The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his mental health has improved, and that he no longer experiences suicidal ideation such that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. He provided a fourth report from his treating psychiatrist in support of his application, as well as several character references.

The respondent submitted that the decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence should be affirmed as the correct and preferable decision.

• The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is evidence that the applicant's mental health has improved to the extent that he poses no risk to himself and other persons if he were to hold a firearms licence and possess firearms;
• The Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant's licence should be cancelled and that the decision made by the Registrar should be affirmed.

Administrative Review - Firearms Act 2015 - Review of a decision of the Registrar to suspend or cancel a license, permit or registration - Lack of fitness and proprietary - Mental health

Firearms Act 2015 ss 7, 15, 20, 35, 47

Firearms Regulations 2017 reg 96

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 34

Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58

Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40

Coff v Registrar of Firearms [2016] SADC 140

D'Orazio v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 15

Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149

GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68

Jaworski v Police [2009] SASC 284

Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51

Offe v Police [2002] SASC 259

Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171

Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112

Pollitt v Police [2007] SASC 382

Re RBY [2021] SACAT 39

Registrar of Firearms v Gitsham [2002] SASC 301

Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236

Zammitt v Registrar of Firearms [2010] SADC 100

Ms Underwood, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. This is the Tribunal's decision on an application made under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act) and s 47 of the Firearms Act 2015 (Firearms Act) for review of a decision of the delegate[1] of the Registrar of Firearms (the Registrar) under s 20 of the Firearms Act.
2. The Registrar's decision on 21 April 2025 was to cancel the applicant's (VOU) firearms licence.
3. I have had regard to the material that was before the Registrar, including the documents in the Registrar's Book of Documents provided under s 35 of the SACAT Act, and to the additional evidence and submissions put before the Tribunal before, during and after the full hearing. The parties' submissions and evidence are discussed in various places later in these reasons.
4. The issue in dispute is whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence notwithstanding his mental health difficulties. The law is clear that, in this review, the burden of demonstrating fitness and propriety lies on the applicant.[2] The law does not require the Registrar to positively disprove fitness and propriety. I find that the applicant has not discharged the burden of demonstrating his fitness and propriety. I explain in these reasons why I have come to that conclusion and why I have agreed with the Registrar's decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence.
5. I acknowledge that the Tribunal's decision will be upsetting for the applicant. However, the applicant's personal safety and the safety of those around him must take priority over that consideration.

1. The applicant has a history of military and police service before coming to Australia. He resides in a town in regional South Australia.
2. From about 2013, the applicant held a firearms licence endorsed with category A and B firearms. He enjoys target shooting and hunting with his sons. The firearms licence was extended to 28 February 2026 prior to being cancelled.
3. The applicant has a recent history of experiencing difficulties with his mental health.

1. On about 10 October 2019, the Registrar received a mandatory notification under reg 96 of the Firearms Regulations 2017 about the applicant.[3]
2. Regulation 96 relevantly states:

96 - Medical practitioners, employers etc to report unsafe situations associated with firearms > > (1) If a designated person has reasonable cause to suspect in relation to a person whom the designated person has seen in the designated person's professional capacity -

(a) that the person is suffering from a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or that other circumstances exist, such that there is a threat to the person's own safety or the safety of another associated with the person's possession or use of a firearm; and

(b) that the person has, or might be intending to acquire, a firearm,

the designated person must make a report to the Registrar under this regulation.

(2) If an employer has reasonable cause to suspect in relation to an employee whose work with the employer involves the possession or use of a firearm that the employee is suffering from a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or that other circumstances exist, such that there is a threat to the employee's own safety or the safety of another associated with the employee's possession or use of a firearm, the employer must make a report to the Registrar under this regulation.

(3) A report under this regulation -

(a) must be made as soon as practicable after the suspicion is formed; and

(b) must include -

(i) the name and address of the person the subject of the suspicion; and

(ii) the suspected threat to safety and circumstances giving rise to the threat (including the nature of any physical or mental illness, condition or disorder contributing to the threat).

