The applicant submitted that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and that the decision of the Registrar is not the correct or preferable decision. He explained the circumstances of the 1998 conviction and 2023 charges to the Tribunal. The applicant submitted that he requires his firearms licence for his employment and is otherwise a person of good character. The applicant provided character references in support of his application.

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

• I accept the applicant has good general character. However, I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person in the context of this scheme;
• In my view, it is correct and preferrable that the applicant's licence be cancelled. The decision is consistent with the Firearms Act as the applicant has not been compliant with the requirements of the Firearms Act;
• The Registrar's decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence pursuant to s 20(6) of the Firearms Act is affirmed.

Administrative Review - Firearms Act 2015 - Review of a decision of the Registrar of Firearms to suspend or cancel a licence, permit or registration - Lack of fitness and propriety

Firearms Act 2015 ss 3, 7, 15

Firearms Regulations 2017

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40

Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149

Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51

Maslin v Registrar of Firearms [2024] SACAT 20

Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171

Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112

SZW v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 51

Mr D Tsimiklis, Websters Lawyers, appeared in person for the applicant

Mr M Spencer, O'Loughlin's Lawyers, appeared in person 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.

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a).

1. This is the determination of an application made to the Tribunal on 20 November 2024 to review a decision of the Registrar of Firearms (Registrar) to cancel the applicant's firearms licence made on 11 October 2024.
2. For the reasons that follow, in my view, the correct and preferrable decision is to affirm the decision of the Registrar.

1. This proceeding is in the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. The Tribunal's task is to examine the decision of the original decision-maker, giving appropriate weight to the original decision and to consider material before the original decision-maker and any new material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's role is to reach the correct and preferrable decision. The Tribunal's powers include to affirm, vary, or set aside the decision under review and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration.
2. Review proceedings are conducted with a minimum of formality. The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it sees fit and must act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to legal technicalities and forms.
3. The Firearms Act 2015 (Firearms Act) and Firearms Regulations 2017 (Firearms Regulations) establish a statutory regime controlling the possession, use, storage and sale of firearms in South Australia, including by provision of a statutory licensing scheme. The Registrar is responsible for overseeing, administrating and enforcing the regime.
4. The Firearms Act enshrines among its underlying principles that firearm possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and to improve public safety. The Supreme Court has observed that it is consistent with the regime that licence holders are carefully scrutinised to ensure they are of appropriate character to bear this privilege and serious responsibility.[1]
5. The Firearms Act provides that the imposition of strict controls on the possession and use of firearms is a fundamental principle intended to improve public safety.[2]
6. A ground on which the Registrar might refuse an application for a licence includes that the Registrar is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.[3]
7. The expression "fit and proper" takes its meaning from its context.[4] Section 7 of the Firearms Act provides a non-exhaustive definition of fitness and propriety.[5] Relevantly, s 7(3) of the Firearms Act states that "A person may be taken not to be a fit and proper person for a purpose under the Act if the person -

(a) Has not complied with the requirements of this Act in relation to the safe handling, use, storage, or transport of firearms;

(b) Has been found guilty of an offence under this Act, the repealed Act or corresponding legislation of another State or Territory of the Commonwealth; or.."

1. In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person for a purpose under this Act - [6]

(a) Regard may be had to the reputation, honest 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 threatening use of a firearm; or

(iv) Any risk of the person failing to exercise continuous responsible control over firearms, and, in that connection, regard may be had to the person's past behaviour, instability intemperate habits, way of living or domestic circumstances.

1. It is within the Registrar's discretion to determine whether the Registrar is not satisfied that a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. The wording of that test is important: it does not require proof that a person is not fit and proper but requires the Registrar to not be satisfied that the person is fit and proper. Thus, the onus of demonstrating fitness and propriety is on the applicant.[7]
2. In the case of Maslin v Registrar of Firearms [2024] SACAT 20 (Maslin) at [84], the Tribunal said, "fitness and propriety are at the heart of the central purposes of the Act in terms of the overreaching need to ensure and improve public safety".

