Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42
Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16
Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1972) 2 ALD 60
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1972) 2 ALD 60Esterman v Commissioner of police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 70Hook v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 250Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31Kammoun v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 273Keegan Jaques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCA 368McDonald v Director-General, Social Services (1984) FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 1Peel v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 13Petas v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 137Petricevic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 24
Romanos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 272
Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10
Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110.
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Grant Peel (Applicant)
Judgment (12 paragraphs)
[1]
Reasons for decision
The applicant Mr Grant Thomas Peel applied to this tribunal on 21 January 2022 for review of a decision by the respondent on 24 December 2021 to refuse his application for a category AB firearms licence, for which he had applied on 7 July 2021.
The applicant had previously held a minor's firearms training permit issued on 3 May 2008, but that authorization was suspended in 2012 after he was made subject to an interim apprehended violence order (IAVO). The suspension was lifted on 6 June 2012 as the IAVO did not proceed to a confirmed order. The permit remained in force until it expired on 20 February 2013.
The applicant initially held a category AB firearms licence issued for the purposes of recreational shooting and hunting. On 25 October 2018, however, a report was received that he had engaged in a dangerous confrontation with persons he believed were shooting on a property without permission. The applicant himself was not the owner of the property but had permission to hunt on it. The persons confronted alleged that he had chased them in his vehicle and pulled alongside with a firearm aimed at them, and tried to force them off the road, later entering the road ahead of them and throwing a hammer at their windscreen. They also claimed to have heard the sound of a bullet travelling past their vehicle.
As a result of those allegations, the applicant's firearms licence was suspended on 9 December 2018 and he was charged with offences of stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear or physical harm, destroying or damaging property, driving a motor vehicle in a menacing manner with intent, and driving in a manner dangerous. Before the hearing at Gunnedah Local Court listed for 6 May 2019, the applicant's counsel provided police with mobile telephone video footage (part exhibit R2) which refuted the witness statements in material respects and as a result all charges were withdrawn.
On 15 August 2019 his category AB firearms licence was revoked and that revocation was affirmed, following an internal review, on 10 June 2020. The applicant appealed to this tribunal against the revocation decision, and on 20 January 2021 the revocation decision was affirmed on the papers by Robertson SM: Peel v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 13.
Six months later, on 7 July 2021, the applicant lodged a new firearms licence application based on the reasons of recreational hunting and vermin control, and employment by way of rural occupation (exhibit R1, pp 87 ff). That application was refused on 23 August 2021 on public interest grounds (exhibit R1, pp 106 - 107). That refusal was affirmed on 24 December 2021 on the grounds outlined above (id., pp 148-149). That decision is the subject of the present application.
[2]
Applicable legislation
Among the objects of the Firearms Act is the provision that strict requirements must be satisfied in relation to the licensing of firearms and the acquisition and supply of firearms: s 3(2)(d). It is an offence under s 7A of the Act to possess or use a firearm unless the person is authorized to do so by a licence or permit. A category A or B licence authorizes the licensee to possess or use the firearm to which the licence applies, but only for the purposes established by the licensee as being the genuine reason for possessing or using it: s 8(1).
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 a firearm without danger to public safety or to the peace: s 11(3)(a). Under s 11(7), the Commissioner has a discretion to refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issuing it would be contrary to the public interest.
The issue in the present application is whether it would be contrary to the public interest for a firearms licence to be issued to the applicant.
[3]
The evidence
The respondent called no oral evidence but relied on the documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) and the video recording referred to above (part exhibit R2), and also on the cross-examination of Mr Peel.
[4]
Mr Grant Peel
The applicant tendered a signed statement which, although undated, appears to have been prepared for the purpose of these proceedings (part exhibit A1). In it the applicant states that he has held a gun licence since 2012 when he was 18, until October 2018. During his six years of having a firearms licence he had never had any problems. He overreacted in the situation on 25th October and realized that he had made a wrong decision. He had moved on and learned a lesson that he should instead have gone through the proper channels.
He was aware that his driving record had speeding fines attached to it, most of which were from his younger years. He had since grown from that and was actively trying to improve his driving record. He is a business owner of an earthmoving company and travels many miles for work. The last few speeding fines he had incurred had been honest mistakes and had been for 1 to 10 km/h over the limit.
