This is an application for review of a decision by the NSW Commissioner of Police to revoke Mr Tony Taouk's Category AB firearms licence.
In deciding to revoke Mr Taouk's firearms licence, the Commissioner's delegate took into account the following circumstances:
That Mr Taouk had been charged with five traffic related offences in 2012, resulting in convictions for using an uninsured vehicle, driving a vehicle recklessly or furiously, or in a dangerous speed or manner, and driving whilst suspended;
That on 27 December 2013, Mr Taouk's brother, Mr Fard Taouk, had called the emergency number 000 for assistance during a physical domestic dispute, claiming that Mr Tony Taouk had threatened to take a firearm from his firearms safe. An apprehended violence order (AVO) was consequently made against Mr Tony Taouk, who was also charged with stalking or intimidation. This AVO was later revoked and the charge withdrawn;
That Mr Taouk posted photographs of himself on Facebook which the delegate alleged raised 'serious concerns regarding [his] suitability to hold a firearms licence'.
On this basis, the Commissioner's delegate was satisfied that it would not be in the public interest for Mr Taouk to hold a firearms licence, and, on internal review, affirmed the original decision to revoke his licence.
Tribunal's jurisdiction
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has jurisdiction to review this decision pursuant to section 75(1) (c) of the Firearms Act and section 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act (NSW) (NCAT Act).
The Tribunal can take into account both the material before the original decision maker as well as any new material put before the Tribunal. See Drake v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1970) 2 ALD 60 at 77.
Issues for the Tribunal
In this case, the Tribunal must determine whether, on the evidence before it, Mr Taouk's firearms licence should be revoked. In making its decision, the Tribunal can consider whether it is in the public interest for Mr Taouk to continue to hold a licence, in accordance with s24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act and clause 19 of the Firearms Regulation.
[2]
Relevant law
The underlying principles of the Firearms Act (the Act) are, relevantly,
to confirm that firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety; and
to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms and by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms.
Section 24 of the Firearms Act provides for the revocation of licences in a range of circumstances, including where the licensee contravenes:
any provision of the Firearms Act or the Firearms Regulation 2006, whether or not the licensee has been convicted of an offence for the contravention;
any condition of the licence.
Section 19 (2)(a) of the Firearms Act provides that a firearms licence is subject to the condition that the licensee must comply with the relevant safe keeping and storage requirements. Section 40(1)(a) of the Act states that when a firearm is not actually being used or carried, it must be stored in a locked receptacle of type approved by the Commissioner. This means that a firearms licence may be revoked where the licensee has contravened safekeeping and storage requirements.
Section 11 of the Act provides that the Commissioner may issue a licence to a person who applies for one, but must not do so unless, as far as is relevant to Mr Taouk's circumstances:
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 (s11(3)(a); and
the Commissioner is satisfied that the storage and safety requirements set out in Part 4 of the Act are capable of being met by the applicant (s11(3)(c)).
A licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind (s24(2)(a)), or if the licensee contravenes any provision of the Act or the regulations, or contravenes any condition of the licence (s24(2)(b)(ii) or (iii)).
Section 24(2)(d) of the Firearms Act prescribes that a licence may be revoked for any other reason prescribed by the Firearms Regulation. This includes where the Commissioner (or on review, the Tribunal) is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence. (clause 19 of the Firearms Regulation)
Evidence
Firearms licence
Mr Taouk applied for a firearms licence on 3 January 2013. A firearms category AB licence was granted to him on 2 April 2013, for the purposes of recreational hunting and vermin control. A suspension notice was subsequently served on Mr Taouk on 27 December 2013, with a revocation notice issuing on 4 April 2014.
Traffic record
The following convictions are contained on Mr Taouk's traffic record report:
Drive vehicle recklessly/furiously or speed/manner dangerous, for which he received a three year disqualification and 175 hours of community service;
Use uninsured motor vehicle, for which he received a fine of $500;
Use unregistered motor vehicle, for which he received a fine of $500;
Drive on road while licence suspended, for which he received a fine of $1000.
