The applicant submitted that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms license, and that the decision of the Registrar is not the correct or preferable decision. He explained the circumstances of the prior incidents and his conviction to the Tribunal. The applicant submitted that he requires a firearms license to facilitate a gel blaster business at his caravan park and is otherwise a person of good character. Amongst other evidence, the applicant provided character references, work history, and his liquor licence in support of his application.

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

• Having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence due to:
  • The recency of the applicant's conduct;
  • The applicant's failure to learn from, or appreciate the seriousness of, previous cautions; and
  • The applicant's statements demonstrating a disregard for the security requirements of the Act.
• This is despite the fact that the applicant may generally be of good character.

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

Criminal Procedure Act 1921 s 5

Firearms Act 2015 ss 3, 7, 15, 20, 35

Firearms Regulations 2017 regs 4, 5, 8A

Sentencing Act 2017 s 24

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37

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

Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40

Collins v Registrar of Firearms [2022] SACAT 62

Fletcher v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCA TAD 357

Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51

King v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 67

Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd v Registrar of Firearms (No 4) [2016] SADC 154

Maslin v Registrar of Firearms [2024] SACAT 20

Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171

Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112

Registrar of Firearms v Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] SASCFC 72

Sobey v Commercial & Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70

Stephen Lionel Moignard [2023] SALC 66

SZW v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 51

Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

Ms Williamson, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared for the respondent in person

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 16 January 2025 to review a decision of the Registrar on 27 December 2024 to cancel the applicant's firearms licence.[1]
2. The issues for determination before the Tribunal include:

(a) Should the Tribunal rely on police camera footage and press releases?

(b) What, if anything, did the applicant do?

(c) Is the applicant a fit and proper person to possess a firearms licence under the Firearms Act 2015 (the Act)?

1. For the reasons that follow, in my view, the correct and preferrable decision is to affirm the decision of the Registrar.
2. This proceeding is in the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. The Tribunal's task is to examine the decision of the original decision-maker, giving appropriate weight to the original decision and to consider material before the original decision-maker and any new material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's role is to reach the correct and preferrable decision. The Tribunal's powers include to affirm, vary, or set aside the decision under review and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration.
3. Review proceedings are conducted with a minimum of formality. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it sees fit and must act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to legal technicalities and forms.

Should the Tribunal rely on police camera footage and press releases?

1. At the hearing on 17 July 2025, a preliminary issue arose as to whether I should listen to police interactions with the applicant from 2022. The applicant objected to the videos being played on the basis that they are not relevant. I rejected this submission and allowed the playing of the police camera footage at the hearing. I have placed weight on the recordings as providing context to the incidents in December 2022.
2. There was also a preliminary argument as to whether the Tribunal ought to place any weight on footnote 33 of the respondent's outline of argument, dated 15 July 2025. I have placed no weight on footnote 33 of the respondent's outline of argument, dated 15 July 2025 as it is a reference to a media article and I do not consider it evidence or relevant to my decision.

1. The applicant has had a firearms licence for many years. The applicant's firearms licence authorised the possession of category A firearms for the purpose of target shooting, hunting, paintball and primary production, category B firearms for the purpose of target shooting, hunting and primary production and category C firearms for the purpose of primary production.[2]
2. The applicant purchased 200 acres of land at Coonawarra Bush Holiday Park (CBHP) in 2007[3] and started a "glamping" business. Being an entrepreneur, the applicant was always looking for attractions for his caravan park and the applicant identified an opportunity to operate a gel blaster field at CBHP.
3. The applicant started a gel blaster business at his caravan park in approximately 2019. At this time, gel blasters were largely unregulated other than the law of negligence and insurance requirements. The applicant purchased equipment including gel blasters and ancillary equipment at a cost of approximately $30,000.[4]
4. However, in 2021, gel blasters were treated as firearms for the purposes of the Act. Gel blasters were declared to be firearms by amendment to reg 4 and reg 8A of the Firearms Regulations 2017 (Regulations) which commenced operation on 15 April 2021.[5]
5. After the law change in 2021, there was an initial amnesty to hand in gel blasters or register them. According to the applicant's evidence, the applicant contacted Alex Haines from South Australia Police and enquired as to what he needed to do. According to the applicant, Mr Haines told him he needed an inspection (that occurred in approximately October 2021), Environment Protection Authority approval and to pay a fee, Council approval and to pay a fee, a management plan, flags for the activities, medical facilities, and a corporate licence. The applicant complied with many of these steps including paying $1600 for a corporate licence. The applicant believed he would get his licence after two weeks however there was no response. The applicant accepts that there may have been delay due to COVID-19.
6. In the meantime, the applicant was given a direction by the South Australia Police Firearms Branch to keep his gel blasters secure at CBHP while his application to operate a gel blaster field was being processed.[6]
7. The cancellation of the applicant's firearms licence arose as a result of the following:[7]

