Rooke v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 331;

1. The applicant submits that he should be permitted to hold a firearms licence because he is no risk to public safety as he is a person of good character, has no prior history of mental health, no history of abuse, violence or self-harm, no criminal record, has always complied with the conditions of his firearms licence, and the revocation of the firearms licence has detrimentally impacted his pest control business.

1. The respondent submits the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the firearms licence because it would not be in the public interest. The respondent relied on the applicant's history of mental health issues, recent mental health treatment, threats of self harm and provision of insufficient and inconsistent information regarding his mental health and suitability to hold a licence.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review an administratively reviewable decision: s 55 of the ADR Act. Section 75 of the Firearms Act 1996 (Firearms Act) provides that applications may be made to the Tribunal for administrative review of a decision to revoke a firearms licence.
2. The role of the Tribunal is to decide whether the decision under administrative review is the correct and preferable decision: ADR Act, s 63(1). In determining this question, the Tribunal is to have regard to the material before it, including any relevant factual material and any applicable written or unwritten law. The Tribunal may exercise all functions conferred or imposed by any relevant legislation on the administrator who made the decision: ADR Act, s 63(2).
3. The Tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the decision-maker but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; [2008] 235 CLR 286. Under s 28(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: CAT Act, s 38(2).
4. The Tribunal is required to base its findings of fact on logically probative material: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi [1980] FCA 85; (1980) 44 FLR 41 at [24] and [25] (per Deane J).

1. The underlying principles of the Firearms Act are specified in s 3 as follows:

(a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and

(b) to improve public safety -

(i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and

(ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms...

1. Section 24 of the Firearms Act allows the respondent to revoke a firearms licence, relevantly providing:

24 Revocation of licence

...

(2) A licence may be revoked -

...

(d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations.

1. Clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (Firearms Regulation) allows the respondent to revoke a licence if satisfied it is not in the public interest:

20 Revocation of licence - licence not in the public interest

The Commissioner may revoke a licence if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence.

1. The applicant made an application for a firearms licence on 7 May 2024 and the licence was issued on 2 July 2024. The reason for the licence was shooting on rural land.
2. On 21 January 2025, a neighbour called the Police after hearing a heated verbal argument at the residence of the applicant. The Police attended and interviewed the applicant and his ex-partner. It was agreed that on the evening of 20 January 2025, after a disagreement between the applicant and his ex-partner, the applicant went to the kitchen, got a knife and threatened self harm in graphically violent terms. On the morning of 21 January 2025, after a disagreement about the same issue, the applicant again made comments about harming himself, to the effect of wanting to "wrap a car around a tree". The applicant's ex-partner intervened to deescalate the situation on both occasions.
3. On the 22 January 2025, the applicant's firearms licence was suspended on the grounds of mental health concerns and it not being in the public interest.
4. Disclosed in material obtained by the respondent under summons from the applicant's psychologist dated 22 August 2025, in oral evidence the applicant confirmed an incident where he was being goaded by his ex-partner's brother, and in an emotionally heightened state was driving to his location with a knife in the car with thoughts and intentions to harm him. The psychologist's notes state that the applicant's ex-girlfriend called him while he was driving and that conversation led to him turning around.
5. On 19 September 2025, a report was made to Police by the applicant's ex-partner's mother, who overheard a conversation between the applicant and his ex-partner, during which the applicant threatened to jump off a bridge if she didn't come to his house. The Police attended the bridge but did not locate the applicant. The Police then attended the applicant's house and spoke with the applicant. The applicant admitted he and his ex-partner had an argument, which caused him to become agitated. He then drove to the location of the bridge to write in his journal. The applicant stated he had no thoughts of self harm or thoughts of harming anyone else. The applicant disputed aspects of this incident, as detailed below.
6. The Tribunal appreciated the applicant's openness when giving evidence under cross examination. He freely admitted the incidents in January 2025. He conceded the incident recorded in August 2025 concerning his ex-partner's brother, explaining that his tools of trade include a knife that he carries in his vehicle and that he pulled over after ten minutes of his own volition to calm down. The applicant's recollection of the September 2025 incident was "a bit of a blur" although he denied that he threatened to harm himself and gave evidence that he did not get on with his ex-partner's mother who had actively sought to undermine his relationship with her daughter.
7. The applicant acknowledged the stress and challenges that led to the above incidents. He took measures to address his mental health following the January 2025 incidents. This has included 7 or 8 sessions with a psychologist, an appointment with a different psychologist more recently and taking prescribed medication. These are positive developments.
8. The Tribunal places little weight on the September 2025 incident in the absence of direct evidence from the applicant's ex-partner or her mother.
9. The applicant did not accept that the January 2025 incidents, taken together with the August 2025 incident, show a pattern a mental health issues and extreme reactions to situations of stress or conflict over time. The applicant's evidence was that the January 2025 incidents were a "one time thing." Such an approach does not properly account for the August 2025 incident and serves to minimise its seriousness. The applicant did not appear to have any insight as to why this would be of concern to the respondent and the Tribunal.