(4) A person incurs no civil or criminal liability in making a report in good faith in compliance, or purported compliance, with this regulation.

(5) In subregulation (1) -

designated person means -

(a) a medical practitioner; or

(b) a nurse; or

(c) a psychologist; or

(d) a professional counsellor; or

(e) a social worker.

1. It is self-evident from the notification that it was made under reg 96(2) rather than a designated person.
2. The notifier reported that the applicant has been under the care of a psychiatrist (Dr Ford) and has been absent from the workplace since February 2019. The notifier indicated that the applicant was admitted to Port Lincoln Hospital under the Mental Health Act 2009 on 9 October 2019 and would shortly be transferred to the Adelaide Clinic. The notifier noted that the applicant had voluntarily surrendered eight firearms to police on 4 October 2019.
3. Following this notification, on 22 October 2019, the Registrar wrote to the applicant suspending his firearms licence and requiring him to provide a report from a registered psychiatrist providing certain information to assist the Registrar to determine whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The information sought about the applicant was set out in the notice as including but not limited to:
   1. the nature and severity of any mental illness, disorder, or condition defined in the DSM V[4] that he may be suffering at this time;
   2. his long term prognosis regarding the illness, disorder, or condition;
   3. the number and frequency of visits with a practitioner other than his regular general practitioner;
   4. any prescribed medication and any side effects or issues arising from taking medication which could adversely impact his ability to safely possess and use firearms;
   5. the likelihood of the illness, disorder, or condition recurring, either with or without prescribed medication;
   6. the manner in which any illness, disorder, or condition mental or otherwise affects his behaviour, judgement and suitability to possess and use firearms;
   7. the impact the mental illness, disorder, or condition if any may have on his suitability to possess and use firearms; and
   8. any other information considered relevant to his ability to safely possess and use firearms and ammunition.
4. The Registrar was provided with a brief letter from Dr Ford dated 5 May 2020 (Dr Ford's first report).[5] This letter states [sic]:

[VOU] has been under my care for some two years, and I understand his firearms license was removed in the setting of an exacerbation of his depressive illness in 2019. > > Since then I have regularly reviewed [VOU], spoken with his wife in addition. > > I'm pleased to report [VOU] has made an excellent recovery from his depressive illness, is no evidence of suicidal ideation, demeanour and level of activity have improved considerably, all confirmed by his wife as well is in interview. > > There is no psychiatric reason why [VOU] should not have his firearms license restored, and access to his own firearms.

5. On the strength of Dr Ford's first report, the Registrar was satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and reinstated his suspended licence on about 11 May 2020.

1. On 3 January 2024, the Registrar received a second notification under reg 96(2).[6] An updated notification was provided the following day, 4 January 2024.[7]
2. These notifications indicated that the applicant had voluntarily admitted himself to the Adelaide Clinic for mental health issues in about mid December 2023 and that he remained in the clinic trialling various medications. The updated notification indicated that police seized the applicant's 14 firearms and all ammunition present at his home address.[8]
3. The Book of Documents contains a Work Capacity Certificate completed by the applicant's general practitioner Dr Claire Rowe on 13 December 2024 (Dr Rowe's WCC).[9] These types of certificates are provided under the Return to Work Act 2014 in conjunction with claims for worker's compensation. Dr Rowe's WCC is in brief form and states that the applicant was unable to return to his current employment and was experiencing "recurrent multiple work induced traumas triggering PTSD and severe depression", suggesting that this developed in 2015. Dr Rowe noted that the applicant's condition was affecting his attention/concentration, short-term and long-term memory and "judgement (ability to make decisions)".
4. The applicant subsequently provided the Registrar with a letter from Dr Ford dated 9 July 2024 (Dr Ford's second report).[10] Dr Ford writes:

