Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 169 Hearing dates: On the papers from 8 June 2021 Date of orders: 16 June 2021 Decision date: 16 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Emeritus Prof GD Walker, Senior Member Decision: 1. Decision under review set aside. 2. The applicant's category AB firearms licence is to be restored to him. Catchwords: LICENSING – firearms – licence revocation – public interest – assault charge – domestic circumstances. Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW) Cases Cited: Aloschi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 64; AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316; Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42; Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT AP 16; Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89; Hook v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 250; Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117; Kopco v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 124; Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97; Masterton v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206; McDonald v Director-General, Social Security [1984] FCA 57, (1984) 1 FCR 354; Nakad v Commissioner of police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10; Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28; Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Cameron K Lee (Applicant) Commissioner of Police (Respondent). Representation: Solicitors: Hartmann & Associates (Applicant) Office of General Counsel (Respondent). File Number(s): 2020/00344303 REASONS FOR DECISION 1. The applicant Mr Cameron Kim Lee applied to this tribunal on 4 December 2024 review of a decision by the respondent Commissioner on 16 September 2020 and affirmed following an internal review on 12 April 2021 to revoke his category AB firearms licence. The licence had been issued to him on 27 March 2017 for the reasons of sport/target shooting and recreational hunting/vermin control. 2. The main ground for revocation relied upon was that on 14 October 2019 the applicant had been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) (charge No. H72183212). (The ABH charge was withdrawn and replaced with a count of common assault.) The Commissioner also expressed concerns regarding the applicant's domestic circumstances and how they might impact on public safety in relation to his exercising continuous and responsible control over firearms. 3. At Port Macquarie Local Court on 30 November 2020 the applicant pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, common assault, without conviction. He was made subject to a conditional release order for two years commencing on 30 November 2020. 4. At a directions hearing held on 27 April 2021, Montgomery SM directed that the matter be dealt with without the need for parties to be present (that is, "on the papers") pursuant to s 50(1)(c) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act). Applicable legislation 1. Section 24(2)(a) of the Firearms Act provides that a firearms licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind. 2. Section 11(4)(a) of the Act states that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of "the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances". 3. Section 24(2)(d) states that a licence may be revoked for any other reason prescribed by the regulations. Clause 20 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 prescribes that the Commissioner may revoke a licence if satisfied that it is not in the public interest for the licensee to continue to hold the licence. 4. The original revocation decision was based on two grounds, domestic circumstances (s 11(4)(a)) and the public interest. The respondent's submissions in the present application, like the internal review reasons dated 12 April 2021, do not appear to rely on s 11(4)(a) but instead treat the applicant's somewhat turbulent family history as relevant to the public interest. The issue in the present application is thus whether it is not in the public interest for the applicant to continue to hold a firearms licence. The evidence 1. As no viva voce hearing was held, neither party adduced any oral evidence. The respondent relied on the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) and an attachment to his submissions in exhibit R2. The applicant's case was contained in a bundle of documents (exhibit A1), which included a number of character references that will be referred to below, as well as his written submissions. 2. The applicant's material also included a signed statement in which the applicant wrote that he first received his firearms licence in 2017, that it was suspended in September/October 2019 and revoked in September 2020 after an incident that occurred in Port Macquarie in January 2019, which resulted in his being charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. 3. The assault charge in question was ultimately reduced to the lowest level –, an assault – with no conviction recorded. As his character references showed, and as accepted by the magistrate in his assault case, his actions were truly out of character for a man of his age, background and previous history. He was deeply embarrassed by his loss of temper which caused the incident, and expressed his regret to the victim through a letter of apology. He further undertook an anger management course to ensure that his sort of incident did not recur. 