1. Following the suspension of the applicant's firearms licence, the respondent requested the applicant provide information in a risk assessment questionnaire from a relevant health practitioner to address mental health concerns.
2. The applicant provided a health risk assessment report from his GP, Dr Mackie to the respondent on 29 May 2025. The respondent informed the applicant that the report was not sufficient due to the absence of information about the applicant's threats of self harm or any suicidal ideation and associated risks. Dr Mackie had been treating the applicant for only 4 months at the date of the report. The report confirmed a recent ADHD diagnosis for the applicant, for which he has been prescribed medication, and that he is in optimal physical and mental health. The report concluded that there are no risks or identified issues in relation to the applicant's suitability for a firearms licence.
3. The assessment report of Dr Mackie does not reference the applicant's threats of self harm described at [19]. The applicant confirmed that he did not disclose the January 2025 incidents to Dr Mackie, even though he was aware that these incidents were the reason his licence was suspended. When asked why he has not sought a further assessment report from Dr Mackie after he was made aware of this deficiency, the applicant stated that he has not had time to do this. On that basis Dr Mackie's report can be given little weight because the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the medial practitioner was fully and properly appraised of the relevant history of the applicant in providing his opinion: see Potts v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2010] NSWADT 311 at [44] - [51]; Smith v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 233 at [26].

1. Public safety is to be given paramount consideration under the Firearms Act: Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218, [24]. It is clear from the underlying principles of the Firearms Act that firearm possession and use is a privilege, conditional upon the overriding need to ensure public safety.
2. In Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28, Deputy President Hennessy said (at [28]):

"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."

1. This does not mean that an applicant is required to prove a near-absolute negative in relation to the question of risk, but the assessment of risk is to be conducted in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 (at [64] - [66]). This involves a "proper, realistic and reasonable consideration of the evidence put before the Tribunal by the parties" rather than a "formulaic application of the existence of reports to police as rendering a negative result for the applicant": Wright v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 208 (at [37]).

1. Public interest is not defined in the Firearms Act. In Constantin v Commissioner of Police [2013] NSWADTAP 16 the Appeal Panel said (at [33]):

"The 'public interest' allows, we consider, for issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system."

1. In Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50, Deputy President Hennessy said (at [23]), when considering whether the Commissioner's exercise of discretion to revoke a firearms licence was the correct and preferable decision:

"There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these discretions should be exercised. In my view, the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act."

1. It is evident from the principles and objects of the Firearms Act that the community's interests take precedence over the private interests of an individual to hold a firearms licence.
2. An applicant's mental health is a relevant consideration for the revocation of a firearms licence: see DEP v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 298 at [73], Beech v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 185 at [69] and [71]. As discussed at [29] above, the medical evidence before the Tribunal does not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant's mental health issues have resolved such that he does not pose a risk to himself or the public.
3. Therefore, in all the circumstances, on the material before the Tribunal, it is not in the public interest under section 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act and clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation for the applicant to hold a firearms licence.
4. It follows that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the respondent to revoke the applicant's firearms licence

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.