Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Pemberton v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] NSWCATAD 288 Hearing dates: 1 August 2022 Date of orders: 26 August 2022 Decision date: 26 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Naida Isenberg, Senior Member Decision: The decision under review is affirmed Catchwords: LICENSING – firearms – multiple allegations of assault and intimidation found not proven to criminal standard - conflicting accounts - different tests – public interest Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 Firearms Act 1996 Firearms Regulation 2017 Cases Cited: AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 Brosowski v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 182 Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657 Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADTAP 16 Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 Esterman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATOD 70 Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5 Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31 Lee v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAS 144 Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1FCR 353 at 357 McGrath v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 98 Manning v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 111 Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 Petas v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 137 Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Raymond Pemberton (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Lindsay Taylor Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00335452 Publication restriction: Pursuant to ss 64(1)(c) and (d) of the CAT Act, the transcript and recording of the confidential hearing, confidential exhibits, and the contents of all paragraphs in these reasons marked "[Not for publication]" are not to be published or released to the Applicant or the public. REASONS FOR DECISION 1. In 1993 the Applicant, Raymond Pemberton was first issued with a firearms licence under the then legislation. Under the current legislation he was initially authorised to possess Category ABC firearms on 22 March 1999 for the genuine reason of Primary Production. More recently, on 25 June 2019, he lodged an application for a Category ABC and D firearms licence for the genuine reason of Vertebrate Pest Animal Control. On 14 January 2020, his application for Category ABD licence was refused and, on 3 April 2020, his application for a Category ABC and D firearms licence was refused in its entirety. That decision was affirmed on internal review citing public interest grounds: s 11(7) of the Firearms Act 1996 (the Act). On 25 November 2021 the Applicant sought review of the decision by this Tribunal. Relevant legislation 1. The general principles of the Act are set out in s 3 of the Act: 3 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 (ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and (c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms. (2) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances, (b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms, (c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm, (d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms, (e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner, (f) to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms. 1. The Act, in setting out restrictions on the issue of licences, provides, relevantly: … (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. ... Evidence 1. The Applicant provided a statement addressing the Respondent's submissions. He gave evidence and was cross examined. He also provided: 1. Letter dated 14 July 2021 from the Director, Community Services, Nepean Blue Mountains District, NSW Department of Communities and Justice, apologising for abuse the Applicant suffered as a child while in the State's care. 2. Various newspaper extracts relating to firearms 1. The Respondent provided material in accordance with s 58 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act), and later, supplementary material. 2. The Respondent also relied on a confidential affidavit of Acting Inspector Troy Hamilton, dated 15 February 2022. I do not propose to discuss in open Reasons any material that was presented on a confidential basis. Those parts of the Reasons that are not to be disclosed are identified as "[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]", and Orders are made accordingly: s 64 of CAT Act. Tribunal's approach 1. Section 63 of the 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 a 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 38(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. 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]. CONSIDERATION On what basis was the Applicant's licence application refused? 1. On a number of occasions, the Applicant came to adverse Police attention several times in relation to violence incidents. In some of these incidents he was identified as the aggressor, while in others he was the alleged victim. 2. The Respondent relied on these, and other matters, in support of its contention that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence. It also relied on material filed on a confidential basis. 3 and 5 November 2011 1. On 3 November 2011 the Applicant was alleged to have intimidated his stepson's de facto partner, driving past her while she was parked in the stepson's car outside a hotel in Oberon, pointing a finger at her and gesticulating with punching and slitting throat motions. She contacted the Police, stating her fear of the Applicant and requesting an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) against him. An Interim AVO (IAVO) was issued but the complainant failed to appear at court on the appointed day. 2. As a result of that application Police attended the Applicant's property on 5 November 2011 to seize his firearms. Police reported that he was argumentative with them and denied them access to his property. The Applicant argued with Police that the matter was not one of "domestic" violence, and told Police that the Magistrate told him he could keep his firearms. Police attempted to contact him again on 20 and 21 November 2011 and reported that it appeared he was avoiding them. On 14 December 2011, the AVO was revoked. 