He is a primary producer and requires his licence for work, as he has a contracting business. Not having his license for the last three years had affected his business, as he had been obliged to arrange for other people for feral pest control and for the humane putting down of livestock when required. He also has livestock which make it necessary for him to have a licence, for at times humane killing is required efficiently and in a timely manner, as an animal could be suffering, such as a cow with a broken leg.
He had gone to Calm Consultants, psychologists, in Tamworth and attended an anger management class, in which he was told by the psychologist that he did not need to return to attend any more classes. They assessed him and made an informed decision that he is a calm person who is not in any way angry, nor does he have any anger issues. From that class, should he get angry in the future, he has learned new tools and ways to control his emotions to prevent himself from overreacting.
In oral evidence at the hearing the applicant adopted his statement and explained that he is a primary producer in grazing and wheat-growing, operating some 120 km from Tamworth. He needs firearms regularly to put down injured livestock and for vermin destruction. He leases a 1500 acre grazing property and owns a 140 acre and a 20 acre property. He raises horses and cattle and has about 70 hectares under wheat or hay, although hay production is not significant now since the drought broke.
[5]
Ms Jessica Archibald
The applicant also tendered a signed statement by Ms Jessica Archibald (part exhibit A1). It is undated but appears to be recent. In it, Ms Archibald states that she has been the applicant's partner for six years, since 2016. They had lived together for five years, since 2017. In the time she has been with Grant, she has known him to be a calm, placid person who has no anger issues.
She had noticed a massive change in his attitude towards his driving in recent years. He had grown up and matured a lot. She spends a great deal of time travelling around with him and he is the driver for 90 percent of the time when they go somewhere. She can see the changes with his driving. The last few speeding fines he has received have been accidental mistakes of 1 to 10 km/h over the limit. They live 65 km from town and Grant drives even further for work, spending lots of time behind the wheel, driving mostly in rural areas where it is very easy to accidentally exceed the speed limit by a few km over.
Since Grant completed his anger management class, she could see that he has learned new tools to help him manage any emotion he may be feeling. After the completion of the class, she had seen a new level of maturity in his everyday, day-to-day life. Ms Archibald was not required for cross-examination.
[6]
Applicant's submissions
On behalf of the applicant, Mr Kable contended that while in the 2021 case the tribunal had not been comfortable with the prospect of the applicant then holding a firearms licence, since then he had attended Calm Consultants, as is corroborated by the letter dated 18 May 2022 from that organization (exhibit A2), which states that he had completed a session with their psychologist, Mr Eric Best. He had said that he would not react in the same way now, pointing out that the affair had cost him $20,000.
The tribunal had previously opined that an applicant's need for a firearm for work purposes could be taken into account: Romanos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 272, [62]; Hook v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 250, [113] - [114]. The tribunal had set aside a decision refusing a licence on the ground of aggressive and belligerent behaviour and a poor driving record in Petricevic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 24.
In the 2021 case, the tribunal had said the applicant could reapply for a licence if he were able to show that he would not react in the same way today, and the evidence showed that he would not. He had held a licence for 6 years without incident and showed that he could use firearms appropriately. While exhibit A2 only shows that he attended Mr Best's class at Calm Consultants, his own evidence was that he had been assessed. He had given no evidence at the last hearing, although that might have made a difference to the outcome. Further, Ms Archibald's reference and exhibit A2 had not been available to the tribunal for the purposes of the previous hearing.
In reply Mr Kable submitted that the applicant's 2021 exchanges with the police (part exhibit A2) in which he said he had been proved innocent and the court had said he should reapply for a licence only showed that he misunderstood how the law works. He had relied on what counsel had told him. On the property where he lived there were two other persons who held firearms licences, but there was no evidence that either of them would be available to control vermin or put down injured stock, and the applicant operated two properties.
It was immaterial that the applicant had given no details of any loss of income flowing from his lack of a firearms licence. Romanos and Hook were stating a general principle, not performing an analysis of income streams.
[7]
Approach
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 refusal of a licence or permit: s 75(1)(a). 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]
Public interest
in this case the respondent does not contend that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The ground on which the respondent argues for licence refusal is that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence, within the meaning of s 11(7).