Each of these convictions are for events that occurred on 3 May 2012 when Mr Taouk was eighteen years old.
In oral evidence before the Tribunal by telephone, Mr Taouk agreed that, whilst suspended, he had been caught by police travelling at a speed of between 97-105km in a 50km zone. He agreed that he was driving a car that was both unregistered and uninsured.
When stopped, he agreed that he had told the police that he was a 'mad driver' and that he would have swerved to miss anyone on the road. In explanation, he told the Tribunal:
I was being a smart-arse to them because they were being smart-arses to me because they were teasing me about my haircut and the way I look.
[3]
27 December 2013 incident
According to the police facts sheet, on 27 December 2013, Mr Taouk and his brother, Mr Fard Taouk, became involved in an argument which escalated to a physical altercation between the two.
According to the facts sheet:
A number of family members and friends intervened and separated the accused [Mr Tony Taouk] and the victim [his brother, Mr Fard Taouk]. It is alleged that as the accused was separated he threatened the victim [that he would] get the key to the firearm safe and to get the shotgun out. The victim then contacted police and the accused was taken away from the scene by a friend to cool things down.
Police attended the location a short time later and were met by the victim at the front of the house. The victim informed police that the accused threatened to get the shotgun out after they have been involved in a domestic dispute. The victim also disclosed that he holds fears for his safety as the accused have access to firearms being stored in the house. The victim even went to say that he wished for the firearms to be confiscated by police.
In his statement dated 27 December 2013, Senior Constable Tariq Luqman sets out his stated conversation with Mr Fard Taouk:
Upon arrival at the location I noticed that the premise was a single storey house. The victim was standing on the western footpath directly outside the house. The victim approached me while Constable Chia was still parking the police vehicle and said
'I rung police, you need to see me'
I said 'Okay let me get out of the car and I will talk to you'
I got out of the car and approached the victim,
He said - 'My and my brother had a fight and he threatened to pull the shotgun out.
I said 'Does he have a shotgun?'
He said ' Yes he does'
I said 'Where are they stored? Are they in the house?'
He said 'Yes'
According to Senior Constable Luqman's statement, Mr Fard Taouk described a physical fight with his brother, Mr Tony Taouk. According to Senior Constable Luqman's statement, the conversation continued as follows:
I said What happened next?
He said We got separated and then he threatened to get the shotgun out. He went to get the safe key to pull it out.
I said How do you feel now?
He said I am scared
I said How can we help you today, what would you like us to do
He said, confiscate his guns.
I said are you willing to give a statement and go to court if required?
He said Yes, I will give statement
According to Senior Constable Luqman's statement, after Mr Tony Taouk was arrested, his sister started to berate Mr Fard Taouk. No members of Mr Taouk's family were prepared to give a statement to the police.
A statement dated 27 December 2013 by Senior Constable Chia, who also attended the scene with Senior Constable Luqman, corroborates Senior Constable Luqman's statement in relation to his conversation with Mr Fard Taouk.
When Mr Fard Taouk later provided a statement to the police, he agreed that he and Mr Tony Taouk had been fighting but denied any threats by his brother in relation to firearms. Specifically he states:
At no time did I give permission for Tony [Taouk] to assault me. I hold no fears for my safety and I am not intimidated about my brother having firearms in the house. There was no incident at my house involving any firearms or weapons.
Mr Tony Taouk agreed to take part in an electronically recorded interview. There is no transcript (or copy of the recording) of the interview before the Tribunal. According to the facts sheet, however, in his interview, Mr Taouk denied 'threatening the victim with anything at all let alone threatening him to get the shotgun out of the safe.'
Mr Taouk was then charged with one count of stalk/intimidate with intent to cause fear. An Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was made against him. The AVO was later revoked and the charge later withdrawn.
In an affidavit of evidence dated 11 January 2014, Sergeant Brett Kleyn attaches a transcript of a call made to the emergency number 000 on 27 December 2013. Relevantly, the transcript provides as follows:
CALLER: Yeah…my brother is pulling out a gun on me because he is got firearms inside the house he is pulling out a gun on me
OPERATOR: Okay he has a firearm have you seen the gun
CALLER: Yeah, he is got a firearm licence there he is pulling out the shot gun at me. He is trying pulling it out at me
OPERATOR: Has he got it out yet?