4. He had already paid a huge cost in loss of enjoyment of hunting, and the shame of having to pass through the judicial process. In the decision to revoke his licence, a number of incidents involving his son Conor were listed. It should be made clear that Conor no longer resides at their home and that there is in fact an AVO taken out against him preventing him from approaching the applicant or their property. 5. The applicant also tendered a signed statement by his wife, Mrs Donna Lee, which stated that she had absolutely no concern in "Cam" having his license reinstated for the purpose of continuing his passion for hunting. She and the applicant had been married for over 30 years, and over that long period she had never known him to be a violent person. He had never shown any violence or aggression to any person or family member. On the date of the assault incident in Port Macquarie, she had been present and found the incident to be completely out of character. Afterwards her husband was in fact quite embarrassed and regretted his actions immediately. 6. As regards their son Conor's unfortunate history, she believed his situation brought no risk in her husband having his firearms licence reinstated. Over the years Conor had battled mental health and drug-based issues, for which he has received treatment and has made significant progress. That being said, Conor no longer lives with them, and there is an apprehended violence order (AVO) in place that forbids him being at their home. Although there had been incidents between Cameron and Conor, Cameron had only ever acted to defend himself or their property, and had only ever used minimal force – never once striking Conor, let alone resorting to, or threatening to use, a weapon of any sort. 7. She could assure the tribunal that Cam took exceptional care when it came to safe storage of his firearms when they were located on their property. The safe combination was never revealed, and his guns and ammunition were always locked securely away. She could confidently assure the tribunal that the applicant is in no way a danger to any family member or to any member of the public. Respondent's submissions 1. In written submissions filed on 8 June 2021, the respondent outlined what is described as "a highly unsettled and volatile domestic situation". The applicant's daughter Kaitlyn was the cause of numerous police interventions between 2011 and 2015 involving violent altercations, drug use, threats with a knife, throwing objects, damaging property and stealing from the family. 2. From 2015 onwards, the applicant's son Conor became the major source of household disruption and police interventions, including at least eight separate events between June 2017 and December 2019. Conor suffers from depression, attention deficit disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He uses illicit drugs and abuses alcohol, is aggressive and has engaged in altercations with the applicant and with Kaitlyn. A series of AVOs been issued against Conor in 2017, 2020 and 2021. The current AVO was issued on 2 February 2021. "In the midst of domestic chaos, the applicant applied for, and was granted, a firearms licence on 8 February 2017" (exhibit R1, pp 1 – 9). 3. He engaged in the conduct that gave rise to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 27 January 2019 which was later reduced to common assault. On 30 November 2020, he pleaded guilty and no conviction was recorded, but a two-year conditional release order (CRO) was imposed. The imposition of a CRO for that period reflects the gravity with which the Local Court regarded the conduct. Two years is the maximum period for which such an order may be made. 4. The redacted and modified fact sheet for that offence provided by the applicant appeared to be the version tendered to the Local Court for the purposes of the applicant's plea of guilty of common assault. The respondent submitted that the tribunal should have regard to the redacted information, which recorded the impact on the victim, who was apparently particularly vulnerable to head impacts. Eventually he was unable to continue in business as a result of the assault. 5. The respondent noted that in Kopco v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 124, the tribunal affirmed a decision to refuse the issue of a licence in circumstances where the character and conduct of the applicant was not an issue. Instead, having regard to other factors involving the applicant's son, the tribunal found that the situation could present a slight but significant risk to public safety. The son was facing charges, but they were to be defended and there was nothing else disclosed in the open evidence to suggest that he was unduly problematic. In the present case, however, in addition to the conduct described in the event reports, Conor has a criminal record which includes recent offences of assault, destroying or damaging property, contravening an AVO and intimidating a police officer in the execution of duty. 6. Although Conor was currently not living at the residence where the applicant's firearms had been stored under the terms of an AVO, when that order expired, the restriction would disappear. Further, Conor's record indicates that he has breached the terms of AVOs on two occasions. Having regard to his mental health, alcohol abuse, record of violence and use of illicit drugs, he presents a real risk to public safety. Nor