Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ramlawie v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2023] NSWCATAD 96 Hearing dates: 19 September 2022, 19 December 2022, 27 March 2023 Date of orders: 28 April 2023 Decision date: 28 April 2023 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Emeritus Prof G D Walker, Senior Member Decision: (1) Decision under review set aside. (2) A category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the Applicant. Catchwords: LICENSING – firearms licensing – licence refusal – fit and proper person – public interest – domestic violence – custody and property orders - property damage – safe storage – traffic record Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW), s 63 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 30 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140 Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 3(1), 11(3)(a), 11(4)(c), 11(7), 39, 75(1)(a) Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW), cl 17 Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33 Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316; [1938] HCA 36 Bronze Wing International Pty Ltd v SafeWork New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 41 Carroll v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 301 Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16 Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 Director-General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADT AP 65 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; [1979] FCA 39 Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124 Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5 Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218 Himo v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 321 Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 12; [1955] HCA 28 Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31 Kavalieratos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117 Keegan-Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145 Kocic v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (2014) 88 NSWLR 159; [2014] NSWCA 368 Manning v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 111 Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 McDonald v Director-General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354; [1984] FCA 57 Nakad v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 O'Brien v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 259 Ramlawie v R (District Court (NSW), Smith DCJ, 17 December 2019, unrep) Smith v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184 Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10 Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mr Ghassan Ramlawie (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: B Eurell (Applicant) Solicitors: Alpha Law (Applicant) Office of General Counsel, NSWPF (Respondent) File Number(s): 2022/00084381 Publication restriction: Nil reasons for decision 1. The applicant, Mr Ghassan Ramlawie, applied to this tribunal on 24 March 2022 for review of a decision by the respondent Commissioner on 23 February 2022 to refuse his application for a category AB firearms licence. 2. The licence application was lodged on 26 August 2020 and was refused on 1 December 2020. The applicant applied for an internal review, which affirmed the refusal decision on 23 February 2022. 3. The applicant was first authorised for firearms on 18 November 2016 for recreational purposes and held that authority for just over two years, until his licence was suspended on 14 January 2019. On 18 December 2018, police were contacted by his ex-wife, Ms Nora Hammoud, who expressed concerns concerning the welfare of their three children, whom he had allegedly taken away on holiday without informing her (for reasons of convenience and clarity, these reasons will generally refer to Ms Hammoud as "Nora"). 4. The licence suspension on 14 January 2019 followed a report on 10 January 2019 that the then matrimonial home in Merrylands ("the Merrylands house") had been damaged, switches in the electricity box having been broken, and every sliding glass window in the house had been removed. The Applicant had separated from his ex-wife and had recently left the residence with the three children, who were the subject of Federal Circuit Court custody proceedings. It was alleged that on 3 January 2019 he had contacted the electricity company requesting disconnection of the power at the Merrylands house without informing his ex-wife, who remained living at the property. 5. Police attempted to contact the Applicant several times to discuss the damage, for which they believed he was responsible, but he declined to be interviewed. On 15 January 2019, a report was made to police that he had been seen entering the house and that breaking glass and banging had been heard. Nora's brother Mr Alaa ***** (scil. cousin) ("Mr Alaa") attended the property and a verbal argument ensued between Mr Alaa and the applicant. The applicant told attending police that he had been collecting some of the children's belongings and had been measuring up windows for repairs. As a result of that domestic incident, police suspended his firearms licence and took possession of his firearms. Two of the firearms were found at an address different from the nominated safe storage address. There had been no record of the applicant's notifying the Firearms Registry of a safe storage address change. 