Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cattaneo v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 23 Hearing dates: 14 December 2021 Date of orders: 20 January 2022 Decision date: 20 January 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed. Catchwords: LICENSING – firearms – false statements in connection with application – fit and proper person – public interest Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Firearms Act 1996 Firearms Regulation 2017 Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321 Barlow v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2003] NSWADT 254 Bladen v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 240 Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Cook v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 204 Hook v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 250 Hunt v Commissioner of Police [2021] NCATAD 58 In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) [1955] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127 Kogias v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 297 Leatham v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 121 Lukas v Commissioner of Police, NSWPF [2021] NSWCATAD 268 McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357 Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 Saxby v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 275 Sobey v Commercial Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 156 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yuri Cattaneo (Applicant) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Hartmann & Associates (Applicant) Office of General Counsel, NSW Police Force (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/249967 REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 26 June 2021 the Applicant, Yuri Cattaneo, applied for a firearms licence. His application was refused. On 20 July 2021 an internal review application was lodged on the Applicant's behalf, but, as he was not notified of the outcome of the internal review decision within 21 days, the internal review was taken to be finalised: s 53(9)(b) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act). The Applicant now seeks review by this Tribunal. The legislative framework 1. The principles and objects of the Firearms Act 1996 (the Act) are set out in s 3 of the Act, relevantly: Principles and objects of Act (1) The underlying principles of this Act are: (a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and (b) to improve public safety: (i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and ... (2) The objects of this Act are as follows: ... (d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms 1. The Act, in setting out restrictions on the issue of licences, provides, relevantly: 11 General restrictions on issue of licences ... (3) A licence must not be issued unless: (a) 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. ... (7) Despite any other provision of this section, the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence if the Commissioner considers that issue of the licence would be contrary to the public interest. 1. Prior to a person being considered for a firearms licence, the person must undertake training at an approved shooting range under the supervision of a person who is authorised to possess or use a firearm of that kind: s 6B of the Act. Clause 144 of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (Regulation) specifies courses which an applicant must undertake, depending on the type of firearms licence sought. 2. Clause 129 of the Regulation provides, relevantly in respect of s 6B of the Act, that before an unlicensed person uses a firearm at the shooting range he or she must complete and sign a form containing questions, including: … (b) Have you ever attempted suicide or self harm? … 1. The instructor of a firearms safety training course must ensure that each person completes and signs the form before the person uses any firearm as part of the course. If the person answers "yes" to any of the questions then the instructor must prevent a person from possessing or using a firearm at the shooting range, or as part of the course: cl 129(4)(a) of the Regulation, and it is an offence to allow that person to shoot at the range. 2. A person who dishonestly attempts to obtain a certificate or any other document that purports to be evidence of the person having passed a firearms safety training course is guilty of an offence: cl 144(6)(a) of the Regulation. Similarly, it is an offence to be knowingly in possession of any such certificate or other document that has been dishonestly obtained and to attempt to use it, or use it, for a dishonest purpose: cl 144(6)(b) of the Regulation. 3. Section 70 of the Act imposes severe penalties on a person who, in connection with an application for a firearms licence, makes a statement or provides information that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular. Tribunal's approach 1. Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act) provides that in determining an application for review the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision having regard to the material before it, and any applicable written or unwritten law. It is well established that the Tribunal is not restricted to a consideration of the material that was before the decision-maker, but may have regard to any relevant material before it at the time of the review: Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31. Under s 28(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act) the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice: s 38(2) of the CAT Act. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner's, and there is no presumption that the decision of the Commissioner is correct: McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357. The standard of proof that applies in these proceedings is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. There is no onus of proof: Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 at [28] - [34]. Evidence 1. The Applicant provided a statement dated 19 November 2021. He also provided a statement in note form upon which he elaborated in his oral evidence. He also provided 2 character references: Brenden Cook dated 17 November 2021 and Blake Mulford dated 22 October 2021. Both were required for cross examination, but only Mr Mulford was available. The Applicant also relied on a psychological report by Michael Kruger-Davis dated 20 April 2021. He also referred to his solicitor's letter dated 25 June 2021 in support of his firearms application, and the submission made in the internal review application. After the hearing the Applicant's solicitor provided, at my request, a copy of the current version of the P650 form. 2. In addition to the documents filed under s 58 of the ADR Act the Respondent provided a statement by Leslie Gardner dated 7 December 2021. Mr Gardner, until recently, was the President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Sydney Branch (SSAA) and is an approved Firearms Safety Trainer. CONSIDERATION On what basis was the Applicant's licence application refused? 1. In the original decision the Respondent relied upon three false declarations the Applicant made in connection with his firearms application, to decide that it was not in the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence. Each is discussed below. Before me, the Respondent contended, in addition, that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Declaration re undertaking a firearms safety training course (P650) dated 17 June 2020 1. Mr Gardner wrote that in June 2020 the SSAA range at Silverdale was closed due to COVID. Persons seeking to undertake firearms safety training could contact him directly on a publicly advertised phone number. He is authorised to conduct firearms safety training at his residence, subject to only using simulated or dummy ammunition. On 17 June 2020, by arrangement, the Applicant attended his home for the purpose of privately undertaking the firearms safety training course. 2. As required by cl 129 of the Regulation, he provided the Applicant with a form that contained nine questions which are prescribed by the Regulation. The form is one that is issued by the Firearms Registry and carries the identifier "P650". The Applicant completed the form and returned it to him. The Applicant had marked each of the nine questions by ticking the "No" response, including the question: Have you in NSW or elsewhere - ever attempted suicide of self-harm? 3. Mr Gardner wrote that, as a result of the suicide shooting by a man at an indoor shooting centre in April 2017 and the July 2018 shooting murders by John Edwards, SSAA had introduced a practice for approved trainers to engage in a form of oral 'testing' of the veracity of responses provided by persons who completed P650 forms. This involved asking questions such as: "Why do you want to get a licence? Have you handled firearms before? Where do you intend to shoot?". During such 'testing', he wrote, approved trainers look not only at the answers provided but also the demeanour of the applicant; whether he/she exhibited nervousness; were hesitant in their answers; and the like. 4. In the course of the oral testing, Mr Gardner wrote, the Applicant told him that the answers he had given on the form weren't correct as he had attempted self-harm when he was at school, 10 years previously. He wrote that he told he Applicant that the law did not allow him to let [the Applicant] have access to firearms. He said he invited the Applicant's attention to the notation at the bottom of Section B of the P650 form, which states: If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are ineligible to participate in shooting activities involving the possession and use of firearms. 1. He said he told the Applicant that if he wanted to proceed with obtaining a firearms licence he would have to talk to the relevant person at the Firearms Registry about what you do. He said he told the Applicant that he would be informing the Firearms Registry of what has occurred and would be sending a copy of the form to them. He made some handwritten amendments to the form the Applicant had completed. For example, he: circled question (e) which states "Have you ever attempted suicide or self-harm?; wrote the words: "1 attempt 10 years ago", put a cross in the "yes" box for question (e), at the top of the form wrote: "Refused access to firearms"- circled those words and placed his initials beside the entry, at the end of the form wrote: "Yuri - told me of his self-harm attempt before he handled any rifles" and placed his initials beside the entry, drew three lines across section E of the form "Certification by Club/Range Official/Instructor Use Only". The copy of the form provided in the s 58 documents was consistent with Mr Gardner's evidence in relation to the amendments he made. 2. After making the amendments Mr Gardner sent the form to the firearms registry. 