(i) the applicant and all the responsible persons in relation to the application are fit and proper persons; and

(ia) in particular, in relation to an applicant for a handgun licence, that there is no information as to criminal activities on the part of the applicant that is known

to the Chief Commissioner that would cause the Chief Commissioner not to be satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person; and

(ii) the applicant can possess, carry or use a firearm without being a danger to public safety or peace; and

(iii) the applicant has satisfactorily completed a course of firearms safety approved by the Chief Commissioner

(iiia) in the case of an applicant for a paintball marker licence, that the applicant has satisfactorily completed a

paintball safety course approved by the Chief Commissioner; and

(iv) the applicant can comply with the storage requirements set out by or under the Act; and

(v) the issue of the licence is not against the public interest; or

1. As I explained to Mrs YCO during the hearing, on review, I consider all the evidence and material before me and make the decision on her application afresh. I do not say the decision of the delegate of the Chief Commissioner or the Appeals Committee is right or wrong, I remake the decision.
2. Unless I am satisfied that Mrs YCO is a fit and proper person under s 17(c)(i), I must not issue her the longarm licences she seeks.
3. What is meant by "fit and proper person", where it is used in s 17(c)(i) of the Act, whilst it is not defined in the Act, has been considered on other occasions by this Tribunal. Its meaning is comprehensively addressed in the legal contentions provided by the respondent.
4. The contentions refer to a decision of Senior Member Steele (as she then was) in Coare v Firearms Appeals Committee [2006] VCAT 21, a case in which the Tribunal was considering whether that applicant personally was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The contentions go on to say :

After referring to the principles of the applicable legislation in the Coare case, Senior Member Steele turned to the High Court's judgment in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 (the Bond case), in an attempt to gain a practical understanding of what is meant by 'fit and proper person'. In the Bond case, his Honour Chief Justice Mason said at page 32 :

... the statutory concept of a fit and proper person to hold the licence which is undefined, takes account of qualities and characteristics of the licensee apart from the matters mentioned in [the Act] ... the concepts should not be narrowly construed or confined. It must extend to any aspect of fitness and propriety that is relevant to the public interest.

Senior Member Steele also placed some weight on the judgment of their honours Toohey and Gaudron, where their Honours stated at page 56 :

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 person cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities.

In considering these excerpts from the judgment of the High Court, Senior Member Steele looked to the purposes stated in section 1 of the Act. It was observed by the Senior Member that the Legislature has stated one of its purposes for enacting the Act as 'to give effect to the principle that the possession, carriage, use, acquisition and disposal of firearms are conditional on the need to ensure public safety and peace ...'. As such, Senior Member Steele observed in paragraph 6 of her decision :

Public safety is the purpose of the legislation under which this test is being applied. Apart from that, Parliament has left the expression undefined. That leaves the decision-maker a wide discretion to be exercised in the context of the statute. The context as I have said is most important - the Act deals with firearms and public safety. I must be satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to possess, carry and use inherently dangerous weapons without any threat to public safety and peace. In this context it is appropriate to consider the Applicant's behaviour towards other members of the public. A fit and proper person must at least be a rational mature adult, in my view.

1. I agree with the approach taken by the member in Coare's case as to the meaning of "fit and proper person" and with the quoted passage of the contentions.

1. Mrs YCO represented herself in these proceedings. She had filed a 5 page comprehensive application for review. On 31 March 2008, she filed a 6 page statement with some attachments. Just prior to the hearing, she filed a 6 page reply to the respondent's material, together with an original x-ray transparency, a copy of which had been attached to her second statement.
2. Mrs YCO indicated in a letter received on the morning of the hearing that she felt sure she would be unable to attend in person. In these circumstances, the Tribunal contacted her by telephone and arranged to conduct the hearing with her by telephone.
3. Ms Hebiton represented the Appeals Committee. She called the Senior Constable involved in Mrs YCO's application. He had prepared a statement, gave evidence and Mrs YCO was given the opportunity to ask him questions.
4. Ms Hebiton relied on the legal contentions filed for her submissions and referred to some additional points which had arisen from the evidence covered in the hearing.
5. Mrs YCO indicated she had not troubled herself much with preparing any submissions. She said, referring to Ms Hebiton's contentions, that it was not her area and that they were "wordplay, rather than a genuine or fair collection of the details". She said that in support of her case she relied on the material she had sent in which she said contained her "understanding and statement of her actions and interpretations of certain incidents".
6. In a nutshell, her submission is because she has
   • no criminal record
   • no psychiatric record
   • no vehicle licence cancellation
   • held a firearms licence for 12 years previously without any infringements, or threats to anyone in any way

1. On the other hand, in summary, Ms Hebiton submitted that at the very least there is sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to bring into question whether or not she is a fit and proper person to be granted a firearms licence and that in the absence of medical opinion confirming that she is in a sound psychological state, no firearms licence should be granted. The submissions referred to a number of matters in support of those contentions.

