Parish v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force

Reasons for decision

1. The applicant Mr Brendan Parish, of the Tamworth district in New South Wales, applied to this tribunal on 30 October 2024 for review of a decision by the respondent Commissioner on 27 September 2024 to revoke his category AB firearms licence.
2. The applicant had held the licence in New South Wales for approximately two years before it was suspended on 7 August 2024. On 28 March 2024 police had attended his residence to perform a safe storage inspection and, having completed it, requested permission from the applicant to search the property. During the search police located five cannabis plants being cultivated in his backyard, with further dried cannabis leaf being found in his residence. He was at all times compliant and cooperative with police and made admissions to ownership of the items and to having grown the plants from seed for personal use.
3. He was subsequently charged with possessing a prohibited drug and cultivating a prohibited plant - small quantity - and was made subject to a 12-month conditional release order (CRO) commencing on 13 May 2024 and concluding on 12 May 2025, no conviction being recorded. Through his legal representative he applied on 28 August 2024 for an internal review of the revocation decision dated 28 March 2024. The review affirmed the revocation decision on 27 September 2024.
4. The applicant applied to this tribunal for administrative review of the revocation decision on 30 October 2024 and the matter came on for hearing on 30 January 2025, the applicant appearing by AVL.

Applicable legislation

1. Section 11(5)(d)(iii) of the Firearms Act relevantly provides that a licence must not be issued to a person who: (d) is subject to one of the following in relation to an offence prescribed by the regulations - …. (iii) a conditional release order imposed in New South Wales….
2. Section 24(2) of the Firearms Act establishes a broad discretion to revoke a licence: (2) A licence may be revoked - (a) for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind, or ….. (d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations.
3. Clause 5(3)(b) of the Regulation provides that the following offences are prescribed: Persons subject to community correction orders or conditional release orders For the purposes of sections 11(5)(d) and 29(3)(d) of the Act, the following offences are prescribed in respect of a person subject to a community correction order or a conditional release order - …. (b) An offence in respect of a prohibited plant or prohibited drug within the meaning of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 or a prescribed restricted substance within the meaning of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008.
4. Clause 20 of the Regulation also provides that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if "satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence".
5. Under s 8E of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (Cth) a person may apply for a medical cannabis licence that authorizes him or her to cultivate cannabis plants for personal use.
6. The issue in the present application is thus whether the discretion in s 24(2) of the Firearms Act should be exercised so as to affirm the revocation decision or to set it aside.

Mr Brendan Parish (applicant)

1. In oral evidence at the hearing the applicant adopted his affidavit dated 4 December 2024 (exhibit A1) in which he deposed inter alia that he grew up on a country property outside Gloucester. He moved to Sydney at the age of 16 to work in the automotive industry. He is still actively working in that field today and is regarded as one of the best in the trade.
2. During his younger years he had little or no parental guidance, which contributed to some poor choices and ultimately led to driving infringements that he regrets. However those experiences shaped him into a responsible adult, and he has since committed himself to personal growth. Now he is a single parent with 50 percent shared custody of his two young children, and owns his own home, subject to a mortgage. His last traffic infringement was in 2016.
3. Recently he faced charges related to possessing cannabis for personal use, which he utilised to manage chronic back pain resulting from a significant injury he sustained at the age of 16. His MRI results confirm that he has a more than 50 percent herniated disc with a tear.
4. When the police conducted a safe storage inspection at his residence, everything was found to be in order. When he was asked about the cannabis plants in his backyard, he was very compliant and helpful, providing police with the information they required. The plants were seized and the applicant subsequently obtained an authorized medical certificate for a medical prescription, allowing him to use legal cannabis to manage his chronic back pain. Currently he uses CBD oil only, which contains no THC. He does not use the CBD oil before, or during, use of firearms.
5. Additionally, he has always been conscientious when utilising the real property owned by Amanda and Michael Hart for activities such as camping and motorbike riding with his two young children, as well as pest control for the wild pigs and dogs that threaten their land. He maintains a good relationship with his neighbours and with Jim and Kerry, the property owners adjacent to Amanda and Michael Hart.
6. The applicant also adopted a further affidavit, dated 6 December 2024 (exhibit A2) in which he refers to the internal review's being dissatisfied with the information in support of Bruce Donnelly, barrister's, submission that he had been prescribed medical marijuana at the date of the offence, as the documentation did not record his being a patient at Alternaleaf Pty Ltd, of Melbourne, earlier than 15 March 2024.