3. The COPS Event for this incident notes that the complainant alleged there was a separate incident of intimidation at a service station in Oberon three months beforehand, but she had not wanted to take any action at that time. 27 September 2013 1. On 27 September 2013, it was alleged that the Applicant dumped rubbish across another person's driveway following a dispute. 26 March 2018 1. On 26 March 2018, the Applicant was made subject to an IAVO citing his ex-wife as the person who required protection. On the same date, his ex-wife was also made subject to an IAVO, citing the Applicant as the person who required protection. As a result, the Applicant's firearms licence was suspended and his firearms were seized. On 26 March 2019, both IAVOs were withdrawn. 7 May 2018 1. On 7 May 2018 the Applicant was again subject to an IAVO in favour of his wife. Following multiple adjournments, the IAVO was withdrawn on 26 March 2019. 18 April 2019 1. On 18 April 2019, the Applicant was reportedly abusive and aggressive to Police when they issued him with a parking ticket. 16 January 2020 1. On 16 January 2020 the Applicant was in a verbal and physical altercation with his ex-wife, including allegedly dragging her around while she was holding a pipe. In the course of the heated exchange, he allegedly said words to the effect: "…You're gonna be sorry". 2. She also told Police that previously the Applicant had smashed a chair over her head and dragged her along the ground by her hair. 12 May 2020, 26 May 2020 and 12 June 2020 1. On 12 May 2020, the Applicant's ex-wife was made subject to an IAVO citing the Applicant as the person who required protection. On 26 May 2020 the Applicant was made subject to an IAVO in favour of his ex-wife. On 12 June 2020, the Applicant was again made subject to an IAVO citing his ex-wife as the person who required protection. On 9 December 2020, the IAVOs were withdrawn. March 2021 1. The Applicant reported to Police in May 2021 that in March 2021 he had received a threatening letter that had been left in his mailbox. He believed it had been written by his ex-wife or one of her family members in an attempt to intimidate him into ending the Family Law Court proceedings (see below). Other aspects of the Applicant's criminal history 1. The Applicant has a lengthy criminal history including offences involving fraud, drugs, larceny, indecent language, trespass and assault. He also has a poor traffic history, including multiple speeding offences and driving whilst unlicensed. 2. As to the confidential evidence, the Applicant scoffed that this too would contain false allegations against him. 3. [Not for publication] 4. [Not for publication] The Applicant's evidence and submissions in relation to the allegations 1. The Applicant, who is now aged 72, said that he had handled firearms since he was "a kid". 2. The Applicant said that the Police had alleged domestic violence against him based on his ex-wife having "slandered" him. They remain embroiled in protracted proceedings in the Family Law Court, as he is "worth a bit", and, he said, his ex-wife is lying in order to get her hands on his money. 3. The duration of the Applicant's relationship with his wife is unclear. The Applicant said he and his wife had been together for some years, had married in 2001 but had separated within a few months of their marriage. In contrast, Police recorded in 2017, presumably on the basis of information provided by the Applicant and/or his ex-wife, that they had been together for 33 years and had been married for 16 years. In 2018 Police recorded that they had separated in October 2017. The Applicant told me he had first been in a relationship with his ex-wife in about 1985 for 2 years; in contrast, he also denied they had had a relationship before they married. 4. The Applicant observed that "all, bar one" of the allegations against him had been dismissed, and that the "Firearms Registry" was "overriding the justice system", and "slandering" him by denying him a firearms licence. 5. In relation to the domestic violence allegations generally, the Applicant said that the Police never contended that he was any threat. This is plainly incorrect as the Police, following complaints, had made an assessment of the threat/fear and had taken out the AVOs. 6. In relation to the 2011 (sic) AVO the Applicant said some "druggos" had come onto his property and when he confronted them, they sought an AVO, but, as they did not attend court, it was dismissed. It is unclear to what event the Applicant referred. In relation to the recorded drug conviction in 1976 in his criminal history the Applicant said that contention "went back to Roger Rogerson times" and he was "loaded up" and he had never had any drugs; he "hates drugs". 7. The Applicant said he obtained an AVO against a Police officer who, he said, was then dismissed from the Police Force. He did not provide any evidence in support of this assertion. He said the Magistrate said he could keep his guns, so it was inappropriate, he said, that the Firearms Registry was now "overruling" the Magistrate. 8. As to the alleged event of 3 November 2011 the Applicant contended that the reporting Police officer was a mate of the other Police officer (who was dismissed), and that the alleged victim and her family were "in league" with them. The Applicant denied the threatening gestures, and also that he drove past her at all. The entire incident was made up, he said. 9. As to the allegations of aggression towards Police, he said they had attempted to seize his firearms after the Magistrate told him he could keep them. As the Respondent's solicitor pointed out, a Magistrate cannot make such an order. The Applicant denied he had been approached a number of times by Police in relation to seizure of his firearms. He made complaints of Police harassment, he said, and he was being threatened by Police. He said he told attending Police that they were not getting his guns. He said he had never been abusive towards Police. 10. The Applicant said all the AVOs against him went to court, he defended them, and they were dismissed. This was plainly incorrect as, for example, the AVO arising out of the events of 26 March 2018 was withdrawn. Others may also have been dismissed on this basis. 11. As to the events in April 2019, the Applicant gave a long explanation of how he had been given permission to park in a driveway and somebody other than the owner had reported him for parking there. He said he was rude to that person, but not to attending Police. He denied that he had only stopped abusing the Police when they turned on their body worn video. 