You have requested psychiatric opinion regard a return of your firearms. It is my view that there is no risk with a return of firearms. > > I confirm that I am your treating psychiatrist and have known you now for some seven years. You were discharged from this practice in 2022 and resumed contact in late 2023. What had commenced as a mild relapse of your condition became a significant one due to an unexpected event, finding a corpse whilst pulled over on the side of the road to make a phone call, and you spent approximately six weeks in hospital from December through to January 2024. At no point were you suicidal, and in the past (many years ago) when there was suicidal ideation, usage of firearms was never considered. > > I am pleased to report that with alterations of medication and some vigorous discussion during your time in hospital in January 2024, you have continued to improve. In particular, alcohol consumption has gone from mildly heavy to well within the limits of safe drinking. Your mood has improved, with increased engagement with the family, an increased level of activity around the home and much future planning. > > Whilst medication has been an important factor, you have also been referred to treatment with a psychologist skilled in cognitive processing therapy. This type of therapy is quite confronting, and in your case involved revisiting a number of highly problematic incidents that occurred during your time with [your current employer] over this past seven years. It requires considerable perseverance, completion of homework tasks and tolerance of very uncomfortable emotions. I have spoken with your psychologist, and she confirms your application to this treatment (which you echoed), and you have reported feeling the best you have in many years. She also believes that a return of firearms is safe. > > In short, on a background of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse punctuated by period of major depression, all of which have shown a fair to good response to treatment over the years, it seems like that this latest episode (which occurred due to quite random circumstances), your recovery has escalated "another notch" upward. > > It is the case that your compliance with treatment has been excellent, and that you have, see above, sought out assistance without prompting consistently. > > It is my view that you are a fit and proper person to retain a firearms licence, and have access to your guns. > > I hope these remarks are of help to the Registrar of Firearms and that your firearms are returned.

5. On 26 February 2025, the Registrar wrote to the applicant suspending his firearms licence pending an investigation into his ongoing mental health issues. He was also given a notice that same day under s 53 of the Firearms Act requiring him to provide the Registrar with an updated medical report from his treating psychiatrist Dr Ford, including but not limited to:
   1. the nature and severity of any mental illness, disorder, or condition defined in the DSM V that he may be suffering at this time;
   2. his long-term prognosis regarding the illness, disorder, or condition;
   3. the number and frequency of visits with a practitioner other than his regular general practitioner;
   4. any prescribed medication and any side effects or issues arising from taking medication which could adversely impact his ability to safely possess and use firearms;
   5. the likelihood of the illness, disorder, or condition recurring, either with or without prescribed medication;
   6. the manner in which any illness, disorder, or condition mental or otherwise affects his behaviour, judgement and suitability to possess and use firearms;
   7. the impact the mental illness, disorder, or condition if any may have on his suitability to possess and use firearms; and
   8. the medical opinion of the treating health professional with respect to his fitness to safely possess and use firearms and ammunition.
6. It is to be noted that the required information in this letter is identical to the Registrar's letter of 22 October 2019 except for a change in language in paragraph (h).
7. The applicant provided the Registrar with a report from Dr Ford dated 11 March 2025 (Dr Ford's third report).[11] This report relevantly states:

[VOU] continues under my care. ... He had experienced an abrupt worsening of post-traumatic stress disorder following the discovery of a decomposed body at a random location whilst travelling from [rural location] to [rural location]. Prior to that, he had briefly resumed contact in August 2023, having some concerns with anxiety following a failed CPR whilst [in his current employment]. Notably, he had been discharged from this practice in mid-2022, deemed well, and back at work. > > Following the incident in December 2023, he was admitted to the Adelaide Clinic for quite intensive treatment. In the course of this, he was commenced on Sertraline 200mg, Topiramate 25 morning, 150 night, Zopiclone one to two in the evening, Quetiapine 600mg at night and Brexpiprazole 2mg in the morning. There were two aspects to his treatment. One was the difficulty in stabilising the recurrence of PTSD symptoms, and the second, his future employment with [his current employer]. > > [VOU] had first been seen in 2017. He had been maintained at work, but unfortunately had been taken off work in the context of a disciplinary investigation. He became severely depressed, recovered, and was recommended to return to work in 2021 after 18 months off work. > > Given his negative feelings regarding the disciplinary issue and his long history, it has been decided that a return to [his current employment] in the longer term is no longer feasible because of the difficulty in evading trauma triggers that are likely to occur. It was also decided that [VOU] should undertake a course of cognitive processing therapy, a very intensive and confrontational style of treatment, to see if further resolution could be obtained. This was undertaken by a Ms Deborah McLean, psychologist, and was successful, such that by June 2024 he was reporting that he was the best that he had been in years. These observations were verified by his wife. Simultaneously, in view of his improvement, the dose of Quetiapine prescribed had steadily reduced down, reduced to 100mg, now 50mg. He continues on Sertraline 200, Topiramate 25 morning, 150 at night, and Brexpiprazole 2mg in the morning. Please note the latter agent is an antipsychotic, but a recognised agent for augmenting antidepressants, in his case it has been quite successful. Zopiclone use has reduced to once or twice per week. > > In short, he has made, once again, a good to excellent recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder. It is likely that medications will continue and indeed, in 2022, it was recommended to his GP at discharge that antidepressants could gradually be withdrawn, which was successful until he undertook the failed CPR, and then of course the random discovery of a deceased corpse. > > ... Again, I return to the view that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

8. The applicant also provided the Registrar with a brief letter from Dr Rowe dated 13 March 2025 (Dr Rowe's letter).[12] This letter states that the applicant is:

... physically and mentally fit to return to a workplace - excluding [his current employment]. He will never return to [his current employment]. He has been well enough to be involved in other employment for many months.

1. On 21 April 2025, the Registrar wrote to the applicant to notify him of the decision to cancel his firearms licence. The Registrar acknowledged Dr Ford's third report, including that Dr Ford referred to a worsening of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a work-related incident, but noted that Dr Ford had not provided the detailed information sought in the letter of 26 February 2025.
2. The cancellation notice also referred to Dr Rowe's WCC. The Registrar noted that Dr Rowe referred to the applicant experiencing PTSD and severe depression at that time and that his attention, concentration, short-term and long-term memory and judgement (decision-making ability) were affected by these conditions. The Registrar noted that Dr Ford's third report had not addressed these matters.
3. The Registrar also noted that Dr Ford's third report had not addressed the observations made in Dr Ford's second report that the applicant has a history of suicidal ideation, chronic PTSD and alcohol abuse punctuated by periods of major depression, and nor did Dr Ford comment on the likelihood of these illnesses, disorders or conditions recurring.
4. The Registrar found that the evidence from Dr Ford had not provided the required information or sufficient insight into the applicant's medical conditions and ongoing prescribed medications.
5. The Registrar concluded that, despite the applicant's recent health improvements, the potential risks associated with his ongoing PTSD, and unaddressed concerns for his mental health, medications and alcohol abuse were not sufficiently mitigated. The Registrar determined that the applicant's ongoing mental health concerns present significant risks to the safe possession of firearms.
6. The Registrar indicated in the cancellation notice that it had not been possible to discuss the content of the report with Dr Ford to seek clarifications and further information that could provide deeper insight into the applicant's past, present and future conditions as well as his prescribed medications.
7. It seems that the Registrar had not appreciated that the applicant had returned the relevant consent form that would have enabled the delegate to seek further information from Dr Ford. I am satisfied that the applicant did return the consent form in an email dated 27 February 2025.
8. However, this alone does not mean that the applicant will succeed in this review before the Tribunal. It is well established that a full review on the merits before the Tribunal will cure any procedural irregularities in the decision under review.[13] I am satisfied that this has occurred in this case as the applicant has had ample opportunity in these proceedings to provide additional medical evidence on the matter of his mental health. He has had ample notice of the extent and depth of the information that the Registrar was seeking.