1. The applicant is aged 47 years and resides on an agricultural property in South Australia.[8]
2. The applicant was issued with a firearms licence on or about 20 February 1996 having completed a firearms safety training course at TAFE SA on 10 December 1995.[9]
3. On 14 July 1998, when the applicant was in his early twenties, the applicant was found guilty of one offence of failing to comply with a condition of a firearms licence on 6 May 1998.[10] The police had found firearms unsecured in the applicant's car.[11] The Magistrates Court imposed a conviction and a fine of $80.00.[12]
4. On 19 March 2023, police attended the applicant's home and searched his property. Mr Tsimiklis submitted that the search occurred at an "inopportune moment." The following items were located on the applicant's property (but not directly in his possession):

(a) Two gel blasters were found that were purchased when gel blasters were classified as toys (now they are classified as firearms). The gel blasters were inoperable because the gears were melted. The gel blasters belonged to the applicant's children. The applicant knew of the change of law that gel blasters are now identified as firearms and took steps to destroy gel blasters in his possession but missed the ones the police located on 19 March 2023. Mr Tsimiklis submits that the applicant's failure to surrender or destroy the gel blasters was an inadvertent oversight;[13]

(b) A firearm, namely, a BRUN .22 air rifle was located in the applicant's son's bedroom that was not properly secured. The applicant admits that he knew the firearm was not properly stored and that it should have been;

(c) Air gun slugs were located that were not stored correctly, however, the applicant did not realise that the air gun slugs are classified as ammunition and needed to be secured;

(d) Five further firearms that were properly registered, identified and stored in an approved firearms safe[14] were also located.

1. The applicant was described as being co-operative during the attendance by police.
2. On 19 March 2023, the applicant was charged with the following:[15]

(a) Count 1: Possession of a Category A firearm namely a BFI ILION gel blaster that was unregistered in South Australia;

(b) Count 2: Possession of a Category A firearm namely an unknown brand gel blaster that was unregistered in South Australia;

(c) Count 3: Contravention of a provision of the Code of Practice of the Regulations by not securely storing BRUN .22 air rifle;

(d) Count 4: Contravention of a provision of the Code of Practice of the Regulations by not securely storing the BFI ILION gel blaster;

(e) Count 5: Contravention of a provision of the Code of Practice of the Regulations by not securely storing the unknown brand gel blaster;

(f) Count 6: Contravention of a provision of the Code of Practice of the Regulations by not securely and separately storing ammunition.

1. The Police Case Enquiry Log report noted the following in relation to the 2023 investigation:[16]

(a) "There is no legal basis for continuing with the charges in Court and discontinuance is recommended";[17]

(b) "IO has recommended this accused be cautioned if able under the Adult Cautioning Process if he meets the criteria. IO had deemed it a low level non aggravated, victimless crime, however unsure if he is suitable due to the offences being under the Firearms Act";[18]

(c) "IO provided info that suggests the offences were the result of the suspect having a relaxed attitude and not any maliciousness. Suggest after police having interacted with him for this matter that he will improve his practices. Adult caution approved. IO to inform suspect."[19]

1. Ultimately, the charges were withdrawn and the police provided the applicant with an adult caution.[20]
2. In April 2023, the applicant was served by the Registrar with a Notice of Suspension of his firearms licence pending an investigation into matters of concern.[21]
3. On or about 2 June 2024, the applicant was served with a further notice by the Registrar advising that the cancellation of his firearms licence was being considered. The notice invited the applicant to make submissions addressing the concerns raised by the Registrar and asked the applicant to provide three independent character references.[22]
4. On 29 July 2024, the applicant sent an email to the Registrar enclosing character references along written submissions from the applicant.[23] The character references relied upon by the applicant include:

(a) A reference from LUZ,[24] dated 22 July 2024, that states he has known the applicant for 20 years and found the applicant to be honest, reliable, trustworthy and hardworking. LUZ says he is a good judge of character as he has employed numerous people and he writes the letter of support in confidence that the applicant is a person of high integrity and credibility;

(b) A reference from GHG, dated 30 July 2024[25] that states he has known the applicant for 30 years. GHG states he has gone shooting with the applicant and the applicant has never behaved in a manner that has threatened him on anyone else's safety and, in fact, the applicant pulled those who took risks into line. GHG states that firearms remain an essential tool and if the applicant were to lose his licence, it would have a detrimental impact on his employability and lifestyle;

(c) A reference from DVH, undated.[26] DVH states he has known the applicant for 37 years. DVH states that the applicant has integrity, a strong sense of responsibility and a high level of safety. DVH states that the applicant is known for his reliability and trustworthiness. DVH states that the applicant has a clear understanding and respect for the responsibilities that come with firearm ownership. DVH also states that the applicant participates in community activities and he has full confidence in the applicant's character and believes he has the judgement, responsibility and respect for the law required to be a responsible firearm owner;

(d) A reference from PNY, undated, that indicates PNY first met the applicant through church connections in 1994. PNY says that he has known the applicant to be hard working, diligent and thoughtful in everything he does. The applicant continues to find time to be involved in his local community and church despite significant time pressures all while maintaining a positive attitude. With regard to suitability for possessing a firearms licence, PNY states that he has no problem standing behind the applicant and defending his character in this regard.