1. Mrs YCO's written application for a licence did not of itself raise any problems. It was during a conversation she had with the Senior Constable, when she began referring to troubling incidents with her neighbours that the Senior Constable became concerned about her suitability to have the licences. He then arranged to visit her at her property, which he did.
2. It is clear from Mrs YCO's statements and her material that she believes the Senior Constable has obstructed her application. She believes he provided false and misleading accounts of their conversations. A careful reading of her application to this Tribunal, her statements filed on 31 March 2008 and the reply she filed, show this.
3. In summary, and without going into all the details in her lengthy statements, Mrs YCO refers not only to her concerns about the Senior Constable but to longstanding and ongoing concerns she has had with her neighbours over a number of years and which are ongoing. She refers to being shot at by them on various occasions and actually hit on others. During the hearing, she described in detail several incidents during which she says she was shot at. She confirmed that she had been hit in the eye, her neck, her back and the kidney.
4. When asked in cross-examination whether there was any evidence of any injury or scarring, she replied she thought she may have a scar under her left breast. Also she had sent in a dental x-ray taken in October 2007 which she says clearly shows a shotgun pellet in her upper jaw under her nose. When I examined the transparency, I could not see anything that could be a pellet. Although she was on the telephone, which made it difficult, she drew my attention to a tiny white dot, the size of a grain of sand, which I understand she thought was a pellet. To me it looked like a fault in the x-ray transparency.
5. She confirmed in cross-examination that she had never sought any medical assistance for any of the injuries claimed.
6. Her evidence also was that at no stage did she ever report any of the incidents she describes to the police.
7. Mrs YCO believes there has been official corruption and obstruction occurring with regard to her application. For example, she referred in her March 2008 statement to events surrounding a visit to her doctor in April 2007. This visit, I understand, was to get written confirmation from her doctor that she was unable to get a referral for a psychiatric assessment because of the shortage of psychiatrists and because there was no pressing legal or medical need for it. She suspects that the receptionist who scheduled her appointment "was corrupting or manipulating" things "by attempting to confuse or cross identities, or provoke an incident or was allowing or providing an opportunity for her neighbour to influence her doctor against her". It turns out that the reason for this belief was because her neighbour, with whom she had been having all the trouble, had come to the surgery at the same time as her and was seen before her. She says her suspicions of corruption and manipulation were further confirmed when she left the surgery and noticed a police car parked outside. She believed that it was planned and that it was more than just a coincidence that the police car was parked outside the surgery, after the consultation.
8. When Ms Hebiton asked her whether she had talked to the doctor that day about her beliefs and suspicions, she said she had not.
9. I interpolate here that Mrs YCO had endeavoured to obtain a psychiatric report, although she maintains there is no legal requirement that she obtain one, because it had been requested by the Appeals Committee. I accept her evidence that she found it difficult to get an appointment, but note the views she expressed during the hearing when Ms Hebiton submitted that her mental well-being was yet to be tested. She responded saying that "to test it, would surely be a further or virtual assault".
10. The Senior Constable's evidence about the conversation she had with him when he visited was as follows :

The applicant took me to various parts of the property in an attempt to locate a bullet mark on a tree which she claimed was the result of an unsuccessful attempt by one of her neighbours to shoot her. We searched for some time but were unable to locate the alleged bullet mark. As we walked, the applicant also told me of many other incidents involving the same neighbours and their attempts to kill her. Her recollections of these attempts to harm and/or kill her included :

8.1 walking around her property and having bullets go past her head. She did not see who fired these shots, but believes they were fired by her neighbours;

8.2 she believes her neighbours are able to sense her presence, and shoot at her when she is outside;

8.3 after a dispute with her neighbours about their dogs, she reported shots being fired at her;

8.4 one evening, someone threw a snake inside her front door. The snake bit her and made her very ill for a number of days, however she did not seek medical attention

8.5 on the same evening as the snake bite, she heard shots fired and she received pellet wounds to her eye and back. She also said that she had pellets in her hair, a teaspoon of pellets in her mouth, and two holes in her neck. The applicant reported that a pellet also entered her kidney. She did not seek police attendance or medical attention.

1. Mrs YCO has a different recollection of the details of the conversation on that day. For example, she believes that she was able to locate the tree with the bullet mark, and she says the incident when she was bitten by the snake was not one of the occasions when she was shot at or shot.
2. Despite the different recollections, she believes she has been the victim of numerous incidents at the hands of her neighbours, some involving being shot at, others actually being shot, and being lured by them to her boundary so that they can ridicule and humiliate her. These incidents are in addition to many other distressing events she refers to in her material and upon which she elaborated during the hearing.
3. The Senior Constable confirmed in the hearing that he made his statement based on notes he had made shortly after leaving the property. His own inquiries with the neighbours and with Mrs YCO's son did not substantiate any of her claims and I accepted his evidence. In my view, there is nothing to show that he has been anything other than diligent and thorough about the manner in which he approached his task.
4. I accept that Mrs YCO has these beliefs. They raise concerns in my mind as to the state of her mental health. At this point, it has not been thoroughly explored, and I note that Mrs YCO regards any assessment of that nature as a "further assault".
5. I accept her evidence that she has never threatened anyone with a firearm and has previously held a firearms licence without incident.
6. Despite that history, because she perceives that she is constantly under firearm attack, there would have to be a substantial risk that she would open fire in self defence as she might see it, but which would objectively be inappropriate in the circumstances.

1. For these reasons I am not satisfied that Mrs YCO is a fit and proper person to be issued with the licences sought. In those circumstances, I must refuse to grant the licences sought.
2. I therefore affirm the decision of the Firearms Appeals Committee.