6. On 24 January 2019, police were told that the applicant had attended the Merrylands house and removed the surveillance cameras that Nora had recently installed at the suggestion of police. It was alleged that he had removed the locks from the front doors using a drill and had entered the property, then removing parts of several walls, doors and window frames, leaving debris scattered throughout the house. He allegedly then wrote a message on the wall outside the front door, "Skip been come today at 3 PM. Stay out please danger. House renovation. Danger keep out please". 7. When interviewed by police after his arrest, the applicant denied causing malicious damage and claimed that he was renovating. He admitted removing the surveillance cameras and parts of walls, frames, and fly screens, and cutting electrical wires, then leaving the house unsecured. Police were told that he intended to sell the house but Nora did not agree. Police believed that because of the current custody dispute, he might have been depriving Nora of a safe and liveable residence. His actions caused Nora to fear for her safety and police believed that his actions were intended to intimidate her and cause her to fear for her safety (COPS event report E72703089, exhibit R1, p 52). 8. The applicant appeared before Parramatta Local Court on 26 July 2019 and was convicted of destroying or damaging property of a value between $5000 and $15,000 – T1, and of destroying or damaging property of a value less than $2000 – T2, and was fined $1000 for each offence but was acquitted of larceny. On the same date, he was made subject to an apprehended violence order (AVO) in protection of Nora, to expire on 26 July 2021. The convictions were quashed and the AVO removed on appeal to the District Court on 17 December 2019. 9. The matter first came on for hearing in the tribunal on 19 September 2022 but was adjourned part heard in order to arrange for an interpreter and for Nora to give evidence by telephone. It then proceeded on 19 December 2022 and was again adjourned part heard to 27 March 2023. Applicable legislation 1. Section 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) provides 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". 2. Section 11(7) states that: "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". 3. The issues in the present application are thus whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace, and whether the issue of a licence to him would be contrary to the public interest. Respondent's evidence 1. The respondent relied on the documentary material, including the s 58 documents (exhibit R1) and a USB drive (part exhibit R2), and on the oral evidence of the applicant's ex-wife, Ms Nora Hammoud. For the sake of convenience, the parties agreed that the Ms Hammoud's evidence would be presented first. Ms Nora Hammoud's statements 1. This witness had signed two statements, the first on 11 January 2019 (part exhibit R3), which stated that since 18 December 2018, she had been living alone at the Merrylands house, and previously with her partner Ghassan Ramlawie and their three children aged 12, 11 and 5. She had known Ghassan since about 2001 and they had been religiously married since 2002. 2. At about 10:00 a.m. on Thursday 10 January 2019, she had left home with her sister Nessren, leaving her car, a Toyota Kluger, in the driveway. She arrived home at about 7:00 p.m. to get changed and turned on all the lights in her bedroom and in the living room and kitchen. At about 7:15 p.m., she left the house and drove to visit her sister Eman in Guildford West, leaving the lights on when she left. At about 10:55 p.m., she got in her car when about to leave her sister's house and noticed that the "low oil" light came on, which she thought was strange as she had had the car serviced on 7 January 2019. 3. When she arrived home at about 11:20 p.m., she noticed that all the lights were off in the house. She checked the electricity but noticed that the master switch appeared to have been snapped off. She also saw that the protected power switch appeared to be snapped off as well. She had seen those switches a few months earlier and they were not damaged. She went inside into the living room but felt a breeze and heard the sound of cars, which she thought was strange, because she thought the windows were closed when she had left. She walked towards the living room window to close it and saw that the sliding portion had been removed from the frame. She walked around the house and saw that the sliding portion of each window on the outside of the house had been removed. She felt scared and violated as she would not be able to sleep there at night, knowing that anyone could enter. 4. The only people with keys to the house were herself, her partner Ghassan and his brother Ahmed Ramlawie, and her sister Nessren. She contacted her brother-in-law, Azam Ramlawie, who arrived a short time later. He looked around the property for the windows but could not find them. She then went to Granville Police Station to report the incident. 