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.
As the Court of Appeal observed in Kocic v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCA 368, [1], the power to grant an application under the Firearms Act places significant emphasis upon the need to control risks to public safety, with the concomitant need to assess the trustworthiness of an applicant.
Tribunal decisions have pointed out that the question of potential risk to public safety is not to be applied in an absolute manner, 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".
The respondent's case on the public interest issue rests on two grounds: first, concerns about his behaviour during the incident of 25 October 2018 with respect to the risk that he poses to public safety, particularly as those involved in the incident had access to, or were in the process of using, firearms. Two lesser incidents in 2012 were also relied on. Secondly, the applicant has an extensive history of traffic infringements in New South Wales, the most recent occurring on 8 January 2022.
[9]
The 2018 incident
In the 2018 incident, the applicant had detected some trespassers who were shooting without permission on a property where the applicant had the owner's permission to hunt. After pursuing their vehicle around the paddock, they drew level with them. I say "they" because there appears to have been another man in the applicant's vehicle, as the audio on the recording appears to indicate a brief conversation. In his ERISP interview with police, the applicant consistently used the pronoun "we". Nothing appears to have turned on that point, however. After drawing level with the other vehicle, they called out that they had recorded them on video and had their number plate, and directed them to pull over, but they went through the gate and turned down Wandobah Road.
He said they followed the intruders 5 or 6 km down the road at speeds of probably 125 km/h. Two men were still in the back of the utility. He tried to draw level with them so they could see them, and told them "pull over". His car was 2 m from the utility he was chasing. He said they had just wanted to catch them because they were not meant to be there. This was aggressive and dangerous driving, and the applicant admitted to it. He had no right to force any other vehicle to pull over on a public highway and he attempted to do so in a way that presented a serious risk to himself and his passenger, but also those in the other vehicle, especially as there were two men on the rear tray of the utility.
The respondent also relied on the 2012 IAVO which resulted in the suspension of the applicant's minor's permit, but the IAVO was withdrawn and the suspension was lifted. There are no details about the circumstances surrounding this incident and as it is 10 years old I do not think it merits significant weight.
Also in 2012, the applicant engaged in a verbal altercation with a driver and passengers in another vehicle, subsequently causing damage to that vehicle and leaving the scene without providing details. It is not clear whether the damage was caused intentionally or not, but a driver in such circumstances is unlikely to be unaware of any impact. For this violation he was ticketed for failing to reverse safely. Those incidents, the respondent contended, showed that the applicant was incapable of extracting himself from situations that result in disputes, and that his behaviour has often led to a relatively minor incident coming to the attention of police and action being taken.
[10]
Traffic record
The second ground on which the respondent relies on the public interest issue is the applicant's extensive history of traffic violations in New South Wales. A bad traffic record is relevant in the firearms licensing context. Montgomery SM commented in Kammoun v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 273 that "the Applicant's repeated breach of traffic laws and regulations indicates a disregard for a regulatory scheme aimed at ensuring public safety" [37]). An applicant's history of repeated breaches of traffic laws and regulations is thus a relevant consideration in regard to firearms licensing issues: Keegan Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145, [81].
Since obtaining his New South Wales driver licence in 2010, the applicant has received a total of 35 traffic infringements notices. His traffic history includes:
11 speeding infringements,
two instances of not complying with licence conditions,
riding a motorcycle with a passenger not wearing a helmet,
three counts of driving while towing a vehicle with insecure or overhanging load causing instability,
disregarding a stop sign,
not reversing a vehicle safely,
two instances of driving while using a hand-held mobile telephone, and
disobeying a railway crossing stop sign.
These violations led to the applicant's driver licence being subject to 2 demerit points suspensions and two good behaviour conditions. The applicant has continued to infringe traffic regulations, with five of the infringements for speeding occurring in 2019, resulting in his losing his driver privileges from 25 August 2020. His most recent contravention was on 8 January 2022. Fortunately, none of his violations appear to have resulted in injury to any person.
In his internal review request dated 2 December 2021, the applicant's solicitor wrote that he expected a certificate of completion of the traffic offender program to be forthcoming (exhibit R1, p 126). No such certificate has been provided, nor is there any evidence that the applicant has actually participated in such a course. With his record, the applicant might be an appropriate candidate fo such a program.