(a) On 1 December 2022, police attended at CBHP and found four unsecured gel blasters which were seized;

(b) An adult caution was issued on 5 December 2022 to the applicant and the gel blasters were returned to the applicant. During the course of this visit, the applicant repeatedly referred to gel blasters as "toys", stated it did not matter because they did not work, stated "the whole thing is a crock of shit", stated "we haven't really done anything dangerous to anybody or anything wrong", and stated that he would call his manager Tina Yu (who does not have a licence under the Act) and tell her where the key to his gun safe was and ask her to lock the guns up;[8]

(c) On 15 December 2022, police attended at the CBHP and located six unsecured gel blasters. There were two gel blasters sitting on a bench in a hut and, in a nearby large shed, there were an additional four gel blasters on a chair near a gun safe.[9] Police seized the six unsecured gel blasters along with all other firearms owned by the applicant which were correctly stored as per legislative requirements. The applicant states that he had two gel blasters in his office for repair and the other gel blasters were insecure because he had not yet had a chance to put them in his safe.[10] During the course of the visit, the applicant referred to the gel blasters as "toys", and stated to police "it's crap and you know it", stated that he would leave his guns in his car until the next day when hunting and referred to the regulatory actions of police as a "huge waste of time" and "ridiculous";[11]

(d) The applicant was charged with having contravened a provision of the Code of Practice under the Regulations;

(e) The applicant appeared in the Mount Gambier Magistrates Court on 24 April 2023 and entered a guilty plea to the charge and was ordered to pay costs and placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months with no conviction recorded. According to the facts of charge, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of failure to comply with the code in relation to five unsecured gel blasters.[12]

1. By letter, dated 27 December 2024, the respondent cancelled the applicant's firearm licence on the basis that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.[13] The respondent's decision outlines the matters considered to be relevant, including:[14]

"On 1 December 2022 police attended your place of business Coonawarra Bush Holiday Park, Glenroy in relation to the operation of a gel blaster business without the appropriate permits or licences. On arrival police sighted signs advertising gel blasters for hire. Police also sighted four insecure gel blasters displayed in the public reception area. You did not and currently do not hold the appropriate approval to operate a gel blaster business. The four gel blasters on display were seized by police. > > The matter was dealt with by way of adult caution issued on 5 December 2022 and the seized gel blasters were returned to you. > > Police attended your place of business on 15 December 2022 and upon arrival sighted signs in the public reception area advertising gel blasters for hire. When spoken to you denied hiring gel blasters. Police located two insecure gel blasters in a hut and a further four gel blasters sitting on a chair next to your safe. You stated you put two gel blasters in your office to repair and the other four gel blasters were insecure because you hadn't had a chance to put them in your safe. Police seized your gel blasters and other firearms. You were reported for the offence of contravene a condition of the code of practice under section 35(3) of the Firearms Act. > > I note Sapol records indicate you were contacted by firearms branch via email on 21 May 2021 directing you to submit an application for a firearms dealers licence if you wished to buy, sell and repair gel blasters. A dealers application from ... was attached to that email. On 9 December 2021 a further email was sent to you regarding another matter. In that email you are asked to clarify if you intended to buy and sell gel blasters and reminded that a firearms dealer's licence would be required for those purposes. To date no application form for a firearm dealer's licence has been received at firearms branch from you ... > > On 24 April 2023, you appeared at Mount Gambier Magistrates Court and were required to pay costs and enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. No conviction was recorded against you ... > > On 12 January 2024, a solicitor's letter, character references and submissions were received at Firearms Branch. In that letter your solicitor suggests that "the offending was at the lower end of the scale and not that serious." > > Firearms security is a very serious matter. The Act imposes specific obligations on firearms licensees to secure their firearms in accordance with the Firearms Regulations. > > My overriding responsibility is to ensure public safety when authorising the possession and use of firearms. The Act requires strict and diligent compliance. The possession of firearms is a privilege and a serious responsibility. Holders of firearms licences must be carefully scrutinised to ensure they are of appropriate character to bear this responsibility. Your breaches of the Firearms Act and regulations and lack of applications for appropriate licences are incongruous with those of a responsible firearms owner. > > Having considered all information available to me, I am not satisfied you are a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and have decided to cancel your firearms licence forthwith."