1. On or about 11 October 2024, the Registrar formally advised the applicant that a decision had been made to cancel his firearms licence pursuant to s 20(6) of the Firearms Act.[27] The effect of the decision was to cancel the applicant's firearms licence on the basis that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence in accordance with s 15(1)(b) and 20(6) of the Firearms Act. The applicant is now no longer able to possess any firearms of any category.[28]
2. On 20 November 2024, the applicant made an application to the Tribunal seeking review of the Registrar's 11 October 2024 decision.[29]
3. The matter proceeded as a contested hearing on 7 March 2024 and both parties made submissions.
4. The applicant also gave evidence. In my view, the applicant was frank and honest in his evidence. In summary, the applicant said:

(a) He is currently forty-seven. He grew up on a farm and his parents had a dairy farm. He has been milking cows since the age of four;

(b) He has worked as a farm labourer for many years and, most recently, he has tried to establish a mobile butchering business. This business would require that he have his firearms licence;

(c) He has a wife and four children. His children are aged nineteen, eighteen, sixteen and thirteen respectively;

(d) He volunteers at his local church and hockey club;

(e) He obtained his firearms licence at sixteen years old;

(f) He does not recall in detail the training that he received in order to obtain his licence but accepts that it would have covered storage of firearms and ammunition and the applicable law at the time. He also accepts, from time to time, he received mail from the Registrar that discussed changes in laws. He would also discuss changes in laws with friends and colleagues;

(g) He is self-employed and requires a firearm for the purposes of his work as an on-farm slaughterman and for pest control;[30]

(h) He has moved on four occasions since 2014 and, on each of those occasions, he has properly notified the Registrar;

(i) He has been the subject of at least one audit he can recall that he did pass;

(j) His safe is a combination lock safe and meets the current safety requirements. The applicant said that his safe is 50 metres from his house and only the applicant has the combination to the safe;

(k) In relation to the 1998 incident, the applicant had a firearm in his vehicle to kill rabbits. It was not loaded and was inoperable. The applicant said that his vehicle was locked but it did not take much to force the lock. When asked what lesson he learned from the 1998 incident, the applicant said he learned that he should not carry a gun when he knows that he is going to be away from his car;

(l) In relation to the March 2023 incident, he accepts two gel blasters were not secure and that there was also an insecure BRUN .22 air rifle. The applicant said that the gel blasters were his children's, however he accepts responsibility. All other five firearms were secured in his safe. The reason that the BRUN .22 air rifle was insecure is that he had every intention that evening to "spot light" for cats that were attacking his chickens. The BRUN .22 air rifle is a low powered rifle that would not be used to euthanise cattle. The BRUN .22 air rifle was located in his eldest son's bedroom in a bag and it was not loaded. When asked to explain why the firearm was not properly secured the applicant said that the firearm was used that morning and was going to be used that night. The applicant referred to "laziness" on his part and spoke about the inconvenience of having to go to the safe. The applicant denied that it was a habit for him to have unsecured firearms or ammunition in his home. The applicant said he understands that it is a requirement to store firearms in a safe when they are not being used but the practicalities around that make it difficult to comply with the Firearms Act "to the letter";

(m) When asked what comfort, if any, he could give to the Tribunal that another incident would not occur and he would not be lazy again, the applicant said that the Tribunal would have to accept his word, however, the disruption and inconvenience of not having his licence for the last eighteen months has brought to his attention how much he requires a firearms licence and the fact that he has to kill animals without firearms is not desirable. However, the applicant acknowledged that it is difficult to comply with the Firearms Act to "the letter". The applicant said he will comply with "the spirit" of the Firearms Act but not necessarily "the letter" of the Firearms Act.