5. In her later statement dated 10 October 2022, Nora explained that she and the applicant had been living under the same roof at Merrylands from 2017 until their physical separation on 18 December 2018. Before then, they had been living separate lives that under the same roof, for the sake of the children. She had suffered years of emotional and financial abuse, but the last straw for her was finding out about his 8-year affair with another lady. She took him back a few weeks later, however, for the sake of the children. Shortly afterwards, the applicant returned and they started discussing options to develop the Merrylands property, including building duplexes on it for sale. 6. In 2016, the applicant had suggested that they withdraw $350,000 from their mortgage to help them to develop the Merrylands property. He convinced her that it was a good idea for their family's future, which is why she authorized the redraw of $350,000 on the mortgage. Ghassan withdrew the money without discussing with Nora what he then intended to do with it. Even at the time of signing her statement, Nora did not know what he did with the $350,000. When she confronted him about it, he said the money was his and it had nothing to do with her. 7. In March or April 2017, he stopped paying the mortgage and the bills. He always did cash jobs and during their marriage she observed him come home and hide the money around the house in walls, etc. He stopped contributing financially and ceased doing anything around the house. She believed that was done to try to get her to leave the house so he could sell it. He told her numerous times to take the children and go. At that time, she was only working part-time and could not afford to live and pay rent, so she asked him to leave until they sorted something out, but he refused. 8. On 28 October 2018, he asked her to sign over the house to him, saying that if she did so he would leave the house and allow her and the children to stay there. He said he wanted them to part ways in a civil manner, to which she replied she would think about it. He returned after two days and asked her if she had thought about the offer. He said they needed to hurry because the bank was closing in on them as they were behind on the mortgage (because of his refusal to pay), and that if she agreed he would pay off what was owing. She did not agree, and that was when he "became nasty" and threats began. The threats and intimidation were constant and he would say that if she did not agree to his conditions, then she would "regret it". 9. In relation to police event report E 70477041 (exhibit R1, pp 29-33), she said that on 11 December 2018 the children stayed at her parents' house for two nights as she had to go to work and they were on school holidays. At the time, she and the applicant were living at the Merrylands house. On 17 December 2018, he told her that on Tuesday while she was at work he could mind the children as he had finished his jobs for the year. She phoned him on Monday night and asked him if that was still okay, and he said "Yes I mind the kids tomorrow while you're at work". At 10:18 a.m. she sent the applicant a text message stating "How are they? If you need to go somewhere you can drop them off at my sister's house, let me know". At 10:26 a.m. he replied "All good I'm not going anywhere now if I have somewhere to go I will send you an SMS". She replied "OK". 10. When she returned home from work at 6:00 p.m. she noticed that his two vans that were normally parked at the front were gone, as well as his utility which he drives, and two boats were also gone. She called him on the phone but it went straight to voicemail, which she took to mean that the telephone was switched off. Nobody was in the house and when she checked the children's wardrobes, their belongings were gone. The children were placed on the airport watch list as she believed the applicant would try to leave the country with them, as he had in the past threatened to do. 11. The boys both had passports at the time that she could not find, and her daughter did not have a passport. A passport office investigation took place and a passport was later cancelled. Granville police were called at 10:30 p.m. and she told the attending officers of her concerns and that she simply wanted to know where the children were and if they were safe. The officers told her they would go to his brother's house and ask him some questions and they would also send over an officer from Goulburn police station to check for them at the property at Lake Bathurst, where the children were located. 12. By 20 December 2018 she still had not heard from Ghassan or the children, and the telephone was switched off. She was very concerned at that point and at approximately 1:30 a.m. she called Goulburn police and asked them to do another welfare check. At about 6:00 p.m. she received a telephone call from Const. Garry Hansake at Tarago police station who said the gates were padlocked and there was nobody at the property. Neighbours had told him they had not seen anyone there since lunchtime. On 23 December 2018, she tried to contact Ghassan's family, but nobody would answer her calls. She also tried constantly to call his telephone and message him, pleading with him to allow the children to call her, or at least message her back and tell her they were okay, but he ignored every message. 