Toovey v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 335;

1. Section 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act 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".
2. Section 11(4) provides that:

(4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3) (a), 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 -

(a) the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances, or

(b) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury, or

(c) the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.

1. Pursuant to s 11(7), "the Commissioner [or on review this tribunal] may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest".

1. The respondent did not call oral evidence but instead relied on the documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) and a supplementary bundle of evidence (exhibit R2).
2. The applicant did not lodge a witness statement as directed by Robinson PM, explaining that he had forgotten to do so. The respondent consented to his giving oral evidence without one.
3. Referring to the incident when he had ignited a major bushfire after setting fire to a motor vehicle, he explained that he was very young at the time and he and some friends had used a rally car. He had set fire to it with a lighter but had not thought that the fire would spread. The episode involved a major learning curve and he felt very badly about it.
4. In relation to the road rage incident on 16 December 2022, it was a unique set of circumstances. He had been travelling home from work and had driven up behind the other car, changing lanes. He had been "flipped off" by the other driver and he had pulled alongside the other vehicle, the two cars swerving towards each other. He had stopped and stepped out of his car, approaching the other driver and telling him that he if he kept going, he would push him in the head. The other nevertheless kept following him. The police came to talk to him about the incident about six months later. He regretted getting out of his car on that occasion.
5. As regards his statement in his application that he had not had a criminal conviction in the past 10 years when in fact he had traffic violations, he said he had thought that negligent driving was not a criminal matter but a traffic matter.
6. The applicant explained that he had experienced a difficult life, having lost his parents when young. He had been aged four when his father had died by his own hand and he had been 12½ when his mother had died. He is now aged 33 but his life had been "up and down" from age 15 until he was 23, but he had matured since he started serious work at that time. He is now aged 33 and had begun an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner when he was 31. He had purchased the house where he now lives and seeks to obtain a firearms licence so he can go to the shooting range. He likes to obtain any kind of licence that he can.
7. Cross-examined by Mr Regener on behalf of the respondent, he admitted that he had been guilty of assaulting the transport officer in 2010, including threatening to kill him. In relation to the 2014 offence of intentionally causing a fire he said that he had started the fire with a lighter but had been unable to extinguish it.
8. When it was put to him that he must have known he had a criminal conviction within 10 years because the notice he had received in relation to the fire was in a similar form to the one he had received in relation to negligent driving, he admitted that he knew it was a criminal matter. When he had said his life had been "up and down" he meant that he went through stages. He had been using drugs, including marijuana and methamphetamine, and had stopped using, but had relapsed. He had not sought any therapy or professional help in relation to drugs.
9. His attention was drawn to the photograph of the broken side mirror of the other car in the road rage incident (part exhibit R2). He said it had not looked like that. He believed that it had been tampered with subsequently. He had pleaded guilty, as in all his other matters, and agreed that the magistrate had accepted that he had caused the damage shown in the picture.

1. The applicant had not lodged a summary of submissions as directed, but in oral submissions said that his earlier crimes had stemmed from the lack of guidance he had received growing up without his parents. He accepted that he had done wrong but submitted that in circumstances similar to his own, any normal person would have been unable to avoid following a downward track.
2. He had made many mistakes over a 15-year period, but now had not touched alcohol or drugs for 10 years and had started a proper career. He agreed that he should have ignored the other driver in the 16 December 2022 incident. If in possession of firearms he would not present a risk of harm to the public.
3. His assault of the transport officer occurred at a time when he was on drugs, and had been involved in an argument with his partner. The officers had intervened to stop the altercation. He had been rebellious but now wanted a new life and had massively matured over the last 10 years.

1. Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) the tribunal's role is to determine whether, having regard to the underlying facts in the matter and the applicable law, the Commissioner's decision is the correct and preferable one. The tribunal is to review the merits of the original decision and is required to consider the evidence available at that time, together with any other or later material, so as to affirm the original decision, vary it or set it aside: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77.
2. The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the CAT Act (s 30) and the Firearms Act, including the Commissioner's refusal of a licence or permit: s 75(1)(c). An internal review was applied for and duly determined (ADR Act s 55(3)). The tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Commissioner's decision is correct: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357.
3. Clear guidance as to how the Act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistently with that approach, s 11(3) states that a licence must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.
4. The standard of proof applying in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, the balance (preponderance) of probabilities. These are not adversarial proceedings. There is accordingly, no burden or onus of proof on either party (Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10, [28] - [34]) and the standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42, [89] - [91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10, [10] - [12]. They do, however, provide guidance for the tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction.