CALLER: Nah he has not because there is family members that are trying to stop him but its only a certain amount of time before he does pull it out
OPERATOR: Alright has he..got it in a safe stored
CALLER: Yeah he is got it safely he is pulling it out that what he said.
OPERATOR: What is your brother's name?
CALLER: Tony TAOUK
OPERATOR: What's his date of birth?
CALLER: 93, 94..Oh, he is only 19.
OPERATOR: Okay its 94 correct.. What's your name?
CALLER: Fard TAOUK
In oral evidence before the Tribunal, Senior Constable Luqman confirmed the accuracy of his statement. He told the Tribunal that Mr Fard Taouk had told him that his brother, the applicant Mr Tony Taouk, had threatened to get his safe key and get out his shotgun. Mr Fard Taouk told Senior Constable Luqman he felt scared and asked him to revoke his brother's firearms licence. He told Senior Constable Luqman he was happy to give a statement. When, however, he did provide a statement, he denied that his brother had threatened to take out his gun. In Senior Constable Luqman's view, the call made to 000 by Mr Fard Taouk was consistent with what Mr Fard Taouk had told him.
In cross-examination, Senior Constable Luqman agreed that no other family members had provided a statement in relation to the incident. He agreed that in some cases where an AVO is sought, the complainant may provide evidence that differs from an earlier statement. He said that he had never charged anyone in this situation with making a false allegation. It is his view that the family were upset at Mr Fard Taouk for making a complaint to the family.
Mr Fard Taouk gave oral evidence to the Tribunal by telephone. In relation to the 000 call he made to the police on 27 December 2013, he told the Tribunal that he didn't know what happened because he had been 'addicted to substances that day.' He stated that he remembered dialling the police but didn't remember anything after that. He told the Tribunal he couldn't remember providing a statement because he had been under the influence of drugs at the time. He couldn't remember having a physical argument with his brother.
In cross-examination, he told the Tribunal that his was a close family and that he sometimes has minor arguments with his brother.
The 000 call was then played to the Tribunal. During the call, Mr Fard Taouk's voice sounded clear and he was able to provide to the operator his brother's vehicle registration number and details of his brother's date of birth.
Having heard the recording, Mr Fard Taouk told the Tribunal that he still couldn't remember the call.
In oral evidence by telephone, Mr Tony Taouk told the Tribunal that he only remembered 'bits and pieces' of the events of 27 December 2013. He couldn't recall threatening his brother or threatening to pull out a firearm. He denied ever threatening to pull out a firearm at home.
In relation to his argument with his brother on 27 December 2013, Mr Taouk told the Tribunal that he didn't threaten to use a firearm against his brother or against anyone else. He agreed that he holds the only key to his firearms safe.
[4]
Storage
On 11 July 2013, police conducted a safe inspection in relation to Mr Taouk's firearm. According to the COPS Event summary for the inspection, the firearm was in Mr Taouk's bedroom in a pre-purchased safe bolted in a corner of the bedroom. There were no issues with bolting or locking points.
[5]
Facebook photos
A series of photographs were collected from Mr Taouk's Facebook page showing him holding a firearm. A copy of these photographs are contained on file.
Mr Taouk has not denied that the photographs are of him.
The photographs show Mr Taouk in various poses with firearms. In one photograph, he is aiming a firearm at the head of a person sitting with him, who is masked. Two photographs are of a man wearing a balaclava and holding a rifle. At the bottom of the photograph are the words 'Tony Taouk's Photos. Profile Pictures.'
Another photograph is of a man in a balaclava aiming a firearm at something out of the picture. An accompanying comment by Tony Taouk on 30 July 2013 states 'Got that right.'
Further photographs show Mr Taouk aiming a firearm at an object beyond the picture, with the words Tony Taouk's Photos. Profile Photos' at the bottom of the photograph.