3. The Applicant said in his evidence that he had seen a P650 form online and knew he could complete that version of the form truthfully, because it enquired if he had attempted to commit suicide in the previous 10 years. When he arrived at Mr Gardner's home he was "shocked" to see that the form was different to that which he had checked online. He wondered how he would be able to explain to Mr Gardner, a stranger, the personal circumstances that had given rise to his attempt when he was a teenager. He filled out the form, then "within moments" of certifying that it was correct by signing it, he "felt guilty" and told Mr Gardner the truth. He said in cross examination that he did not raise with Mr Gardner that the form was different to that which he had checked on the website. He agreed Mr Gardner had told him he was obliged to bring the matter to the attention of the firearms registry. 4. The Applicant noted in his chronology that, later that day, he contacted the firearms registry to ask what he should do, as Mr Gardner suggested. He said he was instructed to print off a fresh P650 and submit it with the correct answer. The following day he submitted the fresh form. When he had heard nothing by 21 August 2021, that is, after about 2 months, he followed up with the firearms registry and he was given a "case number". Someone from the firearms registry telephoned him on 2 September 2020, and the gist of the conversation was that all P650 forms were "on pause" for about 6 months because the legislation was under review. If that was the case, he said in his evidence, there was no point in him having been told to resubmit his form. The following day he sought assistance directly from the Commissioner's office but was redirected to the firearms registry. That day he also contacted his local member who, a couple of weeks later, recommended his present solicitor and suggested he get a psychological report. He understood that on about 7 October 2020 the Commissioner to have informed the Shooters and Fishers Party that processing of P650s would be resumed on a limited basis. On enquiry, he was informed, he said, that he could resubmit an application if it had been previously refused. He said he would "jump through hoops" if someone would just tell him what to do. 5. In November 2020 he said he again contacted the firearms registry but was told there was a backlog. He then sought legal advice. The plan, he said, was to get the psychological report from Mr Kruger-Davis, and, if supportive, attempt the course and provide the psychologist's report with his firearms application, and then the firearms registry would have to give him an answer. Declaration re undertaking a firearms safety training course (P650) dated 17 June 2021 1. The Applicant said in his point form statement that he had sought legal advice sometime after 23 September 2020. The advice had been, he said, was to take the test elsewhere, although he did not refer to this in his point from statement. 2. The Applicant said that after he obtained Mr Kruger-Davis' report dated 21 April 2021, he booked to do the course at the Kurrajong Pistol Club, because it was on the way home from work. In his statement though he had said he "returned to the [SSAA]", which was clearly not the case. 3. On 17 June 2021, at the Kurrajong Pistol Club he again completed a P650 form and again marked each of the nine questions by ticking the "No" response, including the question: Have you in NSW or elsewhere - ever attempted suicide of self-harm? 4. He conceded in cross examination that he knew prior to attending for the course that he would be asked the question again, and that he would have to disclose the circumstances to a stranger again. He knew he was supplying the incorrect answer when he completed the form at the Kurrajong Pistol Club. In his statement he said he had answered "No" because he had not had any treatment in the previous year, and had Mr Kruger-Davis' report which had "cleared" him (see below). He did not asset in his statement that he was acting on legal advice. 5. After successfully completing both the theory and the practical component of the course, a Certificate of Completion of NSW Firearms Licence (Longarms) Qualification Course was issued by Steven Hatzimanolis of the Kurrajong Pistol Club. Online application for firearms licence dated 28 June 2021 1. On 28 June 2021 the Applicant lodged an online Application for a Category AB Firearms Licence. There, in response to the question: Have you ever attempted suicide or self-harm? the Applicant answered "No". 2. Prior to the lodgment of the application the Applicant's solicitor emailed the Firearms Registry to the effect that the Applicant, having previously answered "yes" on a P650 that he previously attempted suicide, that he was thereby precluded from undertaking the firearms safety training. It was observed that the "new form (P650)" did not include such a question, enquiring only: Are you suffering from any mental illness or other disorder that may prevent you from using a firearm safely? 