Exact nature or name of illness, disability or deficiency: Diagnosed recently by a psychiatrist with "Major Depressive Disorder with intense pervasive suicidal ideation" and "Comorbid with generalised anxiety disorder".

** 2 failed suicide attempts, one when he was 14 yoa and another when he was 20 yoa involving a gun. Discharged from Rural and Remote, at Glenside, 10/08/17.

Reason why person is considered not safe to possess firearms: Previous suicide attempt, one including a firearm. Recent admission to Glenside due to depression and suicidal ideation.

1. As at 12 October 2017 the delegate had received no response at all from the applicant to the correspondence of 4 September 2017. No psychiatric report had been provided.
2. The delegate therefore proceeded to cancel the applicant's firearms licence. The cancellation was advised to the applicant in a letter dated 12 October 2017. The letter of cancellation gave the following reasons for the decision:

I have received information from a mandated notifier which indicates that you are suffering from mental health issues and a recent suicide attempt by hanging. You have also threatened to shoot yourself. I note that on 6 August 2017 you were detained under the Mental Health Act and conveyed to Glenside Hospital. This information causes me concern as to whether it is unsafe for you to possess firearms and ammunition.

To date I have not received a medical report from a psychiatrist as required and you have not made contact with the Firearms Branch to request a stay or an extension of time.

These matters are in my view serious.

Having considered all information available to me and the unaddressed concerns identified in the aforementioned notices_[1]_, I am not satisfied that you are a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and have decided to cancel your firearms licence forthwith.

1. The Tribunal has two concerns about the decision of the delegate.
2. Firstly, the decision repeats the incorrect information from the initial notification, despite such information having been at least partly corrected by the second notification. The suicide attempt by hanging was not recent, having occurred at age 14. The applicant had not directly threatened to shoot himself, although he had admitted to strong suicidal ideation. It might be argued, of course, that these errors were only peripheral and that the detention and admission to Glenside Hospital, together with the failure to provide a psychiatric report, were themselves sufficient to justify the cancellation. However, the errors of fact do make it difficult for the Tribunal to give any significant weight to the delegate's decision.
3. Secondly, the correspondence to the applicant dated 4 September 2017 clearly stated that the delegate would contact the applicant again and allow him the opportunity to make submissions before a decision was made as to whether to cancel his licence. However, this was not done. When the applicant failed to contact the delegate or to provide a psychiatric report, the licence was simply cancelled without any further notice or opportunity to make submissions. It might well be argued that this process denied the applicant procedural fairness. If delegates of the Registrar commonly follow such a practice, it would be wise for such protocols to be reviewed.
4. It is the view of the Tribunal, however, that any deficiency in the delegate's understanding of the facts or in the process that was followed is remedied in this case by reason of the applicant's exercise of his right to seek review in this Tribunal. The applicant has been afforded a full hearing before the Tribunal. He has been able to correct the factual errors referred to and to call further evidence in a bid to have the delegate's decision reversed. He has been extended the full measure of procedural fairness. The Tribunal has reviewed the matter on its merits and is required to come to the correct and preferable decision.

1. The application for review was lodged on 1 November 2017. The matter first came before the Tribunal for directions hearings in January 2018. At this time the applicant provided to the Tribunal (and the respondent) a copy of a psychological report dated 31 October 2017 from Mr Alex Pikl, a clinical psychologist.
2. Counsel for the Registrar of Firearms pointed out that this was not a report of a registered psychiatrist as had been required by the delegate. Counsel explained that a psychologist has different training and expertise and that it was the expertise of a psychiatrist that was required in this case. It was also pointed out that Mr Pikl's report did not cover all of the matters specified in the delegate's requirement. The Tribunal clearly explained to the applicant that his failure to comply with a requirement under s 53 of the Act would itself be a significant obstacle to his chances of success on review. The Tribunal agreed to adjourn the matter to a date to be fixed in order to allow the applicant to obtain the requisite psychiatric examination and report.
3. Having received no further medical report, the Tribunal called the matter on for a further directions hearing on 9 August 2018. The applicant reported that he had made various efforts to obtain a psychiatric report but that the psychiatrists to whom he had been referred had refused to see him. He was unable to provide any evidence or details as to the psychiatrists approached. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that, in its experience, it has not been impossible for other applicants under this Act to obtain psychiatric reports (although it sometimes took some time). The Tribunal requested that counsel for the respondent provide the applicant with names and contact details of psychiatrists who had provided such reports in other matters. (This information was provided to the applicant the same day). The Tribunal agreed to adjourn the matter once again for the applicant to obtain such a report but indicated that any further adjournments would require detailed evidence as to attempts that had been made.
4. The matter next came on for directions on 10 October 2018. The applicant indicated that he had not been successful in obtaining an appointment with a psychiatrist although he had been placed on a waiting list for examination by Dr Jules Begg. Despite this fact, the applicant stated that he did not want the matter further adjourned and asked that it be listed for hearing. The applicant made this choice in full knowledge of the fact that failure to comply with a s 53 requirement may itself be a basis for a negative finding on fitness and propriety (see s 7(3)(g) of the Act). He was also fully aware that a negative outcome on this review would preclude him from applying for a licence for a period of three years from the time of cancellation (see s 14(4) of the Act). Despite understanding that situation the applicant was clear he wished this matter to proceed to hearing. The Tribunal directed that the hearing be listed about two months hence in order to give the applicant one last chance to arrange psychiatric evidence. He was encouraged to do so.
5. At the directions hearing on 10 October 2018 the Tribunal also discussed with the applicant the desirability of his psychologist, Mr Pikl, being available to give evidence at the hearing either in person or by telephone. The Tribunal also discussed the desirability of the applicant providing other medical evidence, such as evidence from his general practitioner.