In oral evidence to the Tribunal by telephone, Mr Taouk agreed that he had posed for photographs while holding a firearm. He told the Tribunal that at the time the photographs were being taken, the firearm was not loaded because it was being cleaned.
When asked to explain the number of photographs where he was wearing a balaclava and holding a firearm, Mr Taouk said that they were 'just photographs.' In relation to a photograph in which Mr Taouk seemed to be taking aim at something, he told the Tribunal, 'I was aiming at a fish tank.'
In relation to the photograph posted on 30 July 2013, again of a man in a balaclava with a firearm that is pointing downwards, Mr Taouk agreed it was also a photograph of him that had been taken either by his brother or his friend. He couldn't remember if his brother had taken any other such photographs of him. He agreed that when the photograph was taken, he had not been about to use it either for recreational use or vermin control. He told the Tribunal he had it out for cleaning. He agreed that he had uploaded the photograph to Facebook. He couldn't remember if any of the photographs had been cropped. He agreed that his brother, Mr Fard Taouk had taken photographs of him with firearms but he couldn't remember how many he had taken.
He told the Tribunal he was a responsible person who took the Firearms Act seriously and who respects the laws and authority. He described himself as an easy-going person.
In separate evidence by telephone to the Tribunal, Mr Fard Taouk agreed that he was on Facebook, but denied being a Facebook friend to his brother, Mr Tony Taouk. He told the Tribunal that he hadn't seen any photographs posted on Facebook by his brother.
[6]
Ms Thangasamy for the Commissioner
In considering the public interest, Ms Thangasamy submitted that the applicant's personal interest in having a licence is outweighed by the public safety, and that the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is no risk to public safety. She emphasised the importance of an applicant's need to comprehend the guidelines and laws governing firearms.
In relation to Mr Taouk's traffic record, Ms Thangasamy noted that his first driving offence occurred three months after he was granted a provisional licence and later offences ensued. Ms Thangasamy submitted that this shows that Mr Taouk does not take the law seriously and does not have respect for the authorities.
Ms Thangasamy submitted that Mr Taouk's behaviour, as revealed in the Facebook photos, placed him in contravention of the safe-keeping provisions as set out in s39(1) and s40(1)(a) of the Act. In particular, he noted the provisions of s40(1)(a) that a firearm must be stored when not actually being used or carried. Ms Thangasamy defined 'carried" as being taken back and forth and 'use' as referring to the object being operated for the purposes for which it has been made. According to Ms Thangasamy, if the licence holder is not using a firearm for the purposes for which the licence was granted, in this case for recreational hunting or vermin control, the firearm needs to be stored.
According to Ms Thangasamy,'those who have a firearms licence should have the integrity and character to be entrusted with the privileges that go with having that licence.'
Ms Thangasamy submitted that the transcript and recording of Mr Fard Taouk's call to 000 on 27 December 2013 should be relied upon and given substantial weight. According to Ms Thangasamy, Mr Fard Taouk appeared lucid and was able to understand the operator's questions, he made clear allegations in relation to his brother's threat to pull out his shotgun and was able to provide his brother's date of birth and car registration details.
Ms Thangasamy submitted that the Tribunal should consider all the factors before it on a cumulative basis - the traffic offences, the treatment of authorities, the use of photographs on Facebook and the events of 27 December 2013 - in determining the matter.
[7]
Mr Raihani for Mr Taouk
In relation to Mr Taouk's traffic record, his solicitor, Mr Raihani, noted that there had been no further incidents since 2012. He submitted that it was highly likely that the allegations made by Mr Fard Taouk against his brother, Mr Tony Taouk, in relation to threats to take out a firearm were false. He noted the apparently contradictory evidence between the recording and transcript of 000 call and the statement by Senior Constable Luqman, in that the recording seems to imply that Mr Fard Taouk is stating that Mr Tony Taouk is actually 'pulling out the firearm, rather than threatening to do so.' When the female voice on the 000 recording cuts in to say 'Nothing's going on, he is just on crack,' Mr Raihani submits that this supports the evidence of Mr Fard Taouk that he was drugs and couldn't remember anything about the call to 000, apart from the fact that he had made it.