could it be in the public interest for the applicant to be issued with a licence while still being subject to a maximum-term CRO. Applicant's submissions 1. In submissions filed on 24 May 2021 (part exhibit A1), the applicant noted that the respondent had put forward a number of reasons for the revocation decision of 16 September 2020, but as all but one was pre-existing, the primary reason was the charge then pending before the Local Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The charge was subsequently amended to common assault, and the facts were amended to indicate that the "tip jar" was thrown behind the counter and ended up hitting the victim on the side of the head after striking the wall. 2. The applicant had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and no conviction was recorded. He received a two-year bond. Subsequently he expressed remorse and completed an anger management course. 3. In Hook v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 250 and Jameson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 25, remorse was the primary consideration in the tribunal ordering the original decision to be set aside. Jameson also adopted the remedial actions of the applicant as a significant identifier of persuasive and relevant circumstances that take the matter outside the ordinary case, persuading the presiding member that the public would have virtually no fear if he were granted a firearms licence. In Aloschi v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 64, Isenberg SM was not satisfied that a shortfall in the required number of shooting activities warranted the exercise of the tribunal's discretion to revoke against the applicant. 4. The applicant also noted that the reference from Mr Andrew Robertson, attested to hunting activities "many times", which indicates that the applicant may in fact have exceeded the requirements, at least in relation to one aspect of the genuine reason. 5. As regards the concern expressed in relation to the applicant's son Conor, it was apparent that given that there is an AVO preventing the son from attending their address and that the issues between them are somewhat more than trifling, on the balance of probabilities their son would not be accepted at their address in the foreseeable future. 6. The applicant has no convictions and there had only been one instance in which he had been before the courts in his 63 years, He has expressed remorse and undertaken remedial activities, such that the matter falls outside the ordinary case. The objective seriousness of the offending was low, as evidenced by the sentence imposed. In Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 there was a far more serious assault, and a conviction recorded, yet the decision to revoke Ward's licence was set aside. 7. The number of shoots that had been recorded were only just "shy" of the requisite number, though they had been exceeded by unreported hunting excursions as evidenced by a referee. The applicant's son is subject to an AVO barring him from attending the applicant's premises. That is evidence challenging the domestic circumstances argument. The public would have virtually no fears if the applicant were to hold a firearms licence. Consideration 1. Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) the tribunal's role is to determine whether, having regard to the underlying facts in the matter and the applicable law, the Commissioner's decision is the correct and preferable one. The tribunal is to review the merits of the original decision and is required to consider the evidence available at that time, together with any other or later material, so as to affirm the original decision, vary it or set it aside: Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, 77. 2. The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the CAT Act (s 30) and the Firearms Act, including the Commissioner's revocation of a licence or permit: s 75(1)(c). The tribunal is to make its own decision and there is no presumption that the Commissioner's decision is correct: McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 1 FCR 354, 357. 3. Clear guidance as to how the act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1) of the Act, which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistently with that approach, s 11(3) states that a licence must not be issued unless the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. Section 11(4)(c) also provides that a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind. 4. The standard of proof applying in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, the balance (preponderance) of probabilities. These are not adversarial proceedings. There is accordingly, no burden or onus of proof on either party (Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10, [28] – [34]) and the standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 42, [89] – [91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10, [10] – [12]. They do, however, provide guidance for the tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction. The public interest 1. The ground on which the respondent seeks to uphold the revocation of the applicant's licence is that it would be contrary to the public interest for him to continue to hold a licence. The "public interest" factor allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. They may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system: Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16. 