1. The applicant tendered to the Tribunal a further report from Dr Ford. This is dated 15 July 2025 and is addressed to the applicant (Dr Ford's fourth report).
2. Dr Ford relevantly states [sic]:

Suicidal ideation has not been an issue for quite some years, noting that even when very distressed at the end of 2023 following the discovery of a decomposing body, there was no suicidal ideation. ... with medication stabilisation, you were able to enter a course of cognitive processing therapy in mid-2024, with an extremely good result, which is to say complete symptom remission. Alcohol use is in the high range with liver enzymes ... well elevated. I am continuing to chasten you about this. > > There is no suicidal ideation, nor has there been since 2020, after his first admission to the Adelaide Clinic. > > You continue on medication. Given the trauma exposure over the years, and in particular the difficulties you experienced with particularly the injury management section of [your current employer], which aggravated your condition, medication will need to continue, albeit the doses have reduced. For example, Quetiapine has been ceased. You are on Brexpiprazole 2mg in the morning, this agent is used to augment antidepressants and is standard practice. You are on Sertraline 200mg in the morning and Topiramate 25mg in the morning, 150mg at night. Sertraline is an antidepressant and antianxiety agent, Topiramate is an anticonvulsant with antianxiety benefits. Compliance with your medication is excellent, and I note a clear line of contact between yourself and your treating team, myself and Dr Claire Rowe, and also your wife similarly has access. > > Alcohol consumption in my opinion, and on biochemical testing, remains too high noting improvement in all other parameters of your mood.

1. The applicant provided about 19 references from persons attesting to his character. This includes persons who know the applicant from his military service or in community roles in this State. All speak highly of him.
2. Six of the referees speak positively about the applicant's competency with firearms and his responsible attitude to firearms, one of whom is his wife who appears to also be employed by the same employer as the applicant. Some referees comment that they have never seen the applicant affected by alcohol.
3. These references are largely undated and unsigned.

1. At the full hearing, the applicant tendered a Work Capacity Certificate completed on 9 October 2025 by Dr Ford (Dr Ford's WCC).
2. Dr Ford indicates in this document that his clinical diagnosis is of PTSD and that the applicant is "fit to perform suitable duties that accommodate [his] functional abilities" from 2 November 2025 to 13 January 2026 and that his progress would be reviewed at his next medical consultation. Dr Ford commented that "patient has made an excellent response to COG processing therapy augmenting medication". It seems from the WCC that Dr Ford opines that the applicant's attention/concentration, short and long term memory and judgement are "not affected" as he has checked the relevant boxes on the form for those matters.
3. Dr Ford's WCC indicates that the applicant's treatment plan for return to work is [sic]:

RTW 2 X 6-8 HOUR PERIODS PW AND INCREASE AFTER 1/12 TO 3 NON CONSECTIVE DAYS PW. NON OPERATIONAL.

4. I have understood this to mean that Dr Ford was supporting the applicant returning to work with his current employer in a non-operational capacity for six to eight hours on two days a week for a month after which he could work three non-consecutive days per week.

1. The applicant said at the full hearing that his mental health difficulties commenced about 2015 as a result of an accumulation of traumas arising from his employment, not in his private life. He said that his general practitioner started him on the antidepressant Sertraline and then referred him to Dr Ford who diagnosed him with PTSD. He saw Dr Ford every two to four weeks.
2. The applicant described things "falling apart" in 2019. He voluntarily surrendered his firearms because of his suicidal feelings and admitted himself to the Adelaide Clinic where he stayed for two months or more. He was given medication for depression during his hospitalisation.
3. The applicant disclosed a history of self-medicating with alcohol prior to his first hospital admission in 2019. However, he denied that he has an alcohol addiction and described being able to refrain from alcohol for long periods for Lent, "dry July" and the like, and does not drink when in possession of firearms.
4. The applicant returned to work after his 2019 hospital admission but avoided coming into contact with dead bodies in performing his employment duties.
5. The applicant said that he did not feel that he needed to voluntarily surrender his firearms on his second hospital admission as he was not feeling suicidal.
6. The applicant indicated that his mental health improved following a 12-week cognitive processing therapy course that he undertook in mid 2024 and that he had come to understand the resentment he had felt towards persons whose dead bodies he had found and instead came to learn empathy for them. He said this led to reduced need for him to take Zoloft or Prozac, which he had been taking on an as-needed basis. He said that the skills he learned meant that he can now be in locations that would have triggered him in the past.
7. The applicant said that he wants to return to work with his current employer but that it must be in a non-operational role as he would otherwise risk "adding new trauma over old trauma". He also said that, in his role as a volunteer, he refuses to attend fatal car crash call-outs and described this as a self-preservation strategy recommended to him by Dr Ford.
8. The applicant said that he currently takes three drugs for his mental health but that they do not affect his daily living and do not have a sedating effect on him.