1. At the hearing the applicant was accompanied by his father QWF. The applicant advised the Tribunal that he had been unable to arrange a psychiatric examination, but he provided no detailed evidence as to the attempts he had made. He advised the Tribunal that he had no other medical evidence to produce to the Tribunal, either orally or by way of report. He advised that he wished to rely upon the report of Mr Pikl dated 31 October 2017 but indicated that Mr Pikl was not available either in person or by telephone to provide further evidence to the Tribunal. He indicated that he could not afford to have Mr Pikl to do so.

1. The applicant gave evidence on his own behalf. He is 22 years of age. He says that he is not the same person as he was at the time of the events of August 2017. Prior to June of 2018 he had been living at home with his parents. In June 2018 he moved to a new town and started a new job at a winery. He is living in a granny flat on the property of LKA and FMK, a mature couple with whom he has a very good relationship. FMK is a country fire service counsellor and SZW finds that he can talk easily about any problems that he has to LKA and FMK. He is really enjoying his new work as a vineyard hand and this work is likely to be a full-time ongoing job.
2. The applicant indicated that he had some great new friends in the new town and no longer spent time with some previous associates who he now realised had had a negative effect on his outlook on life. He returns regularly on weekends to visit his family and obviously has a good relationship with them. He can confide in his father. He advised the Tribunal of his various hobbies and interests and said that he was enjoying life.
3. The applicant deposed that he was more outgoing than previously and that he was now more able to talk to people he trusted about important things and problems. He candidly advised the Tribunal that he previously had a severe problem with anxiety and would suffer from panic attacks. This would cause him to have significant depression.
4. The applicant said that he had not had a panic attack since June 2018 (except for the stress of appearing in the Tribunal for this hearing). He considered that his mental health was much better than previously, and he was much improved in his ability to deal with people. He admitted that he had significant fear in dealing with strangers and people generally, but thought he was getting a lot better.
5. He said that getting his firearms back was the next step in what he needed. He valued being able to go shooting and hunting with his friends and thought that such activities were "part of who I am". He had been able to go shooting with friends occasionally and thought it was the best stress relief that they could have. He indicated that if he found himself having mental health problems in the future he would "hand my guns over while I sort myself out". He did not think that access to firearms would be any problem for him in the future in terms of his own health and safety.
6. The applicant indicated that he had ceased taking the medication that had been prescribed for him during his stay in Glenside hospital. He had done so under the supervision of his general practitioner. He said that he had had no negative effects from stopping the medication. He also said that he last saw Mr Pikl in July 2018 and had ceased consultations due to the cost associated with that treatment.

1. The applicant's father, QWF, essentially corroborated the applicant's evidence. He indicated that to his observation SZW had matured significantly over the last 18 months. He indicated that his wife had been suffering from chronic pain in mid-2017 and that this had caused an uncomfortable situation for SZW in the family. SZW had not felt able to talk to his father or others about this and the situation got too much for him. QWF stated that SZW was now able to talk openly about such matters, he had moved to the new town, was keeping better company and was engaged in a new work situation. He thought that SZW had become a much stronger young adult and that his mental health had significantly improved.
2. QWF also stated that SZW was very aware and careful concerning safety issues related to use of firearms.
3. QWF strongly expressed the view that SZW had grown as a person and was now a more self-confident. He said that the tools taught to him by Mr Pikl and during his hospitalization in Adelaide had really helped SZW. He said that as a father he would not be supporting SZW's application to have the firearms back if he thought that this would be unsafe.

