type dementia, allowing a revision of the diagnosis of FTD. That being the case, and because cognitively he is pretty good apart from mild-to-moderate memory deficiency, I can support him holding a firearms licence" (part exhibit A1).
The respondent was critical of that opinion, arguing that it provided little in the way of explanation as to why Prof Hawke believes he could now support the licence application, and as such should be given little weight as it provides an opinion without detailed rationale or reasoning. The letter of 2 March 2021 should, however, be read against the background of the earlier reports by Prof Hawke, which make it clear that his opposition to the applicant's holding a firearms licence is based on the diagnosis of FTD, which he said in his evidence could not be definitive in the absence of a PET scan. As the scan revealed no evidence of FTD, it was appropriate to withdraw the objection. It should also be noted that Prof Hawke's evaluation is implicitly supported by the neuropsychological appraisal conducted by Ms Carlson-Hawke.
The other relevant strand of the applicant's medical history consists of Dr Butler's report to GP Dr Alison Beaumont dated 4 February 2020. Dr Beaumont had referred the case to him in relation to concerns about the applicant and the ability of his wife Monica to manage him long-term. He quotes Monica as saying that he used to be very friendly and gregarious but now describes him as being "hateful". Dr Butler wrote that he would discuss with the Concord Hospital cognitive disorders clinic the possibility of driving cessation and removal of the gun from the property. A s 79 disclosure was subsequently lodged and the applicant's firearms licence was suspended (exhibit R1, pp 32 - 33), as was his driver licence (exhibit R2, p 24).
At the hearing Mrs Monica McDonald explained that she had not described her husband as "hateful", but as "a handful", because he wanted very much to continue working. (Mrs McDonald was granted leave to participate in the hearing on a McKenzie friend basis, but at one point did make some statements of fact which I chose to accept). Besides being quite plausible, that explanation is perhaps more consistent with language usage among mature age people. Mrs McDonald also added that she was able to deal with her husband's problems because her father had been deaf. The applicant was very critical of Dr Butler's report, saying that his only interview with the doctor lasted 10 minutes and he was not asked to undertake any tests. He subsequently complained about Dr Butler to HCCC.
Dr Butler's opinion was based on his diagnosis that the applicant was suffering from FTD. As on the expert evidence the PET scan is regarded as negating that diagnosis, his opinion merits less weight than the later opinion of Prof Hawke, which supports restoration of the applicant's firearms licence.
The applicant tendered a statutory declaration dated 9 October 2020 by Mr John R Baker, a retired company director who is also a former ambassador to Tanzania, Zambia and several other countries. He states that he has known the applicant for 15 years through he and his wife owning a rural property near where the applicant and his wife live. Over that time they have purchased many trees from the tree growing business that Allan and his wife ran. Also, in his capacity as deputy chair of the Hovell's Creek Landcare Group and project manager of their three-year paddock tree planting project, he has had regular and often quite extensive contact with Mr McDonald. They had spent many hours discussing how best to plant trees, with the applicant visiting his property and working with him there.
Following all his interactions with Allan, he was very surprised when he told him that, following a short medical assessment, he had had both his driver's and his firearms licences removed. Personality-wise, Allan is a very passionate and committed person and can get quite steamed up and upset on occasions when he thinks people are not doing things properly - especially when it comes to tree planting or in his business dealings with them. But Mr Baker has seen absolutely no evidence that he would ever allow this passion to transfer into road rage or any other anti-social driving behaviour, or that it would prompt him to misuse his gun and threaten or harm somebody.
Mr Baker still fails to understand, on the basis of his experience of Allan over the years, including in recent months, on what grounds his licences could be revoked. He had travelled with Allan in his vehicle and considered him to be a careful and thoughtful driver. He could not conceive how his forgetting words and occasional short-term memory issues made him a potentially unsafe driver. As regards shooting, the only use Allan has made of his rifle in recent years has been either to shoot mistletoe out of trees to help control mistletoe infestations, or to shoot seed out of the top of trees for tree propagation purposes - which is important for his income and livelihood. He had visited Mr Baker's property several times to shoot mistletoe out of his eucalyptus trees and to shoot seeds. He had noticed while they were doing that how very careful and responsible he was in handling his gun, and how he always ensured that Mr Baker was well clear while he was shooting.
Mr Baker's unchallenged statutory declaration is thus very supportive, and represents the observations of a perceptive man over a period of 15 years. It adds weight to the conclusion that restoring the applicant's firearms licence would not create any discernible danger to public safety or to the peace.
In my view the behavioural and medical evidence as a whole leads to the conclusion that the applicant is a fit and proper person to have access to firearms, and I so find.
Other cases have pointed out that the question of risk is not to be viewed as requiring an applicant to discharge an almost impossible burden of proving a near-absolute negative, but in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97, [64] - [66] 66].
Thus, in Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110, [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that "In determining this issue it is my view that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account. Minimal, fanciful or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration". Risk to the public includes, of course, risk to the applicant himself: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117, [74].
As the respondent argued, the primary and overriding concern of the public interest in this context is the maintenance of public safety. Any real and appreciable risk to public safety cannot be outweighed by the applicant's interest in holding a firearms licence.
In the applicant's case, the respondent contended, his continued loss of memory over the past few years and increased outbursts and aggressive behaviour towards others causes concern and uncertainty with respect to his mental state. The fact that the occupational therapist supports the applicant holding a conditional driving license requiring 6-monthly reviews strongly suggests that there is a concern about his mental and physical health deteriorating to an extent where public safety may be placed at risk.
As against that, the applicant has no criminal offences or any instances of breaches of firearms regulations or safety practices. He has been a member of SSAA for 56 years and was at one time selected for the Olympic shooting team, an invitation he was unable to accept for other reasons. As a primary producer he has a good reason for possessing a firearm, and although private interest cannot prevail over the public interest in safety, there is a public interest in primary producers having access to long arms for the protection of the industry and the environment.
He has a combative attitude when he feels he is being treated unfairly and because of his deafness he often speaks too loudly and gives the impression of shouting. He can also be insulting and sarcastic. Professor Hawke thought his angry outbursts could be his response to particular stressors in his life to which he took exception (sometimes with good reason, as in the case of the irrigation pump), against the background of his underlying personality. As was noted above, Prof Hawke changed his view of the applicant's state following the results of the PET scan and now supports his holding a firearms licence.
The respondent cited Moroney, in which I ruled against an applicant with a medical and psychological history, but in that case there was a clear risk of relapse and there had been dissimulation of symptoms. In this case the evidence is that only about 40 percent of patients with the applicant's symptoms deteriorate significantly, and the process is slow. There has been no dissimulation of symptoms, indeed quite the contrary.
In Clay, which the respondent also cited, Isenberg SM declined to impose conditions on the grant of a licence on the ground that they were unworkable in that instance, and consequently ordered the issue of an unconditional licence.
My conclusion is therefore that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and that it would not be contrary to the public interest for him to do so, and I so find.