Review under s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

1. The Tribunal conducts its review of the Registrar's decision as an independent body. The Tribunal will, in exercising its review jurisdiction, examine the decision of the decision‑maker by way of rehearing. On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the original decision‑maker.
2. The procedure on a rehearing will include an examination of the evidence or material before the decision‑maker and consideration of any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit for the purposes of rehearing the matter.
3. Any factual findings made by the Tribunal must be established on the balance of probabilities.
4. The review conducted by the Tribunal is on a basis resembling a de novo hearing, where the Tribunal Member conducting the review effectively stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker in determining the correct or preferable decision.[14]
5. After making its decision, the Tribunal can affirm or vary the decision under review or can set the decision aside and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration.

Firearms Act

1. The relevant provisions of the Firearms Act are ss 7, 15 and 20.
2. Under s 20(6)(d) of the Firearms Act, the Registrar may, by written notice served personally or by registered post on the licensee, cancel a firearms licence on any ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application by the licensee for such a licence.
3. Section 15(1)(b) of the Firearms Act (relevantly) states that the Registrar may only refuse an application for a firearms licence if the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.
4. Section 7 of the Firearms Act deals with who is not, or who may be taken not to be, a fit and proper person.
5. Section 7(2) states that a person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act.
6. Section 7(4) contains factors that the Registrar may consider, or is required to consider, in deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person. In particular, the Registrar is required by s 7(4)(b) to consider the risk of future behaviour.[15] Section 7(4) states (my underlining):

(4) In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act -

(a) regard may be had to the reputation, honesty and integrity of the person, close associates of the person and any people with whom the person associates; and

(b) regard must be had to -

(i) any risk of the person using a firearm for an unlawful purpose; or

(ii) any risk of the person using a firearm to harm himself or herself; or

(iii) any risk that the person will cause injury or harm to another by the use or threatened use of a firearm; or

(iv) any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous and responsible control over a firearm,

and, in that connection, regard may be had to the person's past behaviour, instability, intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances.

1. Section 7(7) also states that s 7 does not limit the grounds on which a person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act.
2. To be clear, firearms possession in this State is not a right or a reward. The Parliament, the Supreme Court and this Tribunal have been clear that firearm possession is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.[16]
3. The principles and objects of the Firearms Act are critical to the decision-making of the Registrar and this Tribunal. Section 3 of that Act relevantly states (my underlining):

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

...

(2) The objects of this Act are as follows:

...

(h) to minimise the risk of persons causing injury or harm (including psychological harm) to themselves or others by the use or threatened use of firearms.

1. As was observed by the District Court in a 2016 firearms decision, the term 'fit and proper' does not have a precise definition and the matters relevant to its consideration will vary in any given case.[17] The Court referred to Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,[18] where Justices Toohey and Gaudron said at page 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.