2. I do place weight on the Registrar's original decision and acknowledge the considerable experience and expertise of the respondent in areas of law enforcement and public safety in relation to firearms.[15] Having said that, I have placed some reduced weight on the Registrar's decision. In my view, the Registrar somewhat unfairly focussed on allegations of the applicant running a gel blaster business without a licence seemingly relying on a sign at the CBHP advertising the gel boaster business. In my view, this was unfair reasoning as the applicant may have had the sign prior to the industry being regulated and there was no concrete evidence that he was running a gel blaster business without a licence when licences were required. Further, I have had more material available to me than the Registrar. For example, I have access to the police body worn camera footage, and tested evidence from the applicant while the Registrar did not. Further, there is evidence that the applicant did attempt to obtain a gel blaster business licence but that this process was delayed.
3. I do note other matters of concern regarding the applicant referred to in the Book of Documents, including driving whilst exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol,[16] and receiving a warning for driving whilst disqualified,[17] however, these matters are both from 2016 so some time ago. I further note a reference to the applicant being a disqualified person from managing a corporation from 2008 which is again, a concern from many years ago.[18] At no stage during this proceeding, including during the applicant's evidence, did the respondent suggest to the applicant that these matters are of relevance to his fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence. For this reason and the passage of time, I do not place weight on these matters.
4. There is a further allegation that the applicant is widely considered a dishonest person in the Penola community.[19] Again, at no stage during this proceeding, including during the applicant's evidence, did the respondent suggest to the applicant that this matter is of relevance to his fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence. For this reason and the hearsay nature of the allegation, I do not place weight on this allegation.
5. There is a further allegation that a child drowned at the CBHP.[20] Again, at no stage during this proceeding, including during the applicant's evidence, did the respondent suggest to the applicant that this matter is of relevance to his fitness and propriety to own a firearms licence. For this reason and the limited material before me to suggest that the applicant was at fault for this tragedy, I do not place weight on this allegation in the context of my decision.
6. I am reasonably satisfied based on the material before me that the applicant engaged in the following conduct that is relevant to his fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence:

(a) On 1 December 2022, four unsecured gel blasters were found at the applicant's property. There is no dispute that at the relevant time the law required that gel blasters be secured and that the applicant was the person responsible for securing the gel blasters. Although the applicant only received an adult caution, it appears a clear breach of the Act;

(b) On 5 December 2022, gel blasters were returned to the applicant. During the course of this visit, the applicant said he would call his manager Tina Yu (who does not have a licence under the Act) and tell her where the key to his gun safe was and ask her to lock guns up;[21]

(c) On 15 December 2022, five unsecured gel blasters were located at the applicant's property (I have found that there were five unsecured gel blasters not six, relying on the criminal court brief overview). There were gel blasters sitting on a bench in a hut and, in a nearby large shed, there were additional gel blasters on a chair near a gun safe.[22] During the course of the visit, the applicant stated that he would leave his guns in his car until the next day when hunting;[23]

(d) The applicant appeared in the Mount Gambier Magistrates Court on 24 April 2023 and entered a guilty plea to one charge of breach of the code and was ordered to pay costs and placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months with no conviction recorded. According to the facts of charge, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of failure to comply with the code in relation to five unsecured gel blasters.[24]

1. In this case, although there has been a proved offence against the code, it was common ground between the parties that it is not a 'prescribed offence' because it is a summary offence. The applicant was found guilty of a breach of the code of practice pursuant to s 35(3)(d) of the Act and the offence is classified as a category D. An offence under s 35(3)(d) is considered a summary offence pursuant to s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 because the maximum penalty includes imprisonment for two years or less. Having said that, the respondent submitted that the offence should have been classified as a category C offence due to the number of firearms in the applicant's possession. It is difficult for me to look behind the decision-making of the police particularly when evidence from the police was not called. I accept in this case that the offence of category D was proven and I do not place weight on the submission that the offence should have been classified as a category C offence.
2. A key point of contention in this case is that the applicant's conduct related to gel blasters not other types of firearms, such as a rifle. Mr Fabbro submitted that although gel blasters are considered firearms under the Act,[25] gel blasters are different to other firearms as they are recreational devices and they are non-lethal. Having said that, Mr Fabbro did acknowledge that gel blasters can cause injury particularly to the eyes and that safety goggles and protective clothing are required when using them. In my view, given Parliament has decided that gel blasters are included in the definition of firearms,[26] I must approach this matter acknowledging that gel blasters are firearms. Any laws that relate to the proper storage of firearms also apply to the proper storage of gel blasters. Having said that, in my view, it may be relevant to my discretion and considering the totality of the applicant's conduct to consider that the conduct occurred in relation to gel blasters and not other types of firearms.

Is the applicant a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence?