Mr Michael Hart

1. The applicant also relied on the evidence of Mr Michael Hart, the landholder who provided him with access and permission to use firearms on his property. In his statement dated 4 December 2024 (exhibit A4) he attests to the applicant's character and honesty. He had been scrupulously courteous to Mr Hart and other persons and attentive to his responsibilities as a parent and neighbour. Mr Hart is aware of the applicant's upbringing and earlier life and understands that such behaviour is relevant to immaturity and youth, not to his character or lack of judgment and capacity. He is also aware of his physical issues and the use of medications to manage that condition. He holds no concerns with respect to those older matters or otherwise, nor does he believe that the applicant has sought to deceive or dissemble with respect to them, but has been forthright in acknowledging all these issues.
2. The basis of Mr Hart's view and assessment is that he has worked in Commonwealth and state legal organizations at a senior level and has wide and extensive experience in dealing with such matters. He has known the applicant for several years, and having involvement with him as a neighbour and socially he has been able to observe his character and behaviour as a member of the local community, as well as his conduct and activities as a parent and working member of the local automotive repair industry. He has found him always to be honest and diligent and has observed no character or behavioural issues that would give him ground to consider him otherwise than a law-abiding and hard-working member of the community.
3. On that basis he allowed the applicant to undertake activities involving the use of firearms for both recreational and pest/vermin eradication on their rural property at Bendemeer. In addition to his extensive legal experience, Mr Hart also held firearms training and accreditation through his work in law enforcement. He chooses not to own firearms or to use them.
4. In his view the applicant poses no threat, nor foreseeably would he engage in conduct or activities contrary to the spirit of the firearms legislation. He is aware that the applicant has always complied with relevant laws in a sensible and dutiful manner. He has seen no behaviour or issues that would indicate otherwise. He would approve the applicant being able to continue to exercise the privileges of a firearms licence on his property, and would like the tribunal to note that the applicant also provides a necessary service to them in eradicating and dealing with noxious and dangerous feral pests.

Sergeant Matthew Peet

1. The respondent chiefly relied on the documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibit R1), but in addition adduced evidence from Sergeant Matthew Peet, who in his statement dated 20 December 2024 (exhibit R2) explained that he is trained in cannabis identification. At the time of the events in question he was working from Tamworth police station.
2. On the morning of 28 March 2024, Sgt Peet examined what he was told were five cannabis plants from Mr Brendan Parish's property and which was said to belong to him. For cannabis identification, the plant needs to be in its full form, meaning it needs to have its roots still attached. He understands that police seized the plants by digging each one out of the ground, ensuring that the roots were intact.
3. He examined the plants to identify features unique to cannabis plants, and observed those identifying features on the plants, including their roots. He then concluded that the plants were in fact cannabis plants. The tallest plant was about 3.1 m tall, which is quite large for a cannabis plant. He thought the largest plant had the appearance of a tree. It had distinguished branches that he would describe as trunks. Where he would normally be able to snap the branches of a cannabis plant to identify, he needed a saw to cut through the branches of this particular plant. He had never examined a cannabis plant with a trunk or branch as thick as those of Mr Parish's.
4. The plants were healthy and well looked after. They had lots of leaf and lots of cannabis heads on them. Even the smallest plant retrieved from the property was very bushy. "Mr Parish would have had to spend a substantial amount of time tending to these plants. For them to reach this level of health". The plants, particularly the largest one, would need to have been growing for years to be so established. Two of the plants also had some cuttings from them.
5. Sgt Peet understands that the applicant asserts that the plants were for personal use related to his back pain. But a person would not require five plants of that size to treat back pain. It would be physically impossible for one person to consume all of the cannabis on those plants. An average cannabis plant is about 1 m tall, if culled and dried it would produce about 500 g of cannabis, which would make about 1000 joints. Five plants of about 1 m would produce about 5000 joints or 2.5 kg of cannabis. The plants he examined were well above the average size and were very bushy. They would have produced much more than 1000 joints per plant, which is much more than would be used for personal use. If Mr Parrish had been growing the plants merely for personal use he would have probably grown a maximum of two small plants.