1. Mr Pikl in his report dated 31 October 2017 indicates that he first saw the applicant on 11 July 2017, following a referral from a general practitioner at a Medical Centre. He administered the DASS, with the applicant scoring in the extremely severe range on depression, the extremely severe range on anxiety and in the severe range on stress.
2. The applicant had advised Mr Pikl that he had experienced a noticeable increase in generalized anxiety symptoms in late 2016, together with right sided chest pain which was thought to be anxiety based. In June 2017 he suffered a panic attack at work and twice lost consciousness. He was taken to hospital where tests cleared him of any physical health problem. He reported further panic attacks at work on 5 July 2017, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. He reported suffering high levels of anxiety on a daily basis, with diminished appetite, nausea, frequent vomiting since 5 Jul 2017, irritability and social withdrawal.
3. At a second treatment session on 1 August 2017 the applicant reported to Mr Pikl that he had attempted suicide on two past occasions - once (via hanging) at age 14, and once (when he attempted to shoot himself with a rifle) in June 2016. The applicant also advised Mr Pikl that on 28 July 2017 he had arranged for a family friend to take possession of his firearms on a temporary basis as he had been experiencing strong suicidal ideation on that day. He indicated that the strong suicidal ideation was still current. Mr Pikl arranged for the applicant to be reviewed by the general practitioner the same morning who determined that the applicant should be detained.
4. Mr Pikl states that he then spoke to the applicant's family friend who had possession of the applicant's firearms and secured the agreement of that friend that the firearms would not be released to SZW without approval from Mr Pikl.
5. Mr Pikl notes that the applicant was hospitalized for nine nights at the Royal Adelaide Hospital and Glenside hospital, then discharged home on 10 August 2017. He received psychiatric review and treatment during hospitalization and was commenced on psychiatric medication.
6. Mr Pikl indicates that he had further treatment sessions with the applicant on 15 August 2017, 29 August 2017, 11 September 2017, 26 September 2017 and 25 October 2017. He indicates that the applicant had improved markedly during this period. Mr Pikl indicates that the applicant contacted him on 29 August 2017 to ask if Mr Pikl would advise the family friend that he was safe to resume possession of his firearms so that he could go on a hunting trip with a friend on the coming weekend. Mr Pikl states that the applicant's overall psychological state had improved so much that in his opinion he was safe to resume possession of the firearms at this time. Hence Mr Pikl agreed and contacted the family friend to that effect. He reports that SZW went on a hunting trip that weekend without incident. However, the firearms were subsequently seized by police and his firearms licence suspended.
7. In his report dated 31 October 2017, Mr Pikl stated:

As noted above, I was of the view as of 29 August 2017 that SZW no longer represented a suicide risk, and I remain of this view. His psychological state has improved significantly since he commenced Quetiapine and Fluoxetine, and he is benefiting from his treatment sessions with the writer. His symptoms have improved notably, with diminished irritability, improved mood, reduced general anxiety symptoms and reduced cannabis consumption. In my Case Notes for his treatment session on 15 August 2017 I made the entry "Suicidal ideation only fleeting/minor. No risk." He is engaged in the treatment process and my overall prognosis for him is for continued and, over time, substantial improvement. His function remains sound and it is noteworthy that he has not missed any days at work due to anxiety symptoms.

1. In its consideration of this matter the Tribunal is guided by the underlying principles and objects of the Act which are set out in s 3. Relevantly, the section provides that firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. The Act seeks to minimize the risk of persons causing injury or harm (including psychological harm) to themselves or others through the use of firearms.
2. Section 20(6) of the Act relevantly provides that a licence may be cancelled by the Registrar on any ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application for such licence.
3. Section 15 relevantly provides that a licence may be refused if the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.
4. Thus a licence may be cancelled on the ground that the Registrar is not satisfied of the person's fitness and propriety.
5. Because of the way in which these provisions are expressed, the onus of demonstrating fitness and propriety is on the applicant. The delegate was entitled to cancel the licence if he was not satisfied of the applicant's fitness and propriety. The Tribunal must affirm the cancellation unless it is satisfied of the applicant's fitness and propriety.
6. The issue in this case is not to do with propriety. It is an issue of medical fitness.
7. Section 7 of the Act deals with issues related to the matter of fitness and propriety. In particular, s 7(2) provides that a person with a mental illness, condition or disorder that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit and proper person.
8. Section 7(3) relevantly provides that a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person if that person has failed to comply with a requirement made under s 53.