1. The first ground on which the respondent contends that the revocation should be affirmed is that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Section 11(3)(a) provides that "A licence must not be issued unless: (a) 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". A positive finding of fitness and propriety is thus a prerequisite for the issuance of a licence.
2. The question of whether a person is fit and proper in the licensing context has been considered in numerous cases before the courts and the tribunal. In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127, 156 - 157, the High Court gave a general overview of the concept and the discretion that it embodies:

The expression "fit and proper person" is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocations. But their purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. "Fit" or "idoneus" with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability.... It is evident that the Commissioner is invested with an authority to accept or reject an applicant the exercise of which depends on no certain or reliable criteria and which in truth involves a very wide discretion.

1. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11, 65; [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380, Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained that:

The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, or whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

1. Fitness and propriety is a question of fact to be determined objectively, taking into account all the evidence: Smith v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184. The Appeal Panel has pointed out that public interest considerations play a role in the assessment of fitness and propriety: Director-General, Transport New South Wales v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65, [37]; Smith, [30].
2. In this case the respondent relies chiefly on the applicant's criminal history as a basis for finding that he is not a fit and proper person to possess firearms.

1. On 1 December 2010 in the country trains concourse at Central Railway the applicant was involved in a noisy and profane altercation with his then girlfriend (event E 42879718, exhibit R1, pp 17 - 19). Two transit officers approached him to remind the couple to stop swearing. In the ensuing altercation the applicant lunged towards one of the officers, causing him to flinch away, believing he was about to be head-butted by the applicant (a common assault). The applicant was then issued with a four-hour move on direction from Central Railway because of his aggressive behaviour, which "appeared to have enraged the Accused, causing him to release a torrent of abuse and vitriol towards the Officers".
2. As he walked away, the applicant continued yelling at the officers, making multiple threats to kill them and their families (thereby further assaulting them). On 11 January 2011 he was convicted at Downing Centre Local Court of two offences of common assault and one of wilfully using offensive language on a train or public area and was fined a total of $750. His comment in relation to that incident was that he had been on drugs at the time and had been involved in an argument with his partner when the officers intervened. He had been rebellious at the time but now wanted a new life and had matured greatly over the last 10 years.

1. On 17 January 2013, the applicant set fire to a vehicle that was parked in bushland near Cessnock at a time when the temperature was 38° and there was a total fire ban in place. His actions caused a bushfire that was brought under control by the New South Wales Fire Brigade and Rural Fire Service. The following day the temperature rose to 47° and the same vehicle reignited a fire, causing an enormous bushfire which required the efforts of over 170 Fire Brigade and RFS personnel to control it, as well as involving four water bombing helicopters.
2. Police were also involved in closing roads and evacuating nearby residents. It was reported that the fire had destroyed 110 hectares of bushland and damaged two residences. The fire was reported in the news as police were appealing for information from the public to identify the individuals responsible. On 22 May the applicant was arrested in relation to causing the fire and in the course of an interview with police made full admissions to causing the fire.
3. On 7 March 2014 in Cessnock Local Court he was convicted of the offence of intentionally causing a fire and being reckless as to its spread, and sentenced to a good behaviour bond for three years.
4. According to the police fact sheet for the incident (charge H 52848555, exhibit R1, pp 25 - 28) the applicant and two others had purchased an unregistered 1992 Holden Apollo for $100 and proceeded to drive it through the back streets of Cessnock and into bushland, taking turns driving it through the bushland along fire trails. The car was extensively damaged as a result of the manner in which it was driven in the bushland and in due course the motor seized, whereupon they called another friend to come and collect them.
5. The applicant leaned inside the car, took a cigarette lighter and set the rear of the driver seat on fire, then leaving and following his companions. When all four were together about 100 m from the car, they all saw that it was on fire and returned to it. No attempt was made to extinguish the fire. They then left the scene and the fire started the major conflagration described above. Police noted that the applicant "was remorseful for his actions".
6. In oral evidence the applicant said he had been young at the time and he and his friends had used a rally car in the bush. It caught fire but he had not thought that the fire would spread. It led to a major learning curve for him and he felt very bad about it.