Respondent's submissions

1. The respondent relied on written submissions (exhibit R4) which, after setting out the background of the case and outlining the applicable law, acknowledged that the revocation power in s 24(2)(a) of the Act in relation to a prescribed offence is discretionary, but stressed that the Appeal Panel in Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Hogan [2024] NSWCATAP 77 had emphasized that in such a case there must be some feature of the circumstances that justifies the position that the licensee should retain the licence until its expiry. That justification would not be present merely because the offence was a first offence or because the person had a history of compliance with the Act.
2. The public interest ground was broad enough to capture considerations similar to those in s 11(5)(d)(iii) and could consequently have regard to a wide range of factors determining the public interest. The tribunal was required to look at the applicant's conduct as a whole, using the past conduct of the applicant is a significant guide: Saxby v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 265, [95], Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 156, [141].
3. The applicant's personal interest in having a licence could not outweigh the public interest. The public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm. The Appeal Panel had pointed out that the tribunal must consider all relevant matters and give "proper, genuine and realistic" consideration to each of the relevant matters: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Lee [2016] NSWCATAP 234, [24] - [25]: "The purpose of the firearms legislation is clear from the statutory principles and objects of the Firearms Act. The possession and use of firearms is subject to the 'overriding need to ensure public safety' ".
4. In oral submissions at the hearing Ms Moses submitted that this was a relatively simple matter, as it was clear that a person subject to a CRO could not be issued with a licence (s 11(5)(d)(iii)) and consequently there was a discretion to revoke an existing licence on that ground. Further, under s 11(5)(b) a person convicted of an offence prescribed by the regulations within 10 years was also ineligible to be issued with a licence. Drug offences were prescribed offences for these purposes: cl 5(b).

Further submissions after the hearing

1. After the hearing, on 6 February 2025, the respondent sought to draw the tribunal's attention to a tribunal decision delivered on 12 December 2024, which for credible reasons had not been available to the respondent at the hearing: Parkes v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 390. The respondent said there was no intention to make any submissions in relation to that decision, but simply sought to draw the tribunal's attention to the decision, which was publicly available, so that the tribunal would be aware of all recent relevant cases before making its decision.
2. I agreed to consider the case, over the applicant's objection, but invited the applicant to lodge short written submissions on the case, which he did on 7 February. Then on 10 February the respondent sought to make submissions in reply to the applicant's short contentions of 7 February. Leave was granted and the supplementary submissions are outlined below.

Consideration

1. 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.
2. The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

The discretion

1. The respondent's first basis for submitting that the revocation decision should be affirmed is that the applicant on 13 May 2024 was found guilty of one count of possessing a prohibited drug under s 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and one count of cultivating a small quantity of a prohibited plant, within the meaning of s 23(1)(A) of that Act: event report E 7061448, fact sheet H80754849 (part exhibit R1).
2. Clause 5(1)(b) of the Regulation declares offences relating to prohibited drugs to be prescribed offences within the meaning of s 11(5), thereby engaging the mandatory refusal provisions in s 11(5)(d)(iii). The applicant was made subject to a CRO taking effect on 13 May 2024 and expiring on 12 May 2025 (exhibit A2, p 19). That brought him within the operation of s 24(2)(a) of the Act.
3. A person bound by a CRO for an offence prescribed by the regulations who applies for a firearms licence is thus subject to the mandatory refusal provision in s 11(5)(d)(iii). Consequently, on 13 May 2024 the applicant's licence became subject to the discretionary revocation power in s 24(2), which provides that a licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind. That power was exercised by the respondent's revocation of the applicant's category AB licence on 7 August 2024, affirmed following an internal review on 27 September 2024.
4. The question then becomes whether the discretion in s 24(2) should be exercised in favour of affirming or of setting aside the revocation decision. In that connexion the respondent relied on the decision in Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v Hogan [2024] NSWCATAP 77, in which the Appeal Panel had this to say: 54 [T]he discretion is to be exercised in such a fashion that promotes the objects of the Act and that where a licensee is not eligible for a fresh licence, because, for instance, they have been convicted for a firearms offence, there must be some feature of the circumstances that justifies the position that the licensee should retain their licence until its expiry. 55 The Appeal Panel is satisfied that the Act calls for some circumstance, or justification to not treat a relevant conviction as the basis for revocation. That justification would not be present merely because the offence was a first offence or because the person had a history of compliance with the Act. To do so would be akin to giving every licensee a single opportunity to breach the conditions of the licence or the Act. Given the purpose of the Act is to protect the public, that would not promote its objects. Something more must be engaged before the privilege of maintaining a licence would be extended to someone who is no longer eligible to hold a licence. There must be some clear basis to justify the continuation of a licensee's licence, in circumstances where the Act is clear that that person is ineligible to obtain a licence. In Uzelac v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 226 at [19] Hennessy DP set out various factors that might be significant. Some may be more applicable than others, depending on the circumstances, and these may not be the only matters. 56 Further, for the reason that a licence may be revoked where the person is ineligible to obtain a new licence (as is the case here), it is not sufficient justification, for the maintenance of the privilege, that they satisfy other tests for being a licensee such as the fit and proper person test or that it would not be against the public interest. The architecture of the provisions indicates that being ineligible for a new licence, of itself, is sufficient for the appellant to revoke the licence. Therefore, there must be some justification for not regarding the conviction as sufficient basis for revocation. 57 Here, the Tribunal found the requisite justification in the fact of the respondent's history of compliance and that the offence appeared to the Tribunal to be a single incident and that the respondent did not have a practice of storing the firearms in a manner contrary to the Act. This last-mentioned matter was in part due to the Tribunal's finding that there was no practice of storing loaded firearms and is discussed further under Ground 4. Nevertheless, even if there was no practice of storing the firearms contrary to the Act, we are not satisfied that a mere history of compliance is of itself sufficient to justify the extension of the privilege.