[11]
Conclusion
The 2018 incident, involving aggressive and dangerous conduct, weighs against licence approval and is still comparatively recent. There is evidence that the applicant has taken some active steps towards improving his coping methods and behaviour, but it so far covers only a relatively short period and there are gaps and uncertainties in it that still leave concerns about public safety. Also relevant is his very poor traffic record, involving 35 infringements, two demerit point suspensions and two good behaviour conditions, including three speeding contraventions since the tribunal's 2021 decision to refuse him a licence.
The applicant could make a satisfactory case for issuance of a licence, but only if he takes active steps to allay the remaining safety concerns. For the reasons given above, therefore, I do not think it is in the public interest at present for the applicant to be issued with a firearms licence, and I so find. The decision under review is affirmed.
[12]
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: 24 May 2022
Cross-examined by Mr Winram on behalf of the Commissioner, the applicant, referring to Robertson SM's comments about the 2018 incident in the 2021 case, said that he (Mr Peel) "was in the right" and that the tribunal in its decision had said he could reapply for a licence. He agreed that he had told police that he had been "proven not guilty" in the Local Court proceedings but acknowledged there had been no hearing, no prosecution evidence and no cross-examination, the charges having been withdrawn because of the inconsistency between the video evidence and some of the prosecution witness statements. The applicant agreed that when he had said that the Local Court judge had told him he could get his licence back, he was actually stating the effect of what his barrister had told him at the time.
Asked if he had told the police that NCAT had said there was no reason why he could not recover his licence, he replied that the tribunal had said he could reapply and could obtain his licence back if he showed he could maintain a calm temper and if his driving improved.
The applicant said he had attended an anger management class at Calm Consultants, but could not obtain a detailed report because the instructor was on long service leave. He had told the instructor and the other participant about the 2018 confrontation and the charges that he had faced. He had said he had pursued the trespassers on private property but they had taken off and he had followed them for 3 km down the highway, at times on the wrong side of the road and 20 km over the speed limit. The trespassers were fleeing and he had just wanted to note their number plate.
Rural crime had been a long-term problem in the area, and the nearest police were 100 km away. He had reported the episode to the police. Asked if he had continued to chase the vehicle down the highway, he replied that he had not but only followed them for about 3 km, wanting to get past his house, as in the circumstances he did not wish to stop in his own driveway and show where he lived. Most of the pursuit was on private property, and after obtaining the vehicle number he followed it for about 3 km. The owner of the property had wanted him to obtain the registration number of the vehicle that the trespassers were using. Some people had left the area as their wrongful activities had been uncovered.
The applicant had given oral evidence about the anger management course he had attended and the questions that had been put to him. He had said he would not act the same now as he had in 2018. He had acknowledged that he had done the wrong thing and Ms Archibald had said that he had changed. As she had not been required for cross-examination, her evidence should be accepted. The letter from Calm Consultants was only meant to be taken at face value.
He had incurred some speeding infringement notices since the last decision, but they were lower level contraventions and his record had improved. He drives a great deal for his work, and for that reason professional drivers are allowed extra points. He had shown a change in behaviour and no longer had an anger problem. There have been no adverse reports to police about him. He had learned his lessons, though he did labour under some misunderstandings about how the law operates.
The applicant in his evidence placed great emphasis on the fact that the charges brought against him following the 2018 confrontation had been withdrawn after the video evidence was seen to refute some of the prosecution statements in a material particular. He viewed that withdrawal as amounting to all charges having been "proved false". As Mr Kable acknowledged, his client was labouring under a common misapprehension about the operation of the law in that regard. Acquittal or withdrawal of charges does not mean that a defendant has been "proved innocent" or that he has "cleared his name".
In any event, the tribunal is concerned with conduct, not only with the fact of conviction or acquittal: Esterman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 70, [30]. The tribunal is to take account of matters indicating criminal conduct even though the particular offences charged have not been proved or have been dismissed: Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31, [62] - [64].