1. The Act enshrines among its underlying principles that firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and to improve public safety. The Supreme Court has observed that it is consistent with the regime that licence holders are carefully scrutinised to ensure they are of appropriate character to bear this privilege and serious responsibility.[27]
2. The Act provides that the imposition of strict controls on the possession and use of firearms is a fundamental principle intended to improve public safety.[28]
3. A ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application for a licence includes that the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.[29] The wording of that test is important: it does not require proof that a person is not fit and proper but requires the Registrar to not be satisfied that the person is fit and proper. Thus, the onus of demonstrating fitness and propriety is on the applicant.[30]
4. The expression "fit and proper" takes its meaning from its context.[31] Section 7 of the Act provides a non-exhaustive definition of fitness and propriety.[32] Relevantly, s 7(3) of the Act states that:

"A person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under the 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;

(b) Has been found guilty of an offence under this Act, the repealed Act or corresponding legislation of another State or Territory of the Commonwealth..."

1. In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act -[33]

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

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

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

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

(iv) Any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous responsible control over firearms,

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

1. In the case of Maslin v Registrar of Firearms [2024] SACAT 20 at [84], the Tribunal said, "fitness and propriety are at the heart of the central purposes of the Act in terms of the overriding need to ensure and improve public safety".
2. 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 who is or will be engaging in these activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur.[34]
3. The applicant will only meet the test of being a fit and proper person under the Act if the Tribunal is satisfied that he can be trusted to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a licensed person in a manner consistent with the overriding need to ensure public safety.[35]
4. In terms of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, in the applicant's favour, I acknowledge and place weight on positive character references he has provided to the Tribunal, his work history, business grants received, early plea of guilty and evidence he provided to the Tribunal explaining the nature of his criminal offending.
5. The applicant has provided three character references from friends and colleagues that attest to his good character, one of which refers to his suitability to own a firearm.[36] There are references from:
   • Chantelle Francis, dated 27 October 2023. Ms Francis states that she has known the applicant for 14 years in both business and social environments. Over the course of this association, Ms Francis has found the applicant trustworthy and of good character. Ms Francis says that the applicant has supported her family in many ways;
   • John Cyril Dohnt, dated 26 October 2023. Mr Dohnt states as a Christian minister and preacher, he can confidently say that the applicant is of good character having known him, worked with him and socialised with him closely over the past several years; and
   • Trevor McGrath, dated 26 October 2023. Mr McGrath states that he has known the applicant in various capacities over five years. Mr McGrath states that he believes he is of good character and is a fit and proper person to own firearms.
6. The respondent submits that the Tribunal should place little, if any, weight on these character references. The respondent submits they have limited relevance on the applicant's fitness and propriety in the context of the Act and the required risk assessment and it is not clear that the referees are aware of the applicant's contravention of the Act.[37] I acknowledge this submission. However, all of the references have been provided by people who have known the applicant for some years and, in the case of Mr McGrath, directly addresses the issue of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to own firearms. Further, I place weight on the character references as relevant to considering the applicant's reputation, honesty and integrity.[38] However, I place some reduced weight given that the character references are personal references and are, therefore, not an independent assessment and, further, the referees presumably did not have access to all the material available to me.
7. I also place positive weight on the applicant's work history. In summary, the applicant has a Bachelor of Laws with Honours, Bachelor of Arts, postgraduate Diploma in Business Information Technology and post graduate diploma in legal practice and ethics. He has also received a number of academic achievements and prizes and completed an honours thesis. Further, he has been president of the law student society and has published works. He is a member of several professional associations and has founded many entities as an entrepreneur.
8. I also acknowledge and place weight on a successful grant application for the purpose of contributing to nature-based tourism and conservation in South Australia,[39] a successful application to the Federal Government's Caravan Park Infrastructure Grant[40] and an award for best dog-friendly holiday park 2023.[41]
9. Having said that, successfully completing degrees, obtaining prizes and grants and publishing works does not necessarily translate to fitness and propriety in the context of this Act. The key consideration for me is public safety.
10. I also acknowledge in the applicant's favour that he is considered a fit and proper person in the context of liquor licencing. However, in my view, being a fit and proper person in the context of a liquor licence is different to being a fit and proper person in the context of the Act. Further, although I have considered the decision of his Honour Judge Gilchrist on 27 July 2023 at the Licensing Court of South Australia, it is clear from that decision that had the applicant been applying for approval as of 27 July 2023 he would not be deemed to be a fit and proper person. Further, his Honour Judge Gilchrist did determine to revoke the applicant's ongoing approval and substitute it with an interim approval for 12 months.[42]
11. I also place weight on the applicant's tested evidence before me. The applicant acknowledged that he disagreed with the law change in 2021 and was personally negatively affected by the change of law financially. In this context, he was frustrated with the change of law and the police response which he felt was heavy handed and authoritarian. The applicant told me he never had any issues with his licence relating to firearms other than gel blasters. Further, many of the applicant's gel blasters were correctly stored in December 2022. Further, the applicant gave evidence that the gel blasters that were not properly secured were not in working order and, therefore, were not a risk to the public. However, even accepting this evidence, in my view, there is no discretion in the law and, even if a gel blaster is not in working condition, it needs to be stored properly. Having said that, the circumstances were clearly unusual whereby the applicant was conducting a business in an unregulated fashion, the rules changed, the applicant attempted to obtain a licence but there were delays. The applicant was clearly frustrated at his predicament and loss of money and in that context did not comply with the Act. The applicant gave evidence before me that all of his issues with his licence arose from trying to conduct a gel blaster business and he undertakes not to take a gel blaster business in the future. Therefore, the applicant's undertaking is relevant to reducing risk to the public in the future. The applicant informed me that he made a mistake and he will not repeat his mistake. The difficulty I have with this evidence is that he did repeat his mistake. He made a mistake in early December 2022 (by not properly securing his gel blasters), was provided with an adult caution and then made the same mistake ten days later that resulted in a criminal offence.
12. I also place weight on the applicant having his licence since 2010 and, aside from 2022, he has had no issues with his licence. The applicant gave evidence, and I accept, that he had shotguns and two rifles that were licenced and kept in a gun safe. He uses these firearms to deal with problem foxes. He has been audited approximately once per year with no issues.
13. In relation to the s 7(4) factors, I do not consider there is a risk of:

(a) the applicant using a firearm for an unlawful purpose;

(b) the applicant using a firearm to harm himself;

(c) the applicant causing injury or harm to another by the use or threatened use of a firearm.

1. I consider the following matters suggest that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence:

(a) both ss 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) of the Act are met, namely, the applicant has not complied with the requirements of the Act in relation to the safe storage of firearms and has been found guilty of an offence under the Act. These matters are directly relevant to fitness and propriety. Having said that, I still retain discretion in relation to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person in the context of the Act even though ss 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) are met. In this way, as part of my discretion, it is relevant to consider the circumstances of the breach of ss 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b). I accept that the breaches were serious because they were not one off (they occurred on 5 December 2022 and 15 December 2022), there was more than one firearm unproperly stored, on 15 December 2022 there were two gel blasters not locked away at all (in other words, members of the public could have had access) and the applicant received a caution but still engaged in the conduct. Further, the conduct was deliberate. However, I also note there was no conviction recorded. Further, the applicant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and was sentenced to a twelve month good behaviour bond that was not breached. Further, the conduct occurred in relation to gel blasters not other types of firearms. I accept there is less risk to the public with an unsecured gel blaster than an unsecured rifle or shot gun. Further, post-conviction, there is no suggestion of the applicant having an unlicensed firearm, including gel blasters. However, the applicant admitted in evidence that the storage of his gel blasters was not the highest priority and he was distracted with bushfire prevention given the time of the year, being December, which is his busiest time of the year. He admitted that he had too much on his shoulders and failed. I find that the applicant's conduct on 5 December 2022 and 15 December 2022 was deliberate. It was not a mistake. It was not trivial. It was not the applicant's priority and he did not comply with the Act. Given the applicant did not have a conviction recorded, Mr Fabbro submitted I must therefore be satisfied that the Magistrate that imposed the sentence was satisfied of the requirements of s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017. I accept that submissions, however, I would note that the Magistrate sentencing the applicant has a different role from deciding fitness and propriety under the Act. Further, although the Magistrate needed to be satisfied that the applicant is unlikely to commit such an offence again in order to not record a conviction, the Magistrate needed only to be satisfied that good reasons existed for not recording a conviction having regarding to the character, antecedents, age, or physical or mental condition of the defendant; or the fact that the offence was trifling; or any other extenuating circumstances. It cannot be said with certainty, therefore, that the Magistrate was satisfied of all of the factors in s 24(b)(i)-(iii) of the Sentencing Act 2017, only that the Magistrate was satisfied with one of those factors;

(b) the applicant was clearly put on notice regarding his non-compliance with the Act when issued with a caution by police on 5 December 2022. The applicant's failure to secure the gel blasters in accordance with the Act by the time police returned 10 days later on 15 December 2022 demonstrates that the applicant did not prioritise compliance with the Act.[43] Although I acknowledge and place weight on the applicant's evidence that the gel blasters were not working and he moved the gel blasters that were on display near his safe, the Act mandates that they are still properly stored. Further, it is concerning that the applicant admits that two of the gel blasters were in the clubroom and the clubroom was not locked. When I questioned him about this in evidence as to whether he forgot to lock the room or it was a deliberate, the applicant admitted that he was trying to "cut a corner" and did not have time to lock the room and he should have locked it and normally it is locked. In my view, a person trying to "cut a corner" when it comes to firearms safety, is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence;

