Venables v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2025] NSWCATAD 313;

1. The issue the Tribunal must decide is whether the correct and preferable decision is to affirm, vary or set aside the Commissioner's decision. This requires the Tribunal to determine the following issues:

(1) Whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or the peace.

(2) Whether it would be contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence.

1. The Firearms Act provides for the regulation, control and registration of firearms. The underlying principles are set out in s 3(1) of the Firearms Act and relevantly include:

(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 3(2) of the Act sets out the objects of the Act which include:

(a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances,

(b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms,

(c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm,

(d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and supply of firearms,

(e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner...

1. Section 11 of the Firearms Act provides for the issuing of licences. Section 11(3) (a) of the Firearms Act prescribes 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 or to the peace...'.
2. Section 11(7) of the Firearms Act provides that 'the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest'.
3. Section 70 of the Firearms Act provides that:

A person must not, in or in connection with an application under this Act or the regulations, make a statement or provide information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

1. The Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) ('ADR Act') provides for the circumstances in which the Tribunal has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) ('CAT Act') s 30(1). The Tribunal has the power to review the decision to refuse the Applicant's firearm licence pursuant to s 75(1)(a) of the Firearms Act and s 9 of the ADR Act.
2. In determining the application for administrative review, the Tribunal may decide to affirm the decision, vary the decision, set aside the decision and make a decision in substitution, or remit the matter for reconsideration: ADR Act s 63(3).

1. The Respondent relies on the following evidence and submissions:

(1) Documents filed under s 58 of the ADR Act on 24 February 2025 (Exhibit R-1).

(2) Submissions filed on 1 May 2025 (Exhibit R-2).

1. The Applicant relies on the following evidence:

(1) Application for review filed 10 January 2025 (Exhibit A1).

(2) A bundle of documents filed on 16 March 2025 (Exhibit A2). These documents comprise of five letters of reference, the last will and testament of Sidney Clarke Venables, and a death certificate issued in respect of Sidney Clarke Venables.

1. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 16 May 2025. The Applicant appeared by AVL link. The Applicant and Respondent both made oral submissions at hearing. The Respondent did not seek to cross-examine the Applicant.

1. The Applicant wishes to hold a firearms licence because his father, who died in August 2024, left his firearms to him in his will, and they have sentimental value to him. The Applicant submits that he has waited 10 years for his firearms licence. He has joined a firearms club. In oral submissions he acknowledged that he had 'a bad driving history' but said that he now has his provisional licence and has changed in many ways. He has passed a firearms safety course.
2. The Applicant has provided five letters of reference:

(a) Mr Chow has observed the Applicant using firearms. He has no concerns for safety around the Applicant. The Applicant is a trustworthy, reliable and sensible man.

(b) Ms S Venables has known the Applicant for forty years and observed him using firearms. She has no fear for her safety.

(c) Ms Collins has known the Applicant for five years. For the last two years he has been a support person for her son who has certain medical conditions. She considers the Applicant to be honest, trustworthy and respectful.

(d) Mr Eades has known the Applicant for over ten years and found him to be a safe and responsible person who is always thinking of other people's safety and takes care to follow all the rules and regulations regarding firearms.

(e) Mr Burton writes that the Applicant is a person of good character with 'a clear and comprehensive understanding of the legal and ethical responsibilities that come with owning and handling [firearms]' and an 'unwavering' commitment to maintaining safety.

1. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should affirm the Respondent's decision to refuse to grant the firearms licence on the basis that it would be contrary to the public interest to issue the licence and because the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence for the following reasons:

(1) The Applicant's previous conviction for the offence of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place was a serious offence in the context of the firearms licensing regime as it demonstrates a lack of regard for firearms safety requirements.

(2) The Applicant has a clear disregard for regulatory schemes aimed at public safety as evidenced by his history of traffic offences, including offences of driving without a licence and driving while disqualified from obtaining a licence. Related to his history of traffic offences, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant has lied to the police on multiple occasions about the fact that he did not hold a drivers' licence.

(3) The Applicant has demonstrated a lack of candour and honesty expected of a licence holder by failing to disclose his previous firearm conviction, revocation of his licence in 2012 in his firearms applications in 2017 and 2024. The Applicant also did not disclose the 2017 refusal of his firearms licence application in 2024.

1. The Respondent submits that the Applicant does not have any compelling reason to access firearms; his nominated reason for holding a firearms licence is for recreational hunting/vermin control. The Respondent submits that in circumstances where there are clear concerns about his willingness to comply with regulatory regimes aimed at public safety, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision.