1. A more recent incident occurred on 16 December 2022 when the applicant was involved in a confrontation with another driver on the M1 motorway near Freeman's Waterhole (event E 393839193, id., 33 - 42). It was reported that his vehicle and the "victim's" (the other driver's) vehicle had attempted to merge into the same lane simultaneously and engaged in evasive action. The victim drove his vehicle back into the lane he had attempted to merge from and made a rude gesture at the applicant. It was reported that the applicant then merged into the victim's lane in front of the latter's vehicle, causing him to brake suddenly.
2. When traffic came to a stop, the applicant exited his vehicle and approached the victim's vehicle with his fist clenched. The victim started to reverse his vehicle away, telling the applicant to stop, but he kept approaching the victim, and the victim kept reversing. The applicant threatened to assault the victim and punched his driver's side mirror, breaking it. A photograph of the damaged mirror is included in exhibit R2. He later admitted to police that he had pushed the mirror in, but said it was not broken.
3. On 7 February 2024 he was convicted at Cessnock Local Court of the offences of destroying or damaging property and negligent driving not resulting in death or grievous bodily harm. He was fined a total of $1600 and was made subject to a community correction order for a term of 12 months, concluding on 6 February 2025. The respondent submits that these incidents provide an overall picture of the applicant's disregard for the law, pattern of aggressive behaviour and reckless attitude towards the safety of others. "The fact that the car incident and the fire occurred some 9 years apart is of limited relevance", it was submitted. "It is not as if the Applicant went through some kind of 'crime free' period before applying for a firearms licence. To the contrary, in one form or another, his offending for different offences continued".

1. Section 11(4)(c) creates a specific category of mandatory licence refusal on fitness and propriety grounds where "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".
2. The respondent contended that the phrase "intemperate habits" could include a propensity to react to situations in an impulsive or extreme manner. In the written submissions the respondent argued that "The Applicant's actions of threatening the victim and punching his mirror reflects intemperate habits, impulsivity and capability of resorting to violence in stressful situations. The Respondent submits that these characteristics are the antithesis of what is required of an individual who possesses a firearms licence, including restraint, responsibility and good judgment" (at para 54).
3. The respondent reiterated that argument in oral submissions, referring to intemperate threats, the fire episode and his traffic record, including the road rage incident. There was no evidence that he had learned to control his impulses and the case showed almost a duty to refuse a licence on the basis of s 11(4)(d) alone.
4. I incline to the view that "intemperate habits" in the context of s 11(4)(c) denotes overindulgence in alcoholic beverages or drugs rather than a choleric disposition. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 6th edn. 2000 states that the word "intemperance" in an insurance policy means "habitual, immoderate indulgence in alcohol, or addition to it, not immoderate consumption on an isolated occasion: Ridley v Bradford Insurance Co. [1971] RTR 61".
5. While in everyday usage the adjective "intemperate" is sometimes used to describe any uncontrolled conduct lacking in restraint or proportion, I am not aware of any judicial authority supporting the wider interpretation of the phrase "intemperate habits" advanced by the respondent. But equally, the evidence does indeed show impulsivity, aggression and a tendency to resort to threats or violence in stressful situations.