1. The Tribunal has carefully considered all of the evidence in this matter. The lay evidence of the applicant and his father suggests that the applicant has recovered well from the difficulties he had in August 2017 and prior to that time. There is reason to believe that the applicant has increased in maturity and in his ability to deal with the anxiety and lack of self-confidence that has caused him difficulties in the past. He has reportedly been able to cease the psychiatric medication without adverse effects and is now able to relate better to other people in a social setting. Importantly, he has supports, particularly his landlords and his father, with whom he is able to discuss matters of importance and concern to him. All these indications are very positive and suggest that the applicant is doing very well. He is to be congratulated on the progress he has apparently made.
2. Despite this evidence, it is not possible for this Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence on the evidence that has been presented to the Tribunal.
3. The applicant had a history of two previous suicide attempts, including one at age 20 by attempting to shoot himself with a rifle. He asked a friend on 28 July 2017 to take care of his firearms due to strong suicidal ideation. This strong suicidal ideation was still present on 6 August 2017 and he was detained. He was hospitalised for nine nights and assessed at Glenside Hospital. He was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with "Major Depressive Disorder with intense pervasive suicidal ideation."
4. These facts raise serious concerns about the applicant's safety with regard to the possession and use of firearms. The delegate was correct to require the provision of a psychiatric report in order that he might properly assess the applicant's fitness and propriety. Without such a report, it is not possible to be satisfied as to whether it would be safe for the applicant to hold a licence. The requirement for the provision of a psychiatric report was made in September 2017. No report has been provided. No evidence has been provided from the applicant's general practitioner. There is no expert evidence at all that post-dates the cessation of the prescribed psychiatric medication. There is no expert evidence dealing with the applicant's condition at any time after October 2017.
5. The report of Mr Pikl does not satisfy the Tribunal of the applicant's fitness to hold a licence. Firstly, whilst he does have relevant expertise, Mr Pikl is not a registered psychiatrist. Secondly, it is not apparent that Mr Pikl had access to medical information in relation to the applicant's hospitalisation. Thirdly, the Tribunal notes that Mr Pikl was prepared to conclude and document that there was no continuing risk of suicide just five days after the applicant had been discharged from Glenside. He did so on the first occasion that he had seen the applicant following discharge. He allowed the applicant to have access to his firearms just 14 days later. The Tribunal finds this somewhat astounding in the light of the psychiatric diagnosis that had been made and the previous history. It does not appear that Mr Pikl consulted with the treating mental health team before forming such views or acting in this way. Nor did Mr Pikl liaise with the Registrar, but rather he appears to have taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of whether and when the applicant should be allowed access to firearms. It is also relevant that Mr Pikl was not available to be questioned by the Tribunal concerning his report.
6. The Tribunal considers that the above matters tend to indicate a lack of judgement on the part of Mr Pikl and a lack of understanding of the provisions and objectives of the Act.[2] In the absence of psychiatric or other medical evidence, the report of Mr Pikl does not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant was fit to hold a licence in August - October 2017.
7. However, it is the present fitness of the applicant that the Tribunal must consider. In this regard it is noted that Mr Pikl's report is now over a year old, it pre-dates the cessation of medication, and it could not justify any finding as to the applicant's fitness at the present time.
8. In summary, it may be the case that the applicant has sufficiently recovered and developed to the point where he could safely have access to firearms. However, given the absence of medical evidence, it is impossible for the Tribunal to be satisfied of that.
9. As the Tribunal has stated a failure to comply with the requirement under s 53 is itself a basis upon which a finding can be made that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Alternatively, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant, by failing to facilitate the provision of any relevant and contemporaneous medical evidence has simply failed to satisfy the Tribunal that he is a fit and proper person at the present time to hold a licence.
10. Accordingly it is the view of the Tribunal that the decision to cancel the applicant's licence was and remains the correct and preferable decision in this case.
11. The decision subject to review will be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Presumably the correspondence of 4 September 2017.

[2] The Tribunal is conscious of the fact that Mr Pikl has not had an opportunity to respond to these matters as he was not available to give oral evidence. However, these matters must be mentioned as they do affect the weight that can be given to his evidence.