1. The Tribunal has no reason to doubt the positive observations of character made by the applicant's referees and accepts that he is a valued member of his community. Counsel for the Registrar acknowledged that the applicant is a man of integrity who is beloved in his community.
2. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant takes a responsible and cautious attitude to firearm safety, given his background and in his current position and the positive referee comments in that regard. I note the applicant voluntarily surrendered his firearms when experiencing suicidal ideation in 2019.
3. The Tribunal also sincerely commends the applicant for the proactive steps he has taken to improve his mental health and the commitment he has displayed in doing so.
4. However, in making my decision, I must give substantial weight to the applicant's history of mental health difficulties. I consider that I am required to do so because the objects of the Firearms Act are principally concerned with the overriding need to ensure public safety. That is the crux of this matter.
5. For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that there is evidence that the applicant's mental health has improved to the extent that he poses no risk to himself and other persons if he were to hold a firearms licence and possess firearms. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.
6. As I observed in a recent decision, issues of public safety may arise where there is any combination of mental illness and firearms possession and that, to ensure that any issue of public safety can be appropriately assessed, a considered report from a properly qualified mental health practitioner will be of critical importance.[19]
7. I have extracted Dr Ford's reports at length in these reasons. I agree with the Registrar's submissions that they do not address all the questions posed in the Registrar's letter of 26 February 2025 and they do not deal with other important issues that would have assisted the Registrar and the Tribunal to assess the applicant's fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence. Some important issues are left unanswered in the evidence, including the applicant's long-term prognosis; the effect of the applicant's medications on his ability to safely possess firearms; the likelihood of a recurrence of his mental health condition, whether with or without medication, including on his return to his current employment; and the effect of the applicant's mental health condition on his behaviour, judgement and suitability to possess firearms.
8. Nevertheless, it is clear from Dr Ford's reports that the applicant has been very unwell. After an initial trajectory of improvement, he suffered a serious exacerbation of his mental health due to the tragic events in 2023. It is clear that the applicant still requires psychiatric medication for his mental illness.
9. It is of concern also that Dr Ford has recently seen fit to make mention, in relatively severe terms, of the applicant's level of alcohol intake. I must prefer Dr Ford's professional observations in this regard over the applicant's own submissions as to his level of alcohol intake. The effect on safe firearms possession of the applicant's alcohol use remains unaddressed in the medical evidence. The Registrar was correct to raise these concerns in the decision under review.
10. I cannot agree with the applicant's submission that the medical reports indicate that he has "an extremely good" prognosis. I find that the more recent medical reports indicate a cautious and incremental approach with the applicant's mental health is still necessary: moreover, he must still continue to take his medication regimen and must avoid triggering duties. There is little evidence of the applicant's mental health condition having reached a sustainable long-term recovery.
11. I have given little weight to the character references in making my decision on the critical issue in these proceedings of the applicant's mental health. The majority of the referees said nothing about their observations of the applicant's mental health or even if they were aware of his challenges in this regard, save for the applicant's wife. In any event, none of the referees, including the applicant's wife, demonstrated any medical or psychiatric expertise and I would therefore place no weight on any such observations.
12. For the same reason, I also give little weight to the applicant's own evidence about the current status of his mental health. The applicant is not a psychiatrist and could not have an objective view of his mental health. I am also concerned that, despite his relatively good insight into his mental health, he was unable to tell me what strategies he would employ to address triggering events or life stressors that he might encounter. The applicant's approach is one of avoiding exposure to potentially triggering events. However, a strategy of avoidance is an imperfect strategy and the applicant does not appear to have considered how he might deal with unexpected or unavoidable triggers or stressors. In this regard, I share the concerns expressed by counsel for the Registrar that the applicant's desire to return to his current employment demonstrates a relative lack of insight into the current status of his mental health and the risks posed to his mental health of a return to a role with his current employer. There is no evidence that he will be able to return to a role that would prevent any exposure to triggers. I note also Dr Ford's observation in March 2025 that it would be difficult for the applicant to avoid trauma triggers that are likely to occur on a return to work with his current employer. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that, if the applicant is again exposed to such triggering events, he would likely face an exacerbation or recurrence of his mental health problems.
13. There is certainly strong evidence of the applicant no longer experiencing suicidal ideation. However, I do not accept that a lack of suicidal ideation is sufficient in itself. I am concerned that, despite his otherwise good insight into responsible firearms use and into his mental health, the applicant considered that he did not need to surrender his firearms in 2023 because he was not feeling suicidal at that time. This suggests a limited understanding of the broader safety considerations relevant under the Act.
14. To be clear, I place no weight on Dr Ford's assertions that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. As my reasons indicate, such a finding is a complex legal and factual question. The duty to make that assessment resides in the Registrar and the Tribunal. There is no indication that Dr Ford is aware of the nuances involved in undertaking that assessment.
15. Therefore, on all the material before the Tribunal, I am unable to be satisfied that the applicant can safely have access to firearms. This means that the applicant's own safety and considerations of public safety must override his particular reasons for wishing to hold a firearms licence.
16. I have also adopted in making my decision the observations made by the Supreme Court that I should have regard to not only the likelihood of harm occurring but also the gravity of the harm should it eventuate.[20] In particular, I adopt the observation that:

Having regard to the principles and objects of the Act, the regard that must be had to the risk of future failure, which may be informed by past behaviour, looks to the likelihood of a future event of potentially highly serious consequences.[21]

17. In other words, even if there is a small risk of something occurring, I must take into account that, in a firearms context, the outcome of that risk eventuating could involve serious injury or death.
18. As noted above, s 7(2) of the Firearms Act states that a person who has a physical or mental illness, condition or disorder, or in relation to whom other circumstances exist, that would make it unsafe for him or her to possess a firearm or ammunition is not a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act. I consider s 7(2) applies in this case.
19. I conclude for all the above reasons that, under s 7 of the Firearms Act and in accordance with the principles and objects of that Act, I am not satisfied that the applicant is currently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

1. Having come to my conclusion on the applicant's fitness and propriety to hold a firearms licence, the exercise of the discretion under s 20(6) of the Firearms Act has been enlivened. This means I should consider whether there are cogent reasons not to cancel his firearms licence even though I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. However, I am not satisfied that there are any such reasons to exercise the discretion. To exercise the s 20(6) discretion in the applicant's favour would be entirely inconsistent with my finding that safety considerations dictate that he should not possess firearms at this time.
2. There was some discussion of the s 20(9) discretion at the full hearing and written submissions were invited by me on the matter after the close of the hearing. Due to the potential safety risk that the applicant poses to himself and others, I do not consider that it would be appropriate that the discretion in s 20(9) be exercised in this case to limit the firearms that can be used or possessed by the applicant.
3. I am therefore satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant's licence should be cancelled and that the decision made by the Registrar should be affirmed.

[1] Although strictly speaking the decision maker in the various decisions referred to in these reasons was the Registrar's delegate, for brevity and clarity in these reasons I will refer to the decision-maker in each case as simply the Registrar.

[2] D'Orazio v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 15 at [28]; Balodis v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 58 at [38].

[3] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, p10.

[4] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.

[5] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, p31.

[6] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, p38.

[7] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, pp45 - 46.

[8] It would appear that police allege that a .22 calibre rifle was found to have a live round in the magazine attached to the firearm. This is not referred to in an adverse manner in the notice of cancellation nor the Registrar's submissions in these proceedings, nor was any evidence provided supportive of this allegation, so I say nothing further about that matter.

[9] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, pp50 - 51.

[10] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, pp47 - 48.

[11] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, pp79 - 80.

[12] Respondent's Book of Documents, 29 May 2025, p81.

[13] Re RBY [2021] SACAT 39.

[14] GM v Department of Human Services [2025] SASCA 68 at [140].

[15] Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40 at [76].

1. [16] Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51; Offe v Police [2002] SASC 259 at [22], [26]; Registrar of Firearms v Gitsham [2002] SASC 301 at [23]; Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149 at [23]; Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112 at [21]; Pollitt v Police [2007] SASC 382 at [20] - [23], [27]; Jaworski v Police [2009] SASC 284 at [22] - [25]; Zammitt v Registrar of Firearms [2010] SADC 100 at [36]-[38]; Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171 at [8]-[12].

[17] See Coff v Registrar of Firearms [2016] SADC 140 at [45] - [46].

[18] [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321.

[19] Unreported decision, 2025/SA001028, 27 October 2025.

[20] Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236.

[21] Schinckel v Registrar of Firearms [2020] SASC 236 at [30].