1. An applicant's traffic record can also be relevant to fitness and propriety (as well as the public interest). In Keegan Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145, [81] the tribunal said "The Applicant's repeated breach of traffic laws and regulations aimed at ensuring public safety indicates a disregard for a regulatory scheme aimed at ensuring public safety. The firearms regulatory scheme, and licensing scheme, focuses primarily on public safety".
2. The present applicant's traffic record begins even before he was issued with a licence. On 14 February 2014 he was stopped by police while riding a motorcycle when he had no rider's licence and the machine was unregistered and uninsured. 26 February 2014, he was found guilty of the offence of being a never licensed person driving a vehicle on a road - first offence, and convicted of using an unregistered registrable class A motor vehicle on a road and using an uninsured motor vehicle. He was fined $200 and placed on a 6-month s 10 bond (exhibit R1, p 10).
3. The applicant's record is particularly poor when one bears in mind that he has only held a licence for 10 years, since 2015. During that time he has incurred six suspensions and committed some seven moving violations. Of particular concern in the context of the firearms licensing scheme are his seven contraventions for failure to comply with licence conditions, illustrating a pattern of careless disregard for a regulatory system intended to promote public safety.
4. Nor has his traffic record shown any radical improvement in recent times. On 7 February 2024 he was fined $600 by Cessnock Local Court for negligent driving, and on 10 March 2023 he disobeyed a no turns sign at an intersection, incurring a fine of $283. On 21 January 2019 he was fined $472 for speeding by more than 20 km/h but not more than 30 km/h. He has displayed a continuing inability to learn from his mistakes despite the rehabilitation opportunities that have been extended to him.

1. In his application for a firearms licence dated 10 June 2025, the applicant answered "no" to the personal history question, "At any time within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a criminal offence in New South Wales or elsewhere?" But as his criminal history shows, on 7 February 2024 he was fined $1000 (plus $600 for negligent driving) and placed on a community corrections order for 12 months in connexion with the road rage episode (exhibit R1, p 7). Section 70 of the Act provides that a person must not, in or in connexion with an application under the Act or regulations, make a statement or provide information that the person knows is false or misleading.
2. His defence in relation to that matter was that he had not known that traffic contraventions were criminal: "I'm not good with this stuff", he said. That is not entirely implausible. In this tribunal I have known legal professionals to argue that traffic offences are not criminal. But the 2024 road rage contraventions include the destroying or damaging property count, which cannot be regarded as a traffic matter and is listed in his criminal history, not his traffic record. Indeed, at one point in cross-examination he conceded that it was a criminal offence. At best, that incident is further evidence of careless attitude towards compliance with regulatory requirements.
3. The respondent submitted that the applicant has continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into the risks associated with dangerous driving and the seriousness of traffic laws in New South Wales. "This pattern of behaviour," it was submitted, "shows not only a disregard for road safety, but also an indifference to the legal consequences that have already been imposed. Further, the Applicant's [record] demonstrates that prior penalties and rehabilitation efforts have failed to instill an understanding of the potential harm posed to himself and others, which infers a broader disregard for the law generally".