(c) the respondent is further concerned about the following statements made by the applicant, that he would leave his guns in his car until the next day when hunting and that he would call his manager (who did not have a firearms licence) and tell her where the key to his gun safe was and ask her to lock guns up.[44] The respondent submits these statements are a cause for significant concern given that the actions would represent serious breaches of the Act, if they occurred.[45] The respondent submits "At the very least, both statements above are indicative of an ignorance of, or disregard for, the security requirements of the Act, and a failure to consider the safety of the public as a licensee, noting that the firearms were held in a public location, being a caravan park, where children and families are likely to be present".[46] I have placed weight on this submission however also acknowledge clarifying evidence from the applicant that he would only tell management in an emergency situation where the keys to his safe were and he kept his guns in his car overnight when his car broke down.

1. In relation to s 7(4) of the Act, because of the applicant's past behaviour, in failing to properly store firearms on two occasions and making statements that are indicative of a disregard for, the security requirements of the Act and by the Applicant trying to "cut a corner", I do consider there is a risk of the applicant failing to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm by failing to store firearms properly.
2. The respondent submits that the applicant's "Careless and cavalier attitude towards compliance with the act is amply demonstrated by his conduct, statements and demeanour during police visits on 5 December 2022 and 15 December 2022".[47] I accept that the applicant was frustrated and rude to police on 5 December 2022 and 15 December 2022. I also accept that the applicant's comment about providing his manager with the key to the safe and having his gun overnight in his car is concerning. On the other hand, the applicant expressed his disagreement with the law and the way he was treated but, after close examination of the video footage, in the main, I find he was cooperative with the police. For example, on 15 December 2022, the applicant went to the shed and showed the police the unsecured gel blasters in the shed. Further, the applicant said to police that he is a responsible owner and treasures his licence. At least one of the police officers that attended clearly understood the applicant's frustration and did not take issue with it.
3. Further, the applicant gave evidence that he was a founding member of the gel blaster association and considered that protective clothing and eye glasses were essential prior to using gel blasters. Further, the applicant was clearly taking steps to obtain a gel blaster business licence. All these things suggest to me that although the conduct was deliberate and a serious breach, the applicant did cooperate with police and did not have a general careless and cavalier attitude towards compliance with the Act.
4. The respondent submits that "The Applicant's conduct as shown in the body worn video taken during police visits strongly suggests that he is of the view that gel blasters are "toys" and therefore compliance with the requirements of the Act in relation to the storage and security of gel blasters is unnecessary".[48] I accept that the applicant considers that gel blasters are toys. Indeed, he gave evidence before me during the hearing that he still considers them as toys. The applicant says he considers them toys because they can be purchased from the toy section of eBay and there has been no serious injury to a person due to gel blasters. The applicant gave evidence that he takes a very different view to what he calls "real" firearms, for example, shot guns and rifles. He acknowledges that these are deadly and no one can be near them. Clearly, gel blasters are considered firearms under the Act and that is how they must be treated. Further, toys are specifically excluded from the definition of firearms in the Act.[49] Toys are defined as excluding gel blasters in the Act.[50] However, in my view, the fact alone that the applicant considers gel blasters as toys is not relevant to my decision. In my view, it is irrelevant to fitness and propriety whether a person agrees or disagrees with the law. It would be a dangerous precedent indeed to determine fitness and propriety based on a person's agreement or otherwise with the Government and laws of the day. What is relevant to fitness and propriety is whether a person will comply with the law despite their agreement or disagreement with the law. I accept the submission of the respondent that regardless of the applicant's attitude towards the seriousness or otherwise of his offending, the applicant has a statutory obligation to comply with the Act.[51]
5. The applicant submits that the cancellation of his licence has placed him in a difficult and challenging position.[52] I acknowledge this, but firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.[53] In my view, the financial impact on the applicant is of little relevance in the test before the Tribunal. I also consider that the applicant's desire to obtain the necessary licences and approvals to handle explosives[54] is of little relevance. I have also considered that the applicant requires his firearms for vermin control, however, this must be balanced with the principles and objects of the Act that firearms possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.
6. The applicant submitted that the offending in this matter did not represent a substantial risk to the public.[55] That may be so but I do not need to be satisfied there is a substantial risk to the public in order for the applicant to have his licence cancelled. I also understand and accept that I do not need to be satisfied that there is no risk to the public in order for the applicant to have a firearms licence. In Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 at [27]- [28], Deputy President Hennessy said in terms of a similar scheme in New South Wales that in terms of public safety: "... The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that Mr Ward would not pose a risk to public safety if he had access to firearms. The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk." It is difficult for me to say with certainty what risk there is. I accept that risk may be reduced given the applicant's undertaking not to engage in a gel blaster business. I also accept that the Magistrate that sentenced the applicant was satisfied that the applicant is unlikely to commit such an offence again in order to not record a conviction and I place weight on this. However, there is no risk assessment before me in relation to the applicant and the applicant did not learn from the caution. Given the offending conduct was deliberate and occurred despite an adult caution, and the recency of the conduct, and the applicant making statements that are indicative of a disregard for, the security requirements of the Act and by the applicant trying to "cut a corner", I consider there is a real and appreciable risk that the applicant would not comply with storage requirements if the applicant's licence were to be restored. Storage requirements are directly linked to public safety. Any continuing risk to the public in keeping a licence is a very material consideration.[56]