1. I have considered all the material on file, including the Section 35 materials, the Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, and Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025. I have also considered the evidence and submissions made at the contested hearing on 7 March 2025. I have also considered the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, the Firearms Act and the Firearms Regulations.
2. It is not entirely clear, because the applicant cannot recall the exact date he received notice of the Registrar's decision, but it may be that this application is 'out of time.' Mr Tsimiklis said the applicant lives in a regional area and collects his mail from the Post Office and does not remember the date on which he collected the notice from the Registrar.[31] Mr Tsimiklis said that the application may have been filed within the specified 28 days from receipt of the application, but if not, he seeks to have the application permitted.[32] The Registrar does not oppose an extension of time.[33] To the extent that the application is out of time, I extend time having been satisfied that there are special circumstances and that the Registrar is not unreasonably disadvantaged by the delay.
3. I have closely considered the Registrar's decision and put weight on it particularly acknowledging the experience and expertise of the Registrar and delegates in the areas of law enforcement and public safety in relation to firearms.[34] I also acknowledge and place weight on the factors that the Registrar says are relevant to the cancellation including:[35]

(a) The applicant underwent firearms safety training on 10 December 1995.[36] Having said that, I do acknowledge this training was a long time ago so I do place limited weight on the applicant having previously had training;

(b) On 14 July 1998, the applicant was convicted of failing to comply with a condition of his firearms licence and was convicted and fined $80.00;

(c) On 19 March 2023, police attended the applicant's home and located a shotgun under the applicant's son's bed, two unregistered gel blasters, and air rifle slugs were stored in a tin on top of the fridge. According to police documentation, the applicant said he knew that he should have secured the firearms but did not. The applicant was charged with various offences, but ultimately the charges were withdrawn and the police provided the applicant with an adult caution. I accept the submission of the applicant that there was no "malicious intent" but the reality is the applicant knew, at least in relation to the BRUN .22 air rifle that it should be properly stored and it was not.

1. In the applicant's favour, I acknowledge and place weight on:

(a) The applicant complied with authorities in relation to the 1998 and 2023 allegations;

(b) The applicant has a minimal offending history. In relation to the 1998 offence, I accept that a lenient penalty was issued which reflects that the Court found the offending at the lower end of the scale. There are no other proven offences;

(c) There is a significant passage of time between the 1998 offence and the allegations in 2023. This is given greater weight acknowledging that the applicant frequently uses firearms so this is a lengthy period, approximately 25 years without concerns in circumstances of frequent use of firearms. It is also given greater weight in the context of the applicant recalling at least one previous firearms inspection of his property that found that the applicant has passed his firearms obligations. It is further given greater weight in light of the applicant's character references that indicate that the applicant is safe when using firearms;

(d) The applicant has moved address on four occasions since 2014. There is no dispute that on each of those occasions, the applicant took steps to appropriately notify the Registrar of his change of address;

(e) The applicant is entitled to a presumption of innocence in relation to the 2023 matters. This means the allegations themselves cannot be taken as strict proof on the matter. In this regard, I accept that in relation to the firearms that were not properly stored, two were gel blasters that belonged to the applicant's children and were no longer operable and the applicant unknowingly did not destroy them. I also accept that the applicant did not understand that the slugs located on his fridge were classified as ammunition;

(f) The applicant had properly stored five firearms during the search of his property in 2023;

(g) There is no evidence of violence to others;

(h) The applicant has had his licence since he was sixteen years of age and, aside from two incidents, there have been no concerns regarding his licence;

(i) The applicant, in my view, provided frank and honest evidence to the Tribunal. I accept the applicant's evidence and that the applicant is a witness of truth;

(j) The applicant requires his firearms licence for his occupation and for pest control of his property;

(k) The applicant is willing to commit to educational programs to become more aware of firearms laws. However, I do not put a lot of weight on this given there has been some time since the 2023 allegations and he has not done so. I accept the submission that he was awaiting the outcome of this review, but he did have time since the 2023 allegations, should it be a priority to attend educational programs relating to firearms, and has not done so;

(l) The applicant is a person of general good character as evidenced by his character references, lack of criminal history (aside from one matter in 1998) and volunteer work;

(m) There is no known risk of the applicant using a firearm for an unlawful purpose or using a firearm to harm himself or others. However, there is a risk of the applicant failing to exercise responsible control over firearms by failing to store them correctly. This behaviour is a risk to the community.