2. The underlying principles of the Act as stated in s 3(1) stress the overriding need to ensure public safety. The tribunal is required to exercise its discretion in determining licensing reviews in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50, [23]. The applicant's personal interest in retaining his licence is subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety. 3. In a familiar passage, Hennessy DP in Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28, [28] said that in terms of public safety, "the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk", while acknowledging that the tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would never pose any risk to public safety. Ward was a case on the "fit and proper person" test, but the formulation has been held to apply to the public interest test under s 11(7) as well: Hoffman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 89, [23]; Masterson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAP 206, [130]. 4. Since then, Hennessy DP has cautioned against applying that language in a mechanistic way, pointing out in AML v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 that that the Ward decision itself had set aside the Commissioner's decision to revoke a firearms licence because her Honour was satisfied that despite the fact that he had assaulted his partner, he was a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence. "The 'virtually no risk' comment was made in the context of the 'fit and proper person' test. It should not be understood as a judicial gloss on the plain meaning of that test, or of the reasonable cause test. The relevant tests are set out in the Firearms Act and comments in cases should not be substituted for those tests" (at [7]). 5. Other cases have pointed out that the question of risk is not to be viewed as requiring an applicant to discharge an almost impossible burden of proving a near-absolute negative, but in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety: Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97, [64] – [66] 66]. 6. Thus, in Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110, [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that "In determining this issue it is my view that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account. Minimal, fanciful or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration". Risk to the public includes, of course, risk to the applicant himself: Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117, [74]. The applicant's record 1. A central basis of the respondent's case for revocation on public interest grounds was the incident that occurred on 26 January 2019 at the Poco Loco restaurant Port Macquarie, where the victim was the chef. The applicant had been dining at the restaurant with his wife. Following their main course, Mrs Donna Lee complained about the flavour of the dish, which she said she simply did not enjoy, and the couple refused to pay for her meal. They were informed that they had to pay the full amount, and after they did so, the applicant picked up the wooden tip jar that was sitting on the counter and threw it towards the chef. It struck the back wall and apparently bounced off and struck the chef near the ear. 2. It should be noted that the original fact sheet (exhibit R1, pp 15 – 17) did not state that the jar had ricocheted onto the victim's head. That addition appears in the redacted version of the fact sheet that was supplied to the applicant and tendered to the Local Court (part exhibit A1). 3. The chef did not contact police that night, but awoke the following day with a headache. He had undergone a number of surgeries to his head because of a brain aneurysm, and as a result had a metal plate in his head. He noticed that his head was swollen where the object had struck him, just below the plate, which shifted as a result of the impact, causing swelling. The victim had also recently been diagnosed with a brain tumour. The redacted version of the fact sheet omits the above medical details, but there is no confidentiality order in relation to it. 4. When interviewed by police, the applicant admitted the offence, saying that 'in a fit of rage I tossed the contents of the tip jar at the wall behind him, saying "There's your tip' and left". As a result of the injuries sustained in the incident, the chef had undergone numerous medical appointments and as a direct result he and his wife had been forced to close the restaurant. 5. Although the thrown bowl was apparently not intended to strike the victim, the applicant had committed a violent act that had serious consequences. Whether the learned magistrate was apprised of all those consequences to is not clear. 6. As against that, the applicant is a man aged 63 who has had no other convictions, or been the subject of any known reports of violence. His wife and referees attest to his remorse over the episode. He has completed an anger management course. He has no firearms breaches other than in 2018/2019 falling short of meeting his prescribed target shooting requirements by one attendance. As the tribunal considered in Aloschi (where the shortfall was much greater), such a lapse would not normally be considered sufficient to warrant revocation and it did not directly affect safety. The applicant also satisfied a safe storage inspection on 9 August 2019. 