3. The firearms application form, however, continued to ask the suicide question. The Applicant said in cross-examination that his incorrect answer in relation to any previous suicide attempt was "a mistake". He said he was confused about his legal advice and was concerned that, if he answered "yes", the online process would not permit him proceed further with the application. He agreed that it was not imperative that he lodge the application at that time but said he was frustrated because he had been trying to obtain his licence for 12 months. He said he was not prepared to have his application "fall over" because of the website. Evidence of Michael Kruger-Davis, psychologist 1. Mr Kruger-Davis wrote in his report of 21 April 2021 that he was approached by the Applicant to assess his mental health and to provide a report detailing his current mental health status to accompany his application for a firearms licence. He had telephone discussions, clinical interviews, and a video consultation with the Applicant. He administered a number of clinical tests. In summary, his view was that the Applicant does not have a diagnosed mental illness, personality disorder or substance abuse disorder and holds no suicidal ideation. The assessments did not indicate that the Applicant is likely to change from being an extremely low risk to himself or others. He considered that the Applicant is of sound mind and would be able to exercise rational judgement and responsible control over the possession and use of firearms. Evidence of Mr Mulford 1. Mr Mulford wrote in his reference of 22 October 2021 that he had known the Applicant since school, becoming close in more recent years. He described his friend as having been something of a "teen ratbag", such as, he explained, taking his father's motorbike without permission and some petty shoplifting. Now, however he is a confident and happy person who has worked hard and has built a stable life. It has only in recent times that the Applicant has told him about the attempted suicide when he was at school; prior to that Mr Mumford knew nothing about it, notwithstanding they were contemporaries at the same school. Mr Mumford was aware that he was being asked to provide a reference in connection with the Applicant's firearms licence application. He was aware that "Police were saying [the Applicant] had lied on the application". Mr Mumford knew the Applicant had sought legal advice during the application process but he was unaware of the details. 2. Notwithstanding that the Applicant had, on 3 occasions incorrectly answered questions in association with his firearms licence application, Mr Mumford maintained that the Applicant was of good character, and had done what he thought was right. Mr Cook's reference 1. Mr Cook wrote that he was one of the Applicant's school mates. He had observed his friend transition from an "adventurous" youth to a "passionate individual who gives his all in every area of his life". He understood him to have had significant success in his career as a real estate agent and that he is well-respected in the local community. He described him as a caring and compassionate person. 2. Notwithstanding that Mr Cook was at school with the Applicant he said nothing in his reference about the Applicant's suicide attempt. Is the Applicant a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence? 1. Section 11(3) of the Act requires that the Tribunal be 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. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal should not be so satisfied, having regard to his 3 false statements in connection with his firearms licence. 2. The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, per Mason CJ. The expression "fit and proper person", on its own, carries no precise meaning and 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: per Toohey and Gaudron JJ at 380. See also Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No.2) [1955] HCA 28 (1955), Re Percival and Australian Securities Commission [1993] AATA 196, Re Brennan & Australian Casino Surveillance Authority (1995) 38 ALP 794 at [41]. 3. In Sobey v Commercial Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70 at 76, Walters J said in relation to the licensing of commercial and private agents, that the expression means that an applicant must show that he or she "is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails." In the context of firearms licensing, in Barlow v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2003] NSWADT 254 at [22], JM Higgins stated that in determining the fitness and propriety of an applicant for a licence s 11(3)(a) of the Act requires the decision-maker to have regard to an applicant's conduct and whether that conduct is such that the decision-maker can be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. The test is directed towards maintaining and encouraging appropriate standards in the use of firearms. 4. I accept that the Applicant has 3 driving licence compliance failures (2013, 2014 and 2015), and it appears, as a young person, he may have been something of a tearaway; that conduct is, in any event, now some years ago – 2008, 2009, 2010. 