7. The applicant relied on the case of Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd v Registrar of Firearms (No 4) [2016] SADC 154 whereby the Registrar's decision to cancel a licence was overturned. In that case, at [18] express findings were made that in the case of 12 firearms, appropriate records of movement were not completed and that three were found in the possession of unauthorised persons. However, in my view, the Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd v Registrar of Firearms (No 4) [2016] SADC 154 case can be distinguished from the facts of this case. In the Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd v Registrar of Firearms (No 4) [2016] SADC 154 case, the risk to the public was high however an employee was believed to be responsible for taking the missing firearms, a good deal of which was outside Mr Marksman's effective control, and therefore Mr Marksman had reduced culpability. Further, there was an improved system of compliance in place and there had been some years since there were issues of concern.
8. The applicant also relied on the case of Collins v Registrar of Firearms [2022] SACAT 62 whereby the Tribunal overturned a decision of the Registrar to cancel the applicant's firearms licence. However, the facts in that case were also very different to this case. In that case, there was reliance on the applicant using methamphetamine when the medical reports and toxicology reports suggested he was not. Further, there was a concern that the applicant had an association with a former bikie gang member. The Tribunal did not accept that there was a sinister or inappropriate association between the applicant and the former bikie gang member.
9. The applicant also relied on the case of Fletcher v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCA TAD 357 whereby the Tribunal overturned a decision of the Registrar to cancel the applicant's firearms licence. Again, the facts of that case are different to this case. In that case, the applicant had no criminal history and the Registrar was concerned about the applicant's brother residing in the home. The applicant's brother was subject to an apprehended violence order. Similar to this case, there was a concern that when police came to the applicant's home to seize his firearms (due to his brother residing in the home) and on other occasions that the applicant was confrontational, hostile, uncooperative, aggressive, or belligerent to police. The Tribunal rejected the submission that the applicant was confrontational, hostile, uncooperative, aggressive, or belligerent to police. However, I find the applicant's conduct in the case of Fletcher v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCA TAD 357 less serious than this case. In the case of Fletcher v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCA TAD 357, there was no criminal conduct by the applicant and the main concerns related to his brother.
10. The applicant also relied on the case of King v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 67 whereby the Tribunal overturned a decision of the Registrar to cancel the applicant's firearms licence. In that case, the sole reason for the decision to affirm the revocation and refusal was a safe storage offence. In that case, the Tribunal found that Mr King made a mistake, either negligently or deliberately. However, unlike this case, there was one incident of concern, not two.
11. The applicant also relied on the case of Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40 whereby the Tribunal upheld a cancellation of licence and said that case was more serious than the case currently before the Tribunal. I accept that submission but each case much be considered on its merits.
12. This is a difficult case. On the one hand, the applicant has provided character references that he is a person of general good character. There is no evidence that the applicant has ever physically harmed others and there is no evidence he has had any issues with his licence other than in 2022 relating to gel blasters. Further, the applicant undertook not to engage in a gel blaster business and said he needs his licence for his business and vermin control. On the other hand, the applicant has a relevant finding of guilt relating to a breach of the code. Further, the applicant failed to learn from an adult caution ten days prior to his criminal conduct. Further, I am reasonably satisfied that the criminal conduct was deliberate. This means, despite the adult caution he received some days earlier, the applicant deliberately failed to correctly store his gel blasters. Further, the conduct is relevantly recent being from 2022. Further, the applicant has made some concerning statements that are indicative of a disregard for, the security requirements of the Act.
13. After considering the totality of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person in the context of this scheme. I accept that the applicant may generally be of good character but I am concerned about the applicant's failure to appreciate the seriousness of his adult caution and to comply with the law on two occasions. When I questioned the applicant about not learning from the caution, the applicant admitted he was "lazy", it was a busy time of year and at the time he did not consider it serious. Further, I am concerned that the incident is relatively recent, being from December 2022. It is not a right to possess a licence, it is a privilege. The onus is on the applicant to establish fitness and propriety and I am not so satisfied.
14. I have considered as part of my discretion that the conduct related to gel blasters not other types of firearms and that the applicant has given an undertaking not to engage in a gel blaster business. However, I am concerned about the applicant's failure to engage with storage requirements on two occasions and relating to multiple gel blasters. I also consider it relevant to consider that there are many members of the public at the CBHP. As the applicant acknowledged in evidence, he must be particularly cautious as there are members of the public at the CBHP.
15. I have also had regard to the applicant's evidence. Mr Fabbro submitted that the applicant gave candid evidence that was honest. Mr Fabbro submitted that when the applicant says he understands the regulations, I should accept his evidence. I accept this submission. However, I am also of the view that the applicant understood the law at the time of the criminal conduct, particularly given his law degree and, despite that, he did not comply. Therefore, it is not of particular comfort that the applicant understands the law.
16. Having regard to the protective character of the Act, and its primary purpose of protecting the safety of the community and minimising the risk to public safety, in my view, the correct and preferrable decision is the cancellation of the applicant's licence and that the decision of the respondent should be affirmed.[57]
17. I understand the applicant will be disappointed by my decision. I do have some sympathy for the applicant given the changes to the law and his loss of money due to the changes. My decision is not to punish the applicant and it may be he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence in the future. However, due to the recency of the conduct and his failure to learn from the caution, as well as his statements that are indicative of a disregard for, the security requirements of the Act, I am not satisfied he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