7. The applicant still has some six months of his CRO remaining, and as the respondent pointed out, a licence would not normally be issued to a person still subject to a maximum term CRO. But when the issue is revocation rather than (as in Kopco) refusal, the decision-maker has the applicant's firearms licence history to take into account when exercising the discretion under s 24(2)(d), and the applicant's record in that regard is unblemished. In my view the evidence leads to the conclusion that there is no significant risk that the applicant would endanger public safety if his licence were restored. Domestic disturbances 1. The other main basis for the respondent's contention that it would not be in the public interest for the applicant's licence to be restored is that over an extended period he had what the respondent termed "a highly unsettled and volatile domestic situation" brought about by the conduct of his daughter Kaitlyn and later his son Conor that might jeopardize his ability personally to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms. 2. Between 2011 and 2015 reports were made to police that Kaitlyn was suffering from clinical depression, was being treated by a psychologist and was taking medication, had anger management issues, was aggressive, damaged property, stole money from her family and on one occasion threatened to take all her pills. During arguments on two occasions, she reportedly took possession of a knife and on another occasion threatened her mother with a butter knife. She had taken the applicant's car without permission and was found by police to be driving as an unaccompanied learner (exhibit R1, pp 32 – 40). 3. Subsequently, between 20 June 2017 and 4 November 2020 police received numerous reports from the applicant or his wife relating to their son Conor, including that: * he had depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and was prescribed antidepressants, but refused to take his medication; * he also suffered from anxiety and PTSD and had made threats of self-harm; * he had twice been voluntarily admitted to The Hills Clinic and had attended the Wentworthville Centre for four weeks of rehabilitation; * he was a known illicit drug user with addiction issues and frequently abused alcohol; * he had displayed aggressive behaviour on numerous occasions and had damaged property; he had been involved in physical altercations with the applicant and his sister Kaitlyn, and more recently had threatened to "bash your f*****g head in" and had punched the applicant in the head (exhibit R1, pp 24 – 37). 1. In addition, Conor has a criminal record (see bail report, exhibit R2 attachment) that includes recent offences including: * assault (2017, 2020 and 2021); * destroying or damaging property (2017, 2020 and 2021); * contravening a condition/restriction in an AVO (2017 and 2021); and * intimidating a police officer in the execution of duty (2020). 1. Conor does not, however, have any charges or adverse reports related to firearms. He has on two occasions breached an AVO condition, but the evidence suggests that under present conditions he would not be accepted at his parents' house and the referees have noticed that the applicant and Mrs Lee have coped well with the successive problems their son has presented. Even if Conor were to breach an AVO, there seems little likelihood that he would gain access to firearms by so doing. Any risk of that would appear to be what was referred to in Webb as a purely "theoretical" risk that did not need to be taken into account. The references 1. The applicant tendered three character references in addition to the statement provided by his wife Mrs Donna Lee (part exhibit A1). They are both of recent date and indicate an awareness of the applicant's record and of the purpose of the references. 2. Mr Daryl Hill wrote that he has known the applicant as a personal friend for over 15 years, having first met him and his wife Donna at a Baulkham Hills netball game, where their daughters were playing in the same team. They had been friends with the Lee family, holidaying and socializing ever since. He had always known "Cam" to be a hard-working fellow, renowned also for his honest and forthright nature. He had always impressed Mr Hill as an extremely responsible person, a man who would anticipate problems and plan well in advance to avoid them. He had never known Cam to be aggressive, abusive or confrontational. 3. For those reasons, he was surprised when Cam telephoned him and told him of his transgression of the law. Knowing him as he does, he could sense the deep disappointment in his voice regarding the charge against him and was greatly embarrassed, telling Mr Hill as much, and appeared to be truly remorseful. This was an isolated incident and out of character for Cam. Mr Hill believes that the opprobrium of his conduct will in itself have the effect of specifically deterring Cam from ever putting himself in that situation again. 4. Ms Katie Rixon RN writes that she has known the applicant and his family for over 15 years. Their children attended the same schools and they had spent many holidays and weekends together. She sees the applicant and Mrs Lee almost weekly and they have a close relationship in which she has the utmost respect and looks up to Cam like a big brother. 