1. The relevant facts about the Applicant's criminal history, including his record of traffic offences and his prior conviction for a firearms offence, are not in dispute.

1. It is not in dispute that on 8 February 2012, the Applicant was convicted of the offence of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place. The conduct constituting the firearms offence occurred on 3 September 2011. The Applicant's vehicle was stopped. The police identified that there was a loaded firearm sitting between the legs of a passenger. The Applicant did not hold a driver's licence at the time.
2. The consequence of the Applicant's conviction for possessing a loaded firearm in a public place was that he was disqualified from holding a firearms licence for ten years. The Applicant applied for a Category AB licence on 10 July 2017, which was refused on 19 July 2017 on the basis that he was subject to the mandatory disqualification period.
3. Traffic record
4. The Applicant's traffic record is in evidence. It is not in dispute, that between 2002 and 2022, the Applicant's history of traffic offences includes:

(1) Driving without a licence on six occasions on 20 August 2002, 6 June 2007, 8 February 2008, 3 July 2008, 3 September 2011, and 26 November 2011.

(2) Driving while disqualified on five occasions on 14 March 2013, 3 June 2013, 17 February 2013, 27 December 2019 and 22 October 2020.

(3) Burnouts on 20 August 2002 and 3 July 2009.

(4) Using an uninsured motor vehicle on 6 June 2007.

(5) Failing to give way at lights on one occasion on 7 May 2013.

1. On 10 November 2022 the Applicant was issued with a learner drivers' licence.
2. On 15 December 2023, the Applicant was issued with a P1 provisional drivers' licence subject to the condition that he could drive with one passenger in the vehicle.
3. Since the Applicant was issued with a provisional drivers' licence, he has been issued with the following traffic infringement notices:

(1) Speeding on one occasion on 25 December 2023 for which he was fined and subject to double demerit points.

(2) Failing to comply with the condition of his provisional licence (carrying more than one passenger) on 15 February 2024.

1. The Applicant's most recent suspension from driving ending on 4 August 2024.
2. On 1 October 2024 the Applicant obtained an exemption from the one passenger limit until 15 December 2024 to transport specified family members whilst the holder of a provisional licence.
3. False and misleading information
4. The Applicant applied for a firearms licence on 10 July 2017. This application was refused because he was disqualified from holding a firearms licence.
5. The evidence before the Tribunal is that in his 2017 application for a firearms licence, the Applicant answered no to the following questions:

Have you, in NSW or elsewhere:

Been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearms licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked?

...

within the last 10 years, been convicted of an offence involving firearms or weapons, prohibited drugs/plants, fraud/dishonesty/stealing, prescribed restricted substances, terrorism, violence, robbery, organised criminal groups, or an offence of a sexual nature?

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant provided incorrect information because on 9 September 2011 the Applicant's firearm licence was suspended, the Applicant was convicted of a firearms offence on 8 February 2012 and on 16 March 2012 his firearms licence was revoked.
2. In his application for a firearms licence on 9 September 2024, the Applicant answered no to the following question:

Have you, in NSW or elsewhere:

Been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearms licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked?

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant provided incorrect information because the Applicant had his firearms licence suspended on 9 September 2011 and revoked on 16 March 2012 and his application for a firearms licence was refused in July 2017.
2. The Applicant does not dispute that the information he provided in the firearms applications he made in 2017 and 2024 was incorrect. The Tribunal notes that in respect of both the 2017 application and the 2024 application, the Applicant signed a declaration that he understood that it is a serious offence under the Firearms Act to make a state or provide information that he knew to be false or misleading and certified that the information contained in the application is true and correct in every detail. Because the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has adequately explained how he came to provide incorrect information on two separate occasions, the Tribunal is drawn to the conclusion that the Applicant provided deliberately false information in the application for a firearms licence on 9 September 2024.

Is the Applicant a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence?

1. Section 11 (3)(a) of the Act prescribes that a firearms 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. The question of a person's fitness to hold a licence is to be determined by reference to the activities in issue and consideration of the nature and purpose of the activities that the person will undertake. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, Toohey and Gaudron JJ considered the context of the expression 'fit and proper' and said (at 380):

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, 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.

The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration.