The references

1. The character evidence of Mr Michael Hart has been outlined above. In addition, the applicant tendered a reference from Ms Clare Fancourt, corporate manager of Miller & Griggs Pty Ltd, who wrote that the applicant has been employed full-time at [name] Smash Repairs since 17 September 2018. "From day one, I have come to know him as a responsible, reliable and an incredibly hard-working individual", Ms Fancourt writes. He has consistently demonstrated dedication and pride, with excellent decision-making skills and had proved to be one of their most valued employees. She believes him to be of exceptional character and reputation with good moral standing. He has consistently acted with integrity and honesty, always ready and willing to assist his co-workers, and possesses a high level of empathy and compassion towards their customers.
2. When Brendan had disclosed the offence to her, he had expressed deep regret for his actions and their consequences. Ms Fancourt has no doubt that he will continue to demonstrate those values and will continue to be a productive and law-abiding member of society. She wholeheartedly recommends Brendan as a worthy individual and trusts in his judgment and abilities. She is confident that he will not fail to uphold the highest standards of conduct in the future, and they intend to continue to support Brendan and his employment at Kosmo Smash Repairs.
3. Ms Anneka Frayne, solicitor of Tamworth, has known the applicant for approximately eight years and is aware of the charges that he has faced. She understands with discussions with him that he suffers back pain and uses cannabis in an effort to alleviate the pain. During the time she has known him, Ms Frayne has observed him to be a very hard-working person. He has worked in the panel beating trade with Ms Frayne's husband for approximately 8 years. She has seen Brendan work many hours, including overtime and weekend work. She understands that he has a reasonable income from his current employment and has good prospects for a very good income well into the future.
4. Ms Frayne has spent time with Brendan and his two young children in a family gathering capacity on many occasions. She perceives him to be a very driven and motivated person, with family values. Ms Fancourt and Ms Frayne were not required for cross-examination.