5. He had been a support for her and her children, especially in the last two years because of dramatic events in their own lives. Without his support, friendship, compassion and guidance, they would not have coped as well as they have. Cam has a drug dependent son who has had many issues and thrown many challenges to his family. Through all that she had witnessed Cam to be supportive, loving, patient and unwavering in his fight to rehabilitate his son. While many would have given up, Cam had forged ahead to support his son. 6. On hearing from Cam that he had been involved in an altercation and was being charged with assault, she was shocked and dismayed as it was totally out of character. In all the years she known him, he had never displayed any signs of aggression or been in any situations that had been of a violent nature. Cam had for many years worked in sales and hospitality customer service, and had come across all types of people in volatile circumstances, and is good at de-escalating situations. For her, this was a one-off incident and totally out of character. 7. Cam had made no excuses for his momentary lack of judgment and was extremely upset and remorseful for his actions. She had always known him to be honest, trustworthy, hard-working and a person of high integrity. She could not speak highly enough of him and would not be writing this character reference if she did not believe that the incident was a one-off and a momentary lack of judgment. 8. Mr Andrew Robertson, of Castle Hill, a registered migration agent, writes that the applicant has been a close friend to him and his wife for over 15 years. He is aware of the assault charge and the proceedings to revoke the applicant's firearms licence. 9. Mr Robertson and his wife had travelled to the United States with Cam and Donna in 2017 for an extended holiday. They also enjoyed camping with each other and go camping with their camper trailers regularly, at least three or four times a year. Having spent such a considerable amount of time together over the years, and being in contact two or three times a week, he finds the assault charges to be completely out of character to the Cam Lee that he knows. 10. For example, he and his wife have seen the distress that their son has caused to their family by his substance abuse over the past four years. They had observed Cam and Donna supporting their son during challenging times, never losing hope and demonstrating patience, above and beyond what families should have to endure. 11. Mr Robertson had also been present when the applicant had been the subject of a racial slur (the applicant being of Chinese descent). At that time, he had simply removed himself from the situation. Mr Robertson spoke with him about it and he was clearly upset, but chose to remove himself rather than to highlight or react to the racist remarks which may have caused further distress. Those actions epitomized Cam, in that rather than seeking confrontation, he went out of his way to avoid it. 12. He and the applicant share many common interests and one of those is hunting. They both applied for firearms licences around the same time and joined the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia. They have assisted farmers with feral animal control on their properties many times together and take safety very seriously. 13. Mr Robertson strongly stresses that it is his personal opinion that [the assault event] was completely out of character, and he had never known of, or seen, any violent or aggressive behaviour by Cam in all the years they had known each other. He can vouch for the fact that Cam had expressed his remorse and regret over his momentary loss of reason, and in Mr Robertson's opinion would not be a risk of any sort if reissued with his firearms licence. Conclusion 1. The applicant is a man aged 63 who has never been convicted of any offence. The only blemish on his record, and it is a serious one, is the incident at the Poco Loco restaurant in January 2019. He is clearly remorseful for his conduct and demonstrated the sincerity of his regret by completing an anger management course. 2. On another occasion one of his referees personally witnessed him de-escalating a tense situation when he had been the target of a provocative racial slur. Those who know him view the Poco Loco episode as being completely out of character, and there are no reports of any comparable episodes in his life. 3. The applicant and his wife have undergone serious trials brought about by the conduct, including criminal conduct, of their son Conor. They have had to face numerous confrontations with him and the evidence shows that the applicant has managed to handle such situations without resorting to force or the threat of force, despite being sorely tested, including when Conor threatened to "bash [his] f*****g head in" and in fact struck him on the head. 4. His firearms record is almost unblemished and his hunting companion attests to his strongly safety-conscious handling of firearms. None of his son's contraventions have involved firearms. In my view restoring the applicant's firearms licence would not entail any realistic risk to public safety and that consequently it would not be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence, and I so find. The decision under review will therefore be set aside. Orders 1. Decision under review set aside. 2. The applicant's category AB firearms licence is to be restored to him. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Registrar I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 16 June 2021