13. On 28 December 2018, she called Const. Hull at Granville police and said it had now been 10 days since she had any contact with the Applicant or the children. Const. Hull advised her to contact Goulburn police directly and ask them to do a welfare check. 14. On 4 January 2019, she received a telephone call from Ghassan's brother Hisham who told her he had been in contact with Ghassan and the children had been living between the Lake Bathurst property and a holiday house, and that Ghassan was looking for a rental to move into. He told her that Ghassan was considering moving interstate and taking the children with him if she did not agree to his terms. Ghassan also said they would need to try to come to some sort of agreement if she wanted him to bring the children back. He said she would need to sign a parental agreement to give him permission to take the children to Lebanon for a month in April to see his family, to which she said, "No". 15. Ghassan had also told Hisham that he wanted to sell the house and go 50/50 in the profit. She told Hisham that she would not negotiate with him while he was using the children to get what he wanted and that if he brought the children back home, they could talk. They ended the conversation and after about 20 minutes she received a voice recording from Hisham in Arabic words to the effect "Ghassan didn't agree and he would be bringing the children back home and that Ghassan was very angry". She then commenced family law proceedings for urgent recovery orders. 16. On 8 January 2019 she received a text message from her electricity provider saying that the electricity at the Merrylands house would be disconnected as there was nobody living at the premises. She called them immediately and they advised her that Ghassan had called and asked for the disconnection as he was also an account holder. As she was still living at the property, she cancelled the disconnection request. 17. As regards the destruction of property on 10 January 2019, she said that by that date she had still not seen, or heard from, her children as Ghassan had not responded to her messages. That day she came home from work and saw that somebody had been in the house and that every window had been removed, the electricity box on the outside of the house had been tampered with so that she was unable to switch on any lights and the plumbing pipes and taps were damaged, so she had no running water. She was the only person living in the property at the time since Ghassan had moved out. Ghassan was the only other person to have keys to the house. She was very upset at the level of damage that had been caused, as well as being quite scared of being in the house by herself. Police were called and fingerprints were taken. 18. On 16 January 2019, Ghassan attended the property and removed his personal belongings, as well as all the major items of furniture that were jointly owned by them. In addition, he removed the remainder of the children's belongings, many of her own belongings such as her passport and birth certificate, as well as all the white goods such as the refrigerator. He also took pantry items, and there was virtually nothing left. 19. Police had been present when he removed the items from the home. She received a call and attended the house and observed that his van and trailer were full of boxes, along with the removalist truck. She spoke to one of the removalists who told her that the boxes and furniture were going into storage. She also observed that items that had been in her freezer and were frozen, such as meat, had been removed from the freezer and left on the bench. Ghassan had not told her about his intended actions and at that stage he still had the children. The only things he left in the house were her bed and her clothes. 20. After those incidents and on recommendation from the police, she had the locks changed and installed security cameras around the property for her own protection, as well as the protection of the house. She had been told by her cousin that Ghassan was driving past her home as this work was being undertaken and threatened the installer that he would destroy the cameras once they were installed. 21. In relation to the malicious damage to the property on 24 January 2019, Nora wrote that the day after installation, while she was at work, Ghassan attended the property and caused malicious damage to it, including removal and destruction of the gyprock walls and of skirting and quads, destruction of fly screens, removal and theft of security cameras that she had installed the previous day and destruction of other walls and doors using a permanent marker. She called the police to report the damage and her fears over Ghassan returning. 22. She understood that police later attended his residence and he was charged with two counts of malicious damage as well as receiving a provisional apprehended domestic violence order. The damage Ghassan had caused to the house made it almost uninhabitable. She engaged tradesmen to repair the property damage, including replacing the security cameras, damaged walls, aluminium windows, fly screens, skirting and quads, damaged doors and locks, and repainting damaged walls, doors and skirting. 