5. I also accept that the Applicant, as a teenager, attempted suicide. I also accept the unchallenged evidence of Mr Kruger-Davis that the Applicant does not currently have any mental health issues and, in the context of possession of firearms, that he would be an extremely low risk to himself and others. 6. The issue of concern is in relation to the false statements made in connection with his firearms application. Firstly, with respect to the first P650 dated 17 June 2020, I find that when he initially completed the form incorrectly, he knew that his answer in relation to any previous suicide attempt, was wrong. I accept that the form may not have been identical to that he had expected from his research, but, nonetheless he knowingly completed it incorrectly. It is unknown when he undertook his research, and when the form had changed from that which he had seen online, or if, as his solicitor suggested, there was more than one version of the form in circulation. The Applicant's evidence was that he quickly became remorseful and brought the error to Mr Gardner's attention. If it was as the Applicant contended, it is to his credit that he so promptly alerted Mr Gardner to the error. However, from Mr Gardner's account, it is probably more likely that, under his scrutiny, the Applicant conceded that what he had written was incorrect. 7. The Applicant, allegedly on the advice of the firearms registry, printed off a fresh P650 and submitted it the following day with what was the correct answer. I accept that there followed a period of immense frustration while the Applicant's declaration appears to have languished in the firearms registry. 8. Sometime after Mr Gardner had declined to allow him to undertake the test because of his previous suicide attempt, the Applicant said he had sought legal advice. He understood the advice was to the effect that he should take the test elsewhere. Whether or not he was acting in accordance with the advice he had received, he did not return to Mr Gardner, and instead went to the Kurrajong Pistol Club because, he said, it was on his way home from work. That convenience apparently had not previously occurred to him when he chose, in June 2020, to travel to Mr Gardner's home in the ACT to undertake the test. 9. On 17 June 2021, at the Kurrajong Pistol Club, he again completed a P650 form and again answered "no" in relation to whether he had ever attempted suicide. He knew prior to attending that he would be asked the question again, and knew the answer he provided in relation to any previous suicide attempts to be false. That, on the balance of probabilities, is a breach of cl 144(6) of the Regulation. 10. Armed with his Certificate of Completion of the relevant course, on 28 June 2021 the Applicant lodged an online application for a firearms licence. Again, he answered "No" to the question: Have you ever attempted suicide or self-harm? His explanation was that his answer was "a mistake". He said he was "confused" about his legal advice. More tellingly, he said he was concerned that, if he answered "yes", his application would be automatically rejected by the online process and he was he was not prepared to have his application "fall over" because of the website. I find this was more likely to be the reason he chose to provide the false response to the question. 11. While there is some irony that a previous suicide attempt, now many years ago, would not necessarily result in refusal of a firearms licence, the Applicant, in failing to declare the truth, deprived the Respondent, on the face of the document, of the ability to enquire as to his current condition. That by his P650 application of 18 June 2020 he had correctly informed the firearms registry of his history, does not overcome his subsequent attempted deception. 12. As I said recently in Saxby v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 275 at [74]: If the Applicant had knowingly provided false or misleading information in the application he would be liable to severe penalty: s 70 of the Act. Furthermore, on that basis alone, it would be unlikely that it would be in the public interest that a person who knowingly provided false or misleading information, should hold a firearms licence: see Bladen v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2015] NSWCATAD 240. 1. Here, as in Saxby, it is difficult to conclude that the Applicant did not knowingly intend to provide false information. 2. Also, as I said recently in Leatham v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 121 at [18] one of the objectives of the Act is the functioning of a proper system of firearms licensing, which necessarily depends on applicants providing true and correct information in a comprehensible manner. In Kogias v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 297 the applicant, who had failed to disclose that he had previously had his licence revoked, said that his incorrect statements in the application were errors and were not intentional. Nonetheless the Tribunal in that matter took the view that the applicant knew the form he had completed was incorrect. See also Lukas v Commissioner of Police, NSWPF [2021] NSWCATAD 268. Similarly, in Hunt v Commissioner of Police [2021] NCATAD 58 the Tribunal found the applicant was aware that he had incorrectly completed the form in relation to a suicide attempt within the preceding 10 years. 