1. With respect to the question of whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person for the purpose of s 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act, the Tribunal is required to form 'a positive state of satisfaction' that an applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force v EMB [2021] NSWCATAP 63 at [45].
2. Given the potential risks of authorising a person to use and possess firearms, issuing a firearms licence is a privilege conditional on the overarching need to ensure public safety. In the context of the Firearms Act, fitness and propriety 'must be considered in the context of at all times ensuring public safety': Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254 at [22]; Degotardi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 328 at [80].
3. The Tribunal considers that there are three matters that weigh against a finding that the Applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.
4. First, the Applicant has a long history of traffic offences, including multiple offences of driving without a licence. While the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's submission that his situation has changed since he was issued with his provisional licence in 2022, it is not in dispute that there have been two further traffic infringements for exceeding the speed limit by more than 10km/h but not more than 20 km/h while driving a motor vehicle in December 2023; and not comply with the conditions of a provisional licence, that of carrying more than one passenger in February 2024.
5. The Tribunal finds a relatively short period has elapsed since his last traffic infringement and that the applicant has a very poor traffic history of breaching traffic rules and regulations, including while he did not hold a driver's licence. The Tribunal finds the applicant's history of traffic offences indicates to the Tribunal that the Applicant is a person who has little regard to the possible impact of his conduct on the public safety of others. This is relevant to the question of whether the Tribunal can reach the requisite state of satisfaction that an Applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.
6. Second, the Applicant provided incorrect information in his application for a firearms licence in 2017 and his application for a firearms licence in 2024. To the extent the Applicant has suggested that he misunderstood the question, the Tribunal finds this explanation to be unsatisfactory. The Tribunal finds that in his 2024 application, the Applicant provided false information when he answered no to the question of whether he had been refused or prohibited from holding a licence or permit or had a firearms licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked. The correct information was that his firearms licence was suspended in September 2011 and revoked on 16 March 2012 and that an earlier application for firearms licence was refused on 19 July 2017.
7. The Applicant has provided incorrect information in his firearms applications on two separate occasions. The Tribunal is of the view that, at least on the most recent occasion, it is likely that the provision of false information was deliberate, and the Tribunal finds that in 2024 the Applicant provided false information in his firearms application.
8. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's conduct, in providing incorrect information in his firearms application on two separate occasions, weighs against a finding that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The proper functioning of the firearms licensing system depends upon applicants providing true and correct information: Leatham v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 121 at [18]. Even if the Tribunal were to accept the Applicant provided incorrect information in his firearms applications inadvertently, the repeated failure to provide the correct information displays a reckless attitude to the importance of providing true and correct information to the authority responsible for issuing licences: Degotardi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2024] NSWCATAD 328 at [84]. It is not relevant that the firearms registry may already have access to the information about the Applicant: Hunt v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 58 at [56].
9. Third, the applicant has a prior conviction for a firearms offence. The Tribunal acknowledges that the period of mandatory disqualification has passed, and a significant period of time has passed since 2012, when the conviction was recorded. The applicant is entitled to make an application for a category AB firearms licence and to have the question of whether he is a fit and proper person determined based on all the evidence before the Tribunal. While the fact that the applicant has a prior conviction for a firearms offence is not determinative, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that this prior conviction remains a relevant consideration in assessing whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. This is because the conduct that constituted the offence reveals a disregard for the firearms regulatory scheme and firearms safety requirements. This past conduct is relevant to the question of whether, having considered all the available evidence before the Tribunal about the Applicant's conduct, the Tribunal can now reach the requisite state of satisfaction that an applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace.
10. The Tribunal finds that the first two factors weigh heavily against a finding that the Applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to hold a firearms licence without danger to public safety or the peace. The third factor is not determinative of the outcome of whether the Applicant satisfies the fit and proper person criterion. However, it adds weight to the Tribunal's concerns that the applicant's past conduct reveals a propensity to disregard regulatory schemes that are intended ensure public safety.
11. The Tribunal has considered whether there are matters that weigh in favour of a finding that the applicant is a fit and proper person for the purpose of s 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has undertaken relevant firearms training, it is not sufficient that the Applicant is possessed of the requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities he would have as the holder of a firearms licence. The relevant question for the Tribunal is whether he is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence recognising that holding a firearms licence is a privilege, and not a right, and that public safety is a paramount consideration: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2012] NSWADT 172 at [53].
12. The Tribunal has considered the character references filed by the applicant. The character references are general in nature whereas what the Tribunal must consider is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. While the Tribunal accepts that the authors of the references consider the Applicant is of good character, the character references do not address the Applicant's history of breaching traffic rules or to his previous conviction for a firearms offence. Four of the references refer to the Applicant's use of firearms but the authors of the references do not detail when they observed the Applicant using firearms or refer to the revocation of his firearms licence in 2012. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the character references submitted by the Applicant can be given little weight.
13. For completeness, the Tribunal notes that the Respondent submitted that the Applicant has knowingly misled the police about the status of his driving licence on five separate occasions and that his lack of honesty and candour on these occasions go towards the question of whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Applicant did not specifically address these allegations in written or oral submissions, and the Respondent did not seek to cross examine the Applicant.
14. The Tribunal considers that it is unnecessary to make specific findings about the allegations that the Applicant was dishonest in his interactions with police on five separate occasions. This is because having regard to the matters set out above the Tribunal is unable to reach a positive state of satisfaction that the Applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or the peace. It is therefore unnecessary to make specific findings in relation to the allegations the Applicant was dishonest in his dealings with the police on five separate occasions.
15. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person who can be trusted to possess a firearms licence without danger to public safety or to the peace.