In relation to the photographs posted by Mr Tony Taouk on Facebook, Mr Raihani submitted that 'at highest, the photographs are tasteless.' He told the Tribunal that there was nothing to show that Mr Taouk was a violent man and no evidence that the firearms were loaded at the time the photographs were taken. He noted that the last photographs were posted on 2013 and that he is unlikely to repeat the behaviour.
Mr Raihani submitted photographs of people posing with firearms that he had found on the internet to show the problems with the Commissioner's argument that such photos would themselves not comply with the provisions of the Firearms Act. He noted the Commissioner's concession that cleaning is a use of firearms and notes Mr Taouk's evidence that this is what he was doing.
On the evidence, Mr Raihani submits that Mr Taouk is a fit and proper person and that the public is not at risk if he holds a licence and that Mr Taouk understands that a licence is a privilege and understands the responsibility of holding a licence.
[8]
Is it in the public interest for Mr Taouk to continue to hold a firearms licence?
Section 24(2) (d) of the Firearms Act prescribes that a licence may be revoked for a reason prescribed by the Firearms Regulation. Clause 19 of the Firearms Regulation allows the Commissioner of Police to revoke a licence if he is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence. Accordingly section 24 (2) (d) of the Firearms Act and Clause 19 of the Firearms Regulation work together to provide authority for the revocation of a licence where the Commissioner is satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence.
The concept of "public interest" was discussed by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (NSW) (the ADT) in Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 as follows:
The "public interest" is an inherently broad concept giving an appellant [the Respondent] the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. As the possibility of refusing an application on the ground of character is dealt with in the same section, it is reasonable to infer that the parliament intended that the public interest discretion operated in areas to which the character ground was not relevant or, possibly, in circumstances where an objection on character grounds would not be sufficient in its own right to warrant refusal.
The circumstances in Toleafoa related to the revocation of a security licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 (NSW). In Ward v Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28, the ADT confirmed that these comments apply equally to the Firearms Act.
In Cusumano v Commissioner of Police [2001] NSWADT 50, the ADT stated:
There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these directions [to revoke firearms licences] should be exercised. In my view, the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act.
In Lynch v Commissioner of Police (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP, the ADT said relevant factors to be considered by the Respondent in determining whether to exercise his discretion include matters of general public policy, which were in turn said to be informed by the principles and objectives of the Firearms Act, namely, to confirm firearm possession and use as a privilege conditional upon the overriding need to ensure public safety.
In Ward, the ADT stated:
Where there has been, or is, a possibility of a threat to the public's safety, the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm.
The principal issue in determining public safety is therefore whether or not there is a risk to the safety of the public if Mr Taouk retains the relevant licence. Vella v Commissioner of Police [2003] NSWADT 91.
In considering risk to public safety, the ADT recognised that it must be satisfied that a person would not pose a risk to public safety if they had access to firearms. In Ward, the ADT stated:
"The [ADT] 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 [Firearms Act] the ADT must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk."
In considering whether it is in the public interest for Mr Taouk to continue to hold a firearms licence, the Tribunal has considered the following:
Mr Taouk's traffic record;
The incident on 27 December 2013; and
Photographs posted by Mr Taouk on his Facebook page.
Only months after being granted a provisional licence on 3 November 2011, Mr Taouk's licence was suspended for exceeding the speed limit by 30km. Five months later, he was charged with, and later convicted of, driving a vehicle recklessly/furiously or in a speed/manner dangerous, driving whilst suspended and using an uninsured and unregistered vehicle.
In evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Taouk admitted that upon his arrest for these later offences, he had told police officers that he was 'a mad driver' and would have swerved to avoid hitting someone whilst driving more than 40km over the speed limit. He admitted to behaving like a 'smartarse' but rather than showing insight into his behaviour, simply stated that his had been a response to goading by the officers.