1. The applicant admitted to me in evidence that he will comply with "the spirit" of the Firearms Act but not necessarily "the letter" of the Firearms Act. This was concerning evidence to me in the context of the Firearms Act. I must view the meaning of fit and proper person in the context of it being a privilege to have access to firearms and community safety being a key factor. In my view, a fit and proper person in the context of the Firearms Act is a person that will follow "the letter" of the Firearms Act.
2. I reject the submission of the applicant that he poses a minimal risk of future offending.[37] There is no risk assessment before the Tribunal regarding the applicant's risk of future offending. While I accept he only has one relevant criminal matter from 1998, he has made various admissions in relation to the 2023 incident and he made an admission in evidence before me that he would comply with "the spirit" but not necessarily "the letter" of the Firearms Act.
3. There was much discussion in submissions about the case of Maslin and the similarities to this case.
4. The Registrar submitted "In that case, Mr Maslin also had unregistered gel blasters (purchased for his children) in his possession and was accused of having not stored several firearms or ammunition correctly. Mr Maslin has been prosecuted but no convictions were laid. It was Mr Maslin's central contention that he needed his firearms licence for employment reasons, being employed as a farm manager. Ultimately, Mr Maslin's application was not successful and the decision to cancel his firearms licence was upheld by the Tribunal".[38]
5. The Registrar submitted, in contrast to Maslin, it is not a matter of the licence holder being uninformed of the status of gel blasters. In this case, the applicant was aware of the law change and did not take sufficient steps to deal with all of the gel blasters and this case is therefore more concerning than Maslin.
6. The applicant submitted that, similar to the Maslin case, in this case, there is a penalty at the lower end of the range. However, dissimilar to the Maslin case, in this case, there was only one proven matter and an adult caution whereas in the Maslin case there were multiple proven matters. Further, in this case the applicant is honest whereas there were concerns about the applicant not being clear or candid in Maslin.
7. In my view, some of the factors in this case are more serious and others, less serious than Maslin. This is why case law is instructive but each case needs to be considered on its merits.
8. Dissimilar to Maslin:

(a) In my view, the applicant in this case is honest. There were some concerns that the applicant in Maslin was not clear or candid;

(b) I do find the applicant in this case knowingly did not store the BRUN .22 air rifle securely which is more serious than the facts of Maslin;

(c) In this case, there was only one proven criminal matter and an adult caution whereas in the Maslin case there were multiple recent proven matters. Having said that, in this case, the applicant has made relevant concessions in relation to the 2023 allegations;

(d) I also accept that in the Maslin case, the firearms were loaded which presents a greater risk to the public. Further, Mr Maslin stored items in a cupboard whereas in this case, five firearms were properly stored in a safe. Having said that, there was a BRUN .22 air rifle in the applicant's son's bedroom which, in my view is serious as it has exposed a child to a risk of harm.

(a) The applicant here said that he unknowingly did not destroy the gel blasters and was not aware that the slugs were considered ammunition. I consider this similar to the Maslin case where the applicant there failed to understand the law;

(b) Both applicants do not have a lengthy criminal history;

(c) Both applicants require their licence for employment purposes;

(d) Both applicants have had a licence for a considerable period and been subject to at least one previous audit that they have passed;

(e) Both applicants were subject to concerns on two occasions that were several years apart with good compliance in-between;

(f) Both applicants had a conviction (from some time ago) for a firearms offence.