3. In Hook v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 250 (Hook) the applicant had responded "no" to a question whether in the past 10 years he had been the subject of an AVO and had explained that he had thought the question was asking about current AVOs and that he must have misread the question. Professor Walker SM considered, at [96], that the applicant's explanations were less than impressive and at best suggested a degree of carelessness in completing an official document and that the meaning of the question was clear enough if he had taken the trouble to read it properly. The Senior Member found the applicant in that matter to be, essentially, unsophisticated and probably had not been involved in much legal form-filling. 4. In this matter, however, even if I accept that the Applicant did not persist with his deception of Mr Gardner until challenged, and instead volunteered that he had incorrectly completed the form, it remains, that on 17 June 2021 and on 28 June 2021 the Applicant falsely declared that he had never attempted suicide. Much was made on the Applicant's behalf that, having previously answered "yes" on a P650 of 18 June 2020, that he previously attempted suicide he was thereby precluded from undertaking the firearms safety training, and the "new form (P650)", a copy of which was provided by the Applicant's solicitor, did not include such a question, enquiring only: Are you suffering from any mental illness or other disorder that may prevent you from using a firearm safely? To answer "yes" in relation to the suicide question in the P650 precluded him, as he discovered with Mr Gardner, from even undertaking the mandatory training. In any event, his previous suicide attempt would come to light when he lodged his firearms application because, unlike the P650, it continued to ask about any previous suicide attempt. I am comfortably satisfied that it was the Applicant's intention to position himself such that his firearms application could at least be considered by the firearms registry. His explanation again indicates the frustration he was experiencing, especially as, despite multiple attempts, he could achieve no satisfactory response to his dilemma from the firearms registry. However, his apparent desperation led him to falsely submit that he had never attempted suicide. That is no excuse for him misleading Mr Hatzimanolis of the Kurrajong Pistol Club, and indirectly, the firearms registry. By his application of 28 June 2021 he deliberately misled the firearms registry. 5. In Hook the applicant's incorrect answers were found to be the result of a combination of carelessness, inexperience and the absence of assistance from a person with such experience. The Applicant in this matter, is an educated man, whose role as a real estate agent includes, on his evidence, form completion, and because of his vocation, would necessarily entail the awareness of the necessity of compliance with a regulatory regime. I find that, on balance, he knew his answers on 17 June 2021 and 28 June 2021 were false or misleading within the meaning of s 70 of the Act. 6. The support of Messrs Mulford and Cook has been noted, however, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is, in the terms used in Sobey, a person possessed of sufficient integrity and character to be safely accredited to the public as a person who should be entrusted with the privilege of firearm possession: s 11(3)(a) of the Act. Public interest 1. The Respondent also contended that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence: s 11(7) of the Act. 2. The expression "public interest" is not defined in s 11(7), nor elsewhere in the Act, and a decision in relation to the public interest in this context is particularly informed by the underlying principles and objects of the Act and the strict controls under the Act in relation to licensing. In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9, at [25], the Appeal Panel said that the "public interest" is an inherently broad concept giving the Commissioner (and hence the Tribunal on review) the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in deciding whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. 3. The Tribunal is required to look at the Applicant's conduct as a whole, including potential future conduct. In that regard, past conduct of the Applicant is a significant guide in assessing likely future conduct: see for example, Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATA D 156 at [1 41]. The Applicant, by his false statements, demonstrated a lack of candour in dealings with Police. Although his mental health concerns which gave rise to a suicide attempt when he was a teenager appear to be long resolved, he has set about to mislead Police in relation to his application for a firearms licence. Conclusion 1. For the reasons discussed above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person for the issue of a firearms licence. Further, for the reasons discussed above, I am also satisfied that the issue of a firearms licence would be contrary to the public interest, and that his application for a firearms licence should be refused in accordance with s 11(7) of the Act. Decision 1. The decision under review is affirmed. ********** 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: 20 January 2022