Mr Taouk's poor traffic record and subsequent lack of insight demonstrates an inability or an unwillingness to comply with legislation directed towards public safety and is a relevant matter to take into account in considering whether it is in the public interest that he should be permitted to hold a firearms licence: Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116 at [37].
It is not disputed that Mr Tony Taouk posted on his Facebook page a series of photographs of himself holding different firearms. In some of the photographs, he was wearing a balaclava; in others, he was apparently aiming the firearm at or slightly beyond another person. According to Mr Taouk's evidence, the firearms were not loaded at the time but in light of the vagueness of his evidence in this regard - particularly as he was unable to recall the circumstances during which some of the photographs were taken - the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied of this.
By aiming a firearm at or near another person, there is the possibility of a threat to that person's safety. Such a threat must outweigh Mr Taouk's privilege to possess and use a firearm.
By posting such photographs, it also shows Mr Taouk's failure to adhere to the laws and regulations by which a licencee is bound, namely to store firearms when they are not being used (that is used for the purpose for which the licence was granted) or carried. Although Mr Taouk claimed to be cleaning the relevant firearms at the time, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he could be cleaning a firearm whilst aiming it at or beyond another person. A failure to comply with this regulation leads the Tribunal to be concerned as to whether the storage and safety requirements set out in the Firearms Act are capable of being met by Mr Taouk and consequently whether it would be in the public interest for Mr Taouk to retain his firearms licence. The Tribunal holds this concern despite the evidence that, on the one occasion when a safe inspection was conducted by police at Mr Taouk's premises, no breaches of the safety and storage requirements were found.
According to the statement by Senior Constable Luqman and his oral evidence before the Tribunal, during a physical argument with his brother, Mr Taouk threatened to get the key to his firearm safe and take his shotgun out. The Tribunal finds that Senior Constable Luqman's evidence is substantiated both by the statement by Senior Constable Chia and by the transcript and recording of the call made to 000 by Mr Fard Taouk, where he is recorded to have said 'My brother is pulling out a gun on me because he is got firearms inside the house.'
[9]
ORDER
1. The decision under review is affirmed
I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Registrar
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: 17 March 2015
When asked for clarification by the operator, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Fard Taouk replied that he hadn't actually got the gun out 'because there is family members that are trying to stop him but it's only a certain amount of time before he does pull it out.'
In his subsequent statement and in oral evidence before the Tribunal by telephone, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Fard Taouk denied that there had been any incident at the house involving any firearms or weapons and stated that because he had been under the influence of drugs at that time, he could not remember the content of his call to 000 or anything he had said to the attending police officers. In oral evidence to the Tribunal by telephone, Mr Tony Taouk also denied threatening to pull out a firearm.
On the evidence before it, however, the Tribunal is satisfied that on 27 December 2013, during a physical argument with his brother, Mr Fard Taouk, Mr Tony Taouk did threaten to take a firearm out of the safe. The Tribunal is satisfied that this threat precipitated the call by Mr Fard Taouk to 000. Having heard the recording, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Fard Taouk sounded lucid and was able to accurately respond to questions by the operator, including the registration details to his brother's car and his brother's date of birth. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the conversation of a man so under the influence of illicit drugs that he was unable to make any sense on the telephone.
Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that this telephone call to 000, made at the time of the agreed altercation itself, is evidence of the fear occasioned to Mr Fard Taouk by his brother's threat. This is corroborated by the statements of Senior Constable Luqman and Senior Constable Chia who had been deployed to the address precisely because of the fear expressed by Mr Fard Taouk in his conversation with the 000 operator.
The Tribunal does not accept the later evidence of Mr Fard Taouk that no such threat was ever made. Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Fard Taouk has now changed his story as a result of family pressure to do so.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Tony Taouk's behaviour on 27 December 2013 was such as to constitute the possibility of a threat to the public's safety. In such a case, the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm.
In light of all the evidence before it, as considered above, the Tribunal finds that it would not be in the public interest for Mr Tony Taouk to continue to hold a firearms licence. For this reason, the decision of the Commissioner to revoke his firearms licence should be affirmed.