The applicant's representative acknowledged that the applicant had done "the wrong thing" in 2018 but submitted that the evidence showed he had changed and would not behave in that way today. Reference was made to the anger management session at Calm Consultants and to the instructor's reported opinion that he did not need any further sessions. As the instructor was unavailable, being on long service leave, no first-hand details of the applicant's participation in the course or documentation of the instructor's assessment of him are available, but at least the letter (part exhibit A2) is evidence that Mr Peel actually did attend such a course. The applicant at one stage also undertook to attend a traffic offender course and produce a report on his performance in it, but there is no such report, nor is there any evidence that he actually took part in such a program.
The applicant's de facto partner of 5 years' standing, Ms Archibald, describes the applicant as a calm, placid person who has no anger issues. She said she had noticed a massive change in his attitude towards his driving, which is reflected in his driving practices. She acknowledges that he had some relatively recent speeding violations, but points out that he drives long distances for work, in rural areas where it is easy inadvertently to exceed the speed limit by a few km/h. Ms Archibald also states that since he completed his anger management class, she could see that he has learned new tools to help him manage any emotion he may be feeling. After completion of the class, she had seen a new level of maturity in his everyday life.
As Ms Archibald was not required for cross-examination, her evidence can be accepted as it stands, although with all respect to her, it would not be surprising if she were to view his behaviour and development in a more favourable light than some others might. It might be significant, also, that the applicant did not tender any other character references. He also caused a minor disturbance at the hearing in the course of the respondent's submissions by loudly interjecting that "It's a lie! It's all lies!" and had to be called to order by his legal representative.
As the respondent pointed out, while the applicant did concede that he had behaved wrongfully and assured the tribunal that he would not react in that way again, he did not express any recognition of the acutely dangerous situation he had created for himself, his passenger and the other parties. At the hearing he said in evidence that "I was in the right", which would have been true in relation to noting the registration number of the intruding vehicle, could not possibly justify the furious pursuit of their vehicle on a public highway. The video recording dramatizes the scene, with the sound of what seems to be a V8 engine running at high r.p.m., the visibly breakneck speeds and what sounded like the shouting of an obscenity at the other vehicle at close quarters in the course of the pursuit.
While none of that means that he could not today control himself in a stressful situation and could not be trusted to use firearms safely, as he did for the six years during which he held a licence, it does introduce an element of uncertainty. Now aged 28, he does occupy a responsible position in the community, not only as a farmer and grazier but as the operator of his own contracting business, Peely's Earthmoving Pty Ltd, based at Spring Ridge. As Mr Kable pointed out, I have in the past found that there is a public interest in law-abiding farmers and graziers having access to long arms for the protection of the environment and primary industry, and as far as I know that proposition has not been criticized.
The evidence shows that the applicant has worked to change his behaviour for the better, but for the reasons given above, some doubt lingers. He made his current licence application only six months after the tribunal had upheld the previous decision to refuse him a licence. True, in the present case he adduced two pieces of evidence that were unavailable to the tribunal in the 2021 case. On the other hand, in the firearms licence application in issue he wrote that "[The] Charges were proven false. I have been to the tribunal, they have told me to reapply for my firearms licence" (exhibit R1, p 89). Both of those propositions are false and one would think that by that stage in the proceedings he would have been aware of that fact. Nor do those and similar statements contain any acknowledgement of his past conduct.
In his reasons in the 2021 decision, Robertson SM wrote that "I do not consider that the applicant's driving history was such that it would without more have warranted the revocation of the applicant's licence. However, that driving history does suggest that the applicant does not have sufficient regard for the importance of compliance with laws enacted in the interests of public safety and, in conjunction with the applicant's aggressive and confrontational behaviour on 25 October 2018, constitutes a reason for concern that the possession by the applicant of a firearms licence may create a risk to the public safety", [94].
Nevertheless, although clearly on notice that further traffic violations could affect his prospects for obtaining a firearms licence, the applicant has incurred three more speeding infringement notices since the 2021 decision, including one in January 2022. As Mr Kable submitted, these were lower-range violations incurred by a licence holder who does a great deal of driving on country roads where it is not difficult inadvertently to exceed the speed limit by a small amount. Nevertheless, a person with the applicant's record could be expected to make a special effort to comply with the regulations, especially when he has a firearms licence application pending and has been advised of the effect that driving infringements may have on it.