12. As to the altercation with his ex-wife in January 2020 the Applicant gave a long explanation that he had come to the property (in technical breach of the AVO) in order to feed the cattle. While there, he loaded pipes onto his truck, and his ex-wife came towards him abusing him and claiming the pipes belonged to her son. The Applicant said she attacked him with a knife. The Applicant said that the incident, as described by his ex-wife to Police was "all made up". He described her as being "in a state of mentalness (sic)". As to her allegation that he had earlier hit her with a chair and dragged her along the ground, he said he had never hit a woman. 13. The Applicant said his ex-wife was "from a bikie background". He alleged she had defrauded Centrelink, and family members in relation to her mother's estate. 14. [Not for publication] Public interest 1. The Respondent 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 licensing controls under the Act. 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 discretion to make a decision in the public interest is not confined except by the scope and purposes of the legislation itself: see DMC v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 219 at [15]. The Tribunal must exercise its discretion in determining this review in a manner that promotes the principles and objects of the Act: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50, at [23]. The underlying principles stated in s 3(1) of the Act emphasise that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Strict controls on the possession and use of firearms are imposed in the interests of public safety. Where there is the possibility of a threat to the public's safety, the public's right to safety must outweigh an individual's privilege to possess and use a firearm: Lee v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 144 at [94]. 4. The "public interest" factor allows a consideration of issues going beyond the character of an applicant to be taken into account; public safety is to be given paramount consideration: Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 at [24]. 5. The Tribunal has referred many times to Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 (Ward) where Hennessy DP at [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. 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, at [64] – [66]. 6. The principle in Ward is about identifying the possible risks to the public, and then making decisions that are consistent with the need to reduce any risks to a minimum. See also Petas v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 137 at [36] and AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 at [7]. 7. The Applicant said he has been a farmer for years and that he seeks a firearms licence because, he has about 700 acres on which has cattle (which he sells for profit) as well as horses and a few sheep. In the past, he has had over 10,000 acres of land and up to 600 head of cattle. He has had wild pigs and dogs and brown snakes on his properties. He has had lambs killed by dogs and has had to put down a horse with a broken leg. Since his licence was suspended in 2018, he has not been able to manage the feral animals on his property; he considered the Rural Protection Board to be "hopeless". He has not engaged a professional shooter nor has tried baiting, which he understands, National Parks use which "kills everything". He does not trust anyone else on his property. 8. He also said he is a contract shooter. He said he goes to other people's properties, spends a week there and gets rid of their feral animals for them. The s 58 documents contain pro forma statements from 3 persons who appear to have engaged the Applicant to undertake shooting on their properties for a fee. None of the statements was signed nor dated and the Respondent was unable to explain how they had come into existence. Similarly, the Applicant did not appear to be familiar with the statements. One person, Anthony Bailey wrote that he would have the Applicant shoot on his property every 2 months but had not had him since it had "been so dry". The Applicant said he would shoot there every 6 months, mainly pigs, and be paid or fed and his expenses met. Benjamin Coates wrote he had not actually engaged the Applicant to shoot on his property, but in any event, he was no longer comfortable with the Applicant. A statement by Michael Cry contained a typographical error and it was unclear if he was actually referring to the Applicant in the statement. Assuming it was in fact the Applicant to whom he referred, the Applicant was said to have shot at Mr Cry's property every 6 months. The Applicant said he had shot there 3-4 times, about 4-5 years ago, when he had a licence. The Applicant said that "farmers know each other" and meet, for example, at saleyards, so he does not need to advertise his services. He was adamant that he is not a professional shooter, but could undertake paid shooting for other farmers, if he were licenced. He described shooting as "an outlet". 9. I accept that, there is some public interest in law-abiding farmers and graziers having access to long arms: McGrath v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2019] NSWCATAD 98 (McGrath) at [66]. However, private interests such as managing feral animals and the desire to provide a shooting service to other farmers for a fee are not the only matters to be taken into account; the interests of the whole community are matters for consideration: Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657 at 681. As I have observed many times, these matters include 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 at [33]. 10. The caveat in McGrath is that those on the land having access to firearms must be law-abiding. It is well established that the likelihood of public safety risks is to be assessed by reference to an applicant's prior conduct and past conduct of the Applicant is a significant guide in assessing likely future conduct: see Brosowski v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 182 at [41] and Stamatelatos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD 156 at [141]. 11. From the available evidence, the Applicant has an extensive criminal history. Significantly, he also has an ongoing history of domestic disharmony. This has extended not just to his ex-wife, with whom there has been tit-for-tat allegations of domestic violence, but also to her extended family. Police intervention has been required. 12. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the AVOs against the Applicant, the Tribunal is to take into account matters indicating criminal conduct: Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31 (Joseph) at [62] - [64]. As I told the Applicant on multiple occasions during the hearing, it is the conduct rather than whether there was a conviction that is of concern to the Tribunal: Esterman v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force. See also Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5 at [60]. 13. Allegations of domestic violence frequently do not result in convictions, and AVOs are often withdrawn because the alleged victims do not wish to proceed. Further, victims of domestic violence do not always report incidents or pursue proceedings because of fear of repercussions: per Manning v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 111 at [51]. 14. There is a real concern in the community about firearms in premises and the potential for domestic violence incidents to involve firearms. In Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124 (Grenfell) , the Tribunal accepted that, in the context of the scheme under the Act, domestic violence incidents are a serious cause for concern, even where the alleged perpetrator is not convicted of an offence or where, as here, there is no alleged misuse of a firearm; see [103]. The Tribunal concluded, at [104] that it was not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence in circumstances where the Applicant was subject to a provisional AVO that was, as here, later withdrawn: per Joseph. I accept that there may have been occasions when the Applicant was not the sole perpetrator in relation to the domestic violence issues. However, in Tolley v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2006] NSWADT 149 at [31] the Tribunal observed that given the breadth of the discretion and the overriding object of public safety, there is no basis for differentiating, in the context of a firearms licence, between conduct of an applicant themselves and conduct of another person which may impact on public safety. I observe that the last reported alleged altercation between the Applicant and his ex-wife was as recent as mid 2020. Only last year there was some unpleasant interaction between the Applicant and his ex-wife or one of her family members when he received a threatening letter in his mailbox which he believed was an attempt to intimidate him into ending the Family Court proceedings. The acrimony of the Applicant towards his ex-wife he expressed in his evidence has boiled over into hostile exchanges requiring Police intervention on a number of occasions. It is reasonable to consider that there may also have been instances of hostile exchanges between the Applicant and his ex-wife and possibly members of her family which continue to take place of which Police are unaware, and that these are likely to continue until the Family Court proceedings are determined, if this is the catalyst which the Applicant described. 15. The Applicant submitted that it is wrong for the Firearms Registry to classify every person who is involved in family law proceedings with 'the same mindset'. The refusal of the Applicant's application for a firearms licence was not based at all on the Applicant's involvement in Family Court proceedings. Neither was that contention made before me. The Respondent's contention that it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a firearms licence relied on incidents alleging verbal and physical abuse by the Applicant towards his ex-wife and members of her family. In fact, it was the Applicant who blamed the ongoing Family Court proceedings for the allegations against him. 16. The Applicant contended that his ex-wife, her family and Police have conspired against him. I find it implausible that each time the Applicant came to Police attention in recent years it was because of false allegations made by his ex-wife or a member of her family. Similarly, while I accept the rural Police numbers may be small and that members of the local community may be well-known to Police, I cannot accept that multiple Police officers were party to allegations which they knew, as the Applicant contended, to be false. 17. The Applicant submitted that "the court has proven that he is not an aggressive person". There was no evidence to support the assertion. While AVOs against him have been dismissed, this assertion is clearly at odds with the available evidence, including the allegations in relation to the pipe/knife incident and the chair incident. 18. [Not for publication] 19. The Applicant also submitted that the Commissioner had 'no reason' to refuse the licence application. That, it is trite to say, is a matter for me. 20. In Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 at [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances and that only real and appreciable risk needs to be taken into account. It is clear that the overriding concern of the public interest in this context is the maintenance of public safety. Any real and appreciable risk to public safety cannot be outweighed by the Applicant's interest in holding a firearms licence. 21. The Applicant has a lengthy criminal and traffic records including offences involving fraud, drugs, goods in custody, driving, stealing, indecent language, trespass, discharge firearm, and malicious damage. As noted above, the Applicant has a history of domestic violence and aggression. He also has a history of being argumentative with Police, suggesting a disregard for authority. Together, these indicate a real and appreciable risk to public safety should the Applicant hold a firearms licence. Conclusion 1. The Applicant has had a number of serious charges, including AVOs. It may be that some events were precipitated by the conduct of others as the Applicant claims. There is evidence of ongoing volatile relationships with his ex-wife and members of her family. Given the opportunity, I cannot be assured the Applicant would not use a firearm if a confrontation escalated. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances discussed above in relation to his criminal history, and also in the confidential material, his volatile relationships with others, and his argumentative interactions with Police I cannot be confident that the Applicant would possess and use firearms only in accordance with the strict legislative requirements, especially if provoked. 3. In all the circumstances, I am reasonably satisfied, based on public interest grounds, that the Applicant should not be granted a firearms licence at this time. 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: 26 August 2022