1. The Registrar's decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence pursuant to s 20(6) of the Firearms Act is affirmed.

[1] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 1; Book of Documents, page 7.

[2] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 6; Book of Documents, pages 25-26.

[3] Applicant's Outline of Argument, undated, paragraph 3.

[4] Letter from ASW Lawyers Pty Ltd to South Australian Police Firearms Branch, dated 12 January 2024, page 1.

[5] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 32.

[6] Letter from ASW Lawyers Pty Ltd to South Australian Police Firearms Branch, dated 12 January 2024, page 1; Book of Documents, page 95.

[7] Applicant's Outline of Argument, undated, paragraph 2.

[8] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 12; Body Worn Video, 5 December 2022; Book of Documents, page 13.

[9] Letter from ASW Lawyers Pty Ltd to South Australian Police Firearms Branch, dated 12 January 2024, page 1.

[10] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 13; Body Worn Video, 15 December 2022.

[11] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 13; Body Worn Video, 15 December 2022

[12] Book of Documents, pages 20 and 21.

[13] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 16; Applicant's Outline of Argument, undated, paragraph 1; Book of Documents, page 7.

[15] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 5.

[21] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 12; Body Worn Video, 5 December 2022; Book of Documents, page 13.

[22] Letter from ASW Lawyers Pty Ltd to South Australian Police Firearms Branch, dated 12 January 2024, page 1.

[23] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 13; Body Worn Video, 15 December 2022.

[24] Book of Documents, pages 20 and 21.

[25] Firearms Regulations 2017 regulation 4.

[26] Firearms Regulations 2017 regulation 4.

[27] Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112 (David J) at [21]; Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171 at [8]- [12]; Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51 (Gray J).

[28] Firearms Act 2015 section 3(1)(b)(i).

[29] Firearms Act 2015 section 15(1)(b).

[30] SZW v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 51 at [50].

[31] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 (per Toohey and Gaudron JJ).

[32] Section 7(7) of the Firearms Act.

[33] Section 7(4) of the Firearms Act.

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

[35] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 2; Sobey v Commercial & Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70; per Walters J at page 74-75.

[36] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 43; Book of Documents, pages 65-67.

[37] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 44.

[38] Section 7(4)(a) of the Act.

[39] Letter from then David Speirs MP, dated 21 October 2021.

[40] Letter from Caravan Industry Association Australia, dated 5 June 2023.

[41] Email from Ms Cooper, dated 24 July 2023.

[42] Stephen Lionel Moignard [2023] SALC 66.

[43] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 36.

[44] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 37.

[45] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 37.

[46] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 38.

[47] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 31.

[48] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 31.

[49] Firearms Regulations 2017, regulation 5.

[50] Firearms Regulations 2017, regulation 5.

[51] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 35.

[52] Applicant's Outline of Argument, undated, paragraph 11.

[53] Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.

[54] Applicant's Outline of Argument, undated, paragraph 14

[55] Applicant's Outline of Argument, undated, paragraph 11.

[56] Registrar of Firearms v Marksman Training Systems Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] SASCFC 72 at [236].

[57] Respondent's Outline of Argument, dated 15 July 2025, paragraph 2.