1. As was noted above, s 11(3)(a) requires the tribunal to reach a positive state of satisfaction that an 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. The present applicant has a criminal history commencing on 1 December 2010 with the Central Railway incident involving multiple common assaults on transit officers and the intervention of police.
2. His offensive behaviour was sustained, highly aggressive, threatening and abusive and was also directed at one of the group of onlookers that had gathered. His explanation that he had been on drugs at the time and was involved in a dispute with his then girlfriend does little to mitigate the concerns raised by this display of uninterrupted and uncontrolled threatening conduct.
3. His triggering of the massive bushfire by setting fire to a car in bushland on 17 January 2013, which also involved driving an unregistered vehicle on public roads, again depicts a lack of prudence and responsibility inconsistent with possession of firearms. The applicant's propensity for violent outbursts of anger was again in evidence more recently in the road rage episode on 16 December 2022 in which he threatened another driver and broke a side mirror on the other vehicle (he admits pushing the mirror but not breaking it, although the magistrate must have found that he did).
4. The applicant's conduct on that occasion was not entirely unprovoked, but the fine of $1600 and the 12-month community correction order suggest that the magistrate did not regard the incident as minor or trivial. It is consistent with an overall picture of the applicant's disregard for law, pattern of aggressive behaviour and reckless attitude towards the safety of others.
5. His traffic record, while it may not rise to the level of justifying licence refusal in itself, raises serious concerns about his willingness to comply with statutory regulation aimed at protecting public safety. In a period of only 10 years as a licence holder, he has accumulated six licence suspensions and seven moving violations, including negligent driving in 2024 and disobeying a no turns sign in 2022. His seven contraventions for failing to comply with licence conditions do not inspire confidence in his ability to respect the requirements of firearms licence holders.
6. As against that, the applicant has tendered three recent character references (part exhibit A1), one of them from Mr Brock Grierson, who describes himself as a work colleague and long-term friend who has known the applicant for 15 years. He states that Nicholas has always been respectful, calm and considerate in his actions with others. He has never shown any form of violence, aggression or threatening behaviour. On the contrary, he consistently demonstrates patience and empathy, approaching challenges with a level-headed and responsible attitude.
7. "I am aware", he writes, "that Nicholas has faced difficulties in the past, but I have witnessed the significant personal growth he has achieved since then. He has taken full responsibility for his actions, learned valuable lessons and shown true commitment to bettering himself and making positive contributions to his life and community". Mr Grierson firmly believes the applicant is a responsible individual who understands the importance of safety, respect and accountability. He has no doubt that he would handle firearms with the utmost seriousness and care.
8. Mr David Staib has known the applicant in both personal and professional capacities for 17 years. He has always conducted himself with honesty and kindness and has never displayed any form of violence or aggression toward others. His calm and thoughtful demeanour, combined with his respect for the law and for the safety of those around him, reflects his genuine good intentions. Mr Staib is confident that the applicant would treat firearms ownership with the utmost respect and care, understanding the serious responsibilities that come with it.
9. Mr Samuel J Swift is a friend and colleague who has known the applicant for 17 years. He writes that Nicholas has always conducted himself in a calm and responsible manner and is not someone who acts out of anger or aggression. Mr Swift has never known him to be violent or confrontational in any way. He treats others with respect and approaches situations with a thoughtful and mature attitude. "He has taken accountability for his actions," Mr Swift writes, "and has made great efforts to better himself and his life. It is clear that he values responsibility, honesty and doing the right thing". Mr Swift states that Nicholas takes safety and responsibility seriously, and he believes he would handle holding a firearm licence with the same care and respect that he applies to all aspects of his life.
10. Though supportive, those references merit limited weight. It is not uncommon for character references in such cases to skirt rather euphemistically around an applicant's past encounters with the law, but with their emphasis on what they see as his patience, empathy, calm demeanour, absence of any form of violence or aggression towards others and respect for the law and for the safety of those around him, they display little awareness of his criminal history or his traffic record.
11. The applicant is a man aged 33 who is working towards completing an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner. He is in regular employment and is in the process of purchasing the house where he resides. He says he does not consume alcoholic beverages or use drugs, and there is no evidence to contradict that assertion. He has no history of any mental health problems.
12. Growing up without his parents, he suffered from a lack of adult direction and fell into bad habits and questionable company that led to drug use (as at the time of the 2010 Central Railway incident) and irresponsible behaviour (as when he started the major bushfire in January 2013).
13. He says that over the last 10 years he has turned his life around and is now ready to accept the responsibility of firearms ownership. That appears to be partly true, but the December 2022 road rage episode is a major blot on his recent record, indicating as it does some continuing tendency to impulsive and aggressive reactions. In addition, his traffic record is still poor.
14. The evidence is consistent with gradual improvement in his conduct, but the December 2022 incident, in particular, is too recent for the tribunal to be able to make a positive finding that he is at present a fit and proper person firearms licence, and I so find. That assessment could change over time, but at present the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

1. The other main ground on which the respondent relies is that it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. Similarly, in Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 the tribunal stressed that public safety is to be given paramount consideration.
4. 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].
5. 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". Risk to the public includes, of course, risk to the applicant himself: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117, [74].
6. The respondent submits that for the reasons set out above in connexion with fitness and propriety, it would not be in the public interest for the applicant to be issued with a licence. Recent events, the respondent contended, had shown how serious the consequences of firearms misuse could be. The applicant seeks a licence so that he can engage in target shooting at the local range, and while that is a legitimate interest, it cannot prevail over the public interest.
7. The evidence supports that position. Further, given in particular the seriousness and relative recency of the December 2022 road rage episode, it is impossible at present to exclude the possibility of "a real and appreciable risk" to public safety, as understood in Webb. I therefore conclude that it would not at present be in the public interest for a firearms licence to be issued to the applicant, and I so find. The decision under review is affirmed.

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.