Is it in the public interest for the Applicant to hold the firearms licence?

1. Section 11(7) of the Firearms Act provides the Commissioner with a discretionary power to refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that the issue of the license would be contrary to the public interest. The public interest is not defined by the Firearms Act. However, the Tribunal has considered the concept of 'public interest' in the context of the Firearms Act on many occasions.
2. The 'public interest' permits consideration of a wide range of factors, which are not limited to the character of the Applicant, but which include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16 at [33]. The exercise of the discretion in s 11(7) must be informed by the underlying principles and objectives of the Firearms Act with public safety being given paramount consideration: Commissioner of Police v EMB [2021] NSWCATAP 63 at [60]; Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276 at [69].
3. While the assessment of whether a person is a fit and proper person is distinct from the assessment of whether issuing the licence would be contrary to the public interest, it is apparent that the considerations that are relevant to the assessment of whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence overlap with the considerations that are relevant to assessing whether it is in the public interest for the Applicant to hold the firearms licence. It follows that the Tribunal's findings of fact about the Applicant's history of traffic offences as well the Tribunal's findings that he provided false or misleading information in two firearms applications are also relevant to the Tribunal's assessment of whether it would be in the public interest for the Applicant to be issued a firearms licence.
4. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's lengthy history of traffic offences dating back to 2002 demonstrates a propensity to disregard rules intended to ensure public safety. Most of the traffic infringements occurred when the Applicant was driving without a licence. As noted above, the Applicant admits that he has a 'bad history' but submits that he now has a provisional licence, has changed in many ways, and is trying his best. However, while the Tribunal notes that the Applicant was granted a provisional licence in 2022, since the grant of that licence further traffic infringements have occurred: the offence of exceeding the speed limit by more than 10km/h but not more than 20 km/h while driving a motor vehicle in December 2023; and not comply with the conditions of a provisional licence, that of carrying more than one passenger in February 2024.
5. The Tribunal accepts that a disregard for a regulatory scheme aimed at ensuring public safety is a relevant consideration in determining whether it is contrary to the public interest for the Applicant to hold a licence: Himo v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 321 at [102]. In this context, the Applicant's long history of breaching traffic rules and regulations demonstrates a disregard for the law and for regulatory schemes which are designed to protect public safety: Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116 at [32] and [37].
6. The Tribunal accepts that the functioning of a proper system of licensing for firearms depends on applicants providing true and correct information in firearm applications: Kogias v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 297 at [114]. This is reflected in the offence in s 70 of the Firearms Act which provides that a person must not, in connection with an application under the Act, make a statement or provide information that person knows is false or misleading with a material matter. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant provided incorrect information in a firearms application on two occasions, and this causes the Tribunal to doubt whether, if he was granted a licence, he would comply with the requirements of this licence and the regulatory scheme established by the Firearms Act.
7. The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant's interest in holding a licence because of the connection it provides him with his late father and for recreational/hunting vermin control. However, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that individual interests of the Applicant are subordinate to the public interest, and the paramount consideration of ensuring public safety: Himo v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 321 at [104]; Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276 at [69].
8. Having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that there would be a real and appreciable risk to the public if the Applicant was to be granted a firearms licence and that the issue of a firearms licence to him would be contrary to the public interest.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence within the meaning of s 11(3)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal has also found it is not in the public interest for the purpose of s 11(7) of the Act for the Applicant to hold a licence.
2. The correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Respondent to refuse the Applicant's application for a firearms license.

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.