1. In my view, the Maslin case and findings are relevant in this case and suggest that the applicant in this case ought also to be found not to be a fit and proper person. There can be no room for error with the requirements of the Firearms Act given it is a privilege and not a right to hold a licence and safety being a paramount consideration.
2. There was also much discussion about the 2023 allegations. On the one hand, the applicant said that I should be satisfied that the criminal charges were issued in error. On the other hand, the Registrar submitted that the charges should have been pursued and, on one count, should be upgraded to an indictable offence. I do not consider these submissions to be highly relevant to my determination. It is difficult for me to look behind the decision-making of the police particularly when evidence from the police was not called and there were no police policy documents in the material before me. I accept in this case that charges were filed and the charges were withdrawn and an adult caution issued. In these circumstances, I accept that the applicant is entitled to a presumption of innocence in relation to the 2023 matters. I have determined the relevance of the 2023 allegations having regard to the applicant's admissions.
3. This is a difficult case. On the one hand, the applicant presented as honest before the Tribunal and has provided character references that he is a person of general good character including engaging in voluntary work. There is no evidence that the applicant has ever physically harmed others and there is a lengthy period of time between any issues of concern. Further, the applicant presented as hard-working and needing his licence for his business. Further, there are character references that he does handle firearms appropriately. On the other hand, the applicant has a relevant finding of guilt from 1998. Further, in my view, considering the applicant's admissions about the conduct in 2023, I am reasonably satisfied that he knowingly did not put his BRUN .22 air rifle firearm away. This means, despite a conviction from 1998, the applicant still knowingly did not store his firearm properly. I accept that the removal of his licence resulting from the 2023 is a bigger deterrent than the penalty he received in 1998 and the 1998 matter was a long time ago. I am less concerned about the gel blaster conduct because even though they should have been destroyed, the applicant said he did not realise those gel blasters were not destroyed and I accept his evidence in this regard. I am concerned about the slug evidence because even though the applicant said he did not realise they were ammunition and I accept this, in my view, a fit and proper person under the Firearms Act would take steps to understand and comply with obligations under the Firearms Act. The Registrar submitted to me (and I accept the submission) that the onus is on the applicant to maintain familiarity with the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations and to ensure strict compliance with such requirements.[39]
4. Of further concern to me is the applicant's admission in evidence that he will comply with "the spirt" but not necessarily "the letter" of the Firearms Act. In my view, this evidence alone (whilst it is not the only evidence I have considered) is enough to find that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
5. An assessment that a person is not a "fit and proper" for the purposes of having a firearms licence is not a broad assessment of the person's general character.[40] I accept the applicant has good general character. However, I am not satisfied that he is a fit and proper person in the context of this scheme.
6. The Registrar submits that the applicant meets the criteria in paragraphs 7(3)(a) and (b) of the Firearms Act. I accept the Registrar's submission.
7. In my view, it is correct and preferrable that the applicant's licence be cancelled. The decision is consistent with the Firearms Act as the applicant has not been compliant with the requirements of the Firearms Act.
8. The regime established by the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations require strict compliance for its efficacy. It is obvious that any incorrect use of firearms could result in a tragedy. In Davies v Registrar of Firearms [2005] SASC 149, the Court said at [23], "Compliance with the Firearms Act and regulations may cause a degree of inconvenience but the dangers of poor gun control are too evident in our society for matters of non-compliance to be disregarded or overlooked."
9. In the context of the Firearms Act the overriding policy consideration is the protection of the public. Holders of firearms licences need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure they are of appropriate character to bear the responsibility of possessing firearms.
10. I have considered whether a conditional licence should be ordered. Both parties agreed that conditions should not be imposed if the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person within the context of this scheme. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the imposition of conditions is appropriate.
11. I acknowledge that the applicant will be disappointed with my decision. My decision is not in any way to punish the applicant. In my view, the applicant was honest before the Tribunal and is a person of good general character. However, in the context of this scheme that requires strict compliance with the Firearms Act and it being a privilege and not a right to hold a firearms licence, I do not believe he is a fit and proper person.
12. In my view, the correct and preferrable decision is to affirm the decision of the Registrar.

1. The applicant's application is extended so it is within time.

1. The Registrar's decision to cancel the applicant's firearms licence pursuant to s 20(6) of the Firearms Act is affirmed.

[1] Police v Losapio [2007] SASC 112 (David J) at [21]; Pitchers v Police [2012] SASC 171 at [8]- [12]; Johnson v Registrar of Firearms [2001] SASC 51 (Gray J).

[2] Section 3(1)(b)(i) Firearms Act.

[3] Section 15(1)(b) of the Firearms Act.

[4] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 (per Toohey and Gaudron JJ).

[5] Section 7(7) of the Firearms Act.

[6] Section 7(4) of the Firearms Act.

[7] SZW v Registrar of Firearms [2018] SACAT 51 at [50].

[8] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 1.

[9] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 2.

[10] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 8.

[11] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 2.

[12] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 9.

[13] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 21.

[14] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 16.

[15] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 29; Book of Documents, page 17.

[16] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 15.

[17] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 15.

[20] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 29.

[21] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 3.

[22] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 4.

[23] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 19.

[27] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 6.

[28] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 10.

[29] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 11.

[30] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 22.

[31] Order of the Tribunal, dated 20 December 2024.

[32] Order of the Tribunal, dated 20 December 2024.

[33] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 12.

[34] Breeding v Registrar of Firearms [2017] SACAT 40 at [31].

[35] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 29.

[37] Outline of Argument by the applicant, dated 22 January 2025, paragraph 25.

[38] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 27.

[39] Submissions of the respondent, dated 6 February 2025, paragraph 31.

[40] Maslin v Registrar of Firearms [2024] SACAT 20 at [72].