Evaluation

1. The applicant is a man aged 36 who lives near Tamworth, and is a panelbeater by trade. He owns his own home, subject to a mortgage, and has 50 percent custody of his two young children. Apart from some traffic violations some 10 years ago, which he attributes in part to a lack of parental guidance in a broken home when he was growing up, he has an unblemished criminal history, subject to the two cannabis matters in 2024. He is bound by a CRO that expires on 13 May 2025. He has no history of violence, or of threatening violence, of mental health problems, of drug use other than the 2024 cannabis contraventions, or of alcohol abuse.
2. The process of preparing these proceedings and the Local Court proceedings appears to have involved a number of misunderstandings and communication breakdowns between the applicant, his then legal representatives and Alternaleaf, which were subsequently corrected. It is clear, however, that at the time of the police discovery of the cannabis plants on 28 March 2024 the applicant did not hold a medical cannabis patient card. Indeed, at that time he was unaware that it was possible to obtain legal approval to use cannabis for medical purposes and learned of that possibility from fellow-workers only after he had been charged with the offences. He had resorted to growing the plant from seeds himself in order to avoid becoming involved with the expensive illegal market. His unawareness about medical cannabis approvals tends, incidentally, to suggest that he had no contact with the drug milieu.
3. On learning of the lawful option, he promptly applied to Alternaleaf for the necessary approval on 3 April 2024, five days after he had been charged. It is not disputed that he suffers from a painful spinal injury, which he said he suffered at the age of 16 in the workplace, and the MRI scan establishes the fact of the injury (exhibit A1, annexure "A", exhibit A6, p 25). He is now fully in compliance with the law. The affidavit of Mr Peter Schmidt, his then solicitor (exhibit A5), attaches a copy of his approved medical cannabis patient card (annexure "B"). He states that he now uses only CBD oils, which (and this was not disputed at the hearing but was denied in the post-hearing submissions) contain no THC, and does not use the oils before or while shooting.
4. Undoubtedly he should have complied with the law in the first place, and he was plainly aware that cannabis is a prohibited plant, but although his contraventions were not trivial, they were committed by a man employed in performing physical work while suffering from a painful spinal injury. He was cooperative and courteous with police and made no attempt to conceal his crop. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, realistically there must be many people who are unaware of the legal provisions for medical marijuana authorization.

Public interest

1. The other ground on which the respondent argues for licence revocation is that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold a licence, within the meaning of s 24(2)(d) and cl 20.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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].
5. Since then, Hennessy DP has cautioned against applying that language in a mechanistic way, pointing out in AML v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADT 5 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]).

Parkes v Commissioner of Police

1. As was explained above, after the hearing the respondent drew the tribunal's attention to this recent case, which was decided on public interest grounds. I agreed to consider the case, together with any short submissions the applicant might wish to make about it. The respondent then sought to make submissions in reply to the applicant's short contentions, and leave was granted for that purpose also.
2. The respondent's post-hearing submissions of 11 February pointed out that the applicant's Alternaleaf treatment plan (exhibit A3) contained references to THC (as well as a mention of "Oil - 30 ml"). In Parkes the tribunal had found that in the absence of medical evidence, it could not be satisfied that there would be virtually no risk if the applicant was issued with a firearms licence while using cannabis, including medical cannabis, and that this was precisely the case here.
3. The respondent also drew attention to the Alternaleaf disclaimer (id., 20) which states "I understand that I must not drive or operate heavy machinery whilst using medicinal cannabis containing THC. If I drive under these circumstances, I am breaking the law and a legally issued prescription does not provide a defence to such an offence".
4. The case contained some parallels with the present matter, notably that the applicant was taking medically prescribed marijuana to assist with management of back pain, caused in that case by a motorcycle accident, and also that he had accumulated an unimpressive traffic record, though much more recently than in the present case.
5. There are material differences between the two cases, however. The applicant in Parkes was aged 21 and had for some years recreationally used cannabis, being cautioned by police in that connexion in 2021. He had told police at the time that he was using the drug to control anxiety, but later admitted he had only raised that as a plausible excuse. The psychological evidence was that he was not suffering from anxiety, though he did evince some anxiety symptoms. His traffic infringements were relatively recent, dating from 2021 and 2022.
6. He had been advised by his medical practitioner not to drive after taking the cannabis prescribed for his back pain, but indicated that he sometimes did do so nevertheless. It also appeared that he had used the drug while shooting under his Minor's Permit. There was no medical evidence about the possible effects of marijuana remaining in his system on his ability to drive or operate machinery and the tribunal found that his character evidence merited very limited weight. The refusal decision was affirmed.

Conclusion - public interest

1. It is in the public interest for law-abiding farmers and graziers to have access to long arms for the protection of the environment and of primary industry. The applicant is not a primary producer, but he fulfils that protection role for Mr and Mrs Hart on their Bendemeer property, notwithstanding his sometimes heavy workload.
2. As Ms Moses pointed out, there are other ways in which the Harts could protect their property from ferals and vermin. Mr Hart could himself apply for a firearms licence, for example. But while private interests cannot prevail over public safety, giving the applicant access to their property for that purpose would not, on the evidence, give rise to any real or appreciable risk to public safety, as that criterion is understood in Webb. I therefore find that public interest considerations favour exercising the statutory discretion to set aside the revocation decision.

Orders 1. Decision under review set aside. 2. A category AB firearms licence is to be restored to the applicant.

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: 14 February 2025