23. Their separation was not amicable and she constantly feared that she was being followed, as he had admitted that to her in the past. In 2017 or 2018, before he left with the children, Ghassan would call her at random times of the day to let her know that he knew where she was. He told her that he had installed a tracker on the car so that he could know her whereabouts. After he left with the children, she was worried that he would know her whereabouts, so she sold the Toyota Kluger that she owned. 24. During that period, before he moved out, he would leave his firearms around the house to intimidate her. During the marriage, she would avoid getting in the car with Ghassan as he drives erratically and she observed many road rage incidents where he would rage to the point where she would cry, sitting in the passenger seat. 25. Parenting and property orders were finalized in March 2021. She was given sole parental responsibility and the Merrylands property is now in her name. 26. In oral evidence at the hearing, Ms Hammoud adopted those statements, adding that the applicant had said that the $350,000 drawdown from the mortgage was for the purpose of developing property. He later said in 2016 that the money was gone and she was never going to see it. She kept asking him and he said it was for the construction of duplexes and in 2017 said it had been sent overseas for the purpose of building units in his own name in Lebanon. When they were discussing selling the house and dividing the proceeds 50/50, she had asked him about the $350,000, whereupon he became "nasty". In 2017 she had been texting him a good deal, but not about groceries, although that could be. He was in the house until the end of 2017 or 2018. She had sold the Kluger after he had left with the children, because of threats he had made. 27. She was upset that their son Rami had been asked to make a statement and become involved in this matter as she had been unaware of it and he was still only 16. After Ghassan had left and he had ceased paying the bills, the Merrylands house was not being cared for and the grass was long, which she found intimidating. He repeatedly told her to take the children and go. He installed a large beehive in the backyard for the purpose of intimidating her. They had never discussed his taking the children to the farm before he took them away while she was at work. When she returned home and all the vehicles were gone, she felt distraught and scared. She rushed in to see if the children were still there and almost collapsed when they were not. She had no words to explain her feelings, and had never expected anything of that nature. 28. When asked by Ms Chenhall on behalf of the Commissioner whether he had told her in 2015 that he had injured a finger at work, or that in 2017 he had injured his foot at Lake Bathurst and needed to take time off work, she replied that she did not recall that, or his not working for a year or anything about gallbladder surgery (exhibit A2, pp 5-6). 29. At Christmas 2018 (18 December) she had called the police, who had carried out a welfare check for the children, but told her they could not return them to her because there was no order to authorize it. On 20 December 2018 when she had been unable to contact him or the children, she asked the police for another welfare check, but they told her they could not enter the Lake Bathurst property as he had departed and locked the gates. By 23 December 2018, there were constant messages with his family, but she just wanted to know that the kids were okay. She received no response and the children had no telephones at that time. By 28 December 2018, there had still been no contact and she was numb with fear, not knowing what to do. On 4 January 2019, she received a call from Ghassan's brother Hisham telling her that Ghassan was dividing his time between the Lake Bathurst property and a holiday home and had been saying he would move interstate to scare her. 30. After the damage to the house on 10 January 2019, she had contracted for repairs to be done to the house because it was damaged and not liveable. She was unable to buy replacement window panes. The quoted cost of repairs was $40,150. She had initiated court proceedings to recover her children, and saw them again for the first time in April 2019 in the course of a supervised visit, to which he had agreed. The application for the passport for her daughter had not been signed, and the passport authorities had cancelled it. 31. When asked about Ghassan's statement that he did not hide cash in the house (exhibit A2, p 6), she said it was all over the house as he preferred cash. She herself never received cash for mortgage payments or bills, as he did all that. She found it when she was cleaning. He was careless with guns and would leave them around the house, for example, in a cardboard box on the couch, where they would stay probably until the next day. There were children in the house. That happened only once. In her recorded interview in 2019 she said that there had been pushing and shoving in the course of arguments, and he pushed her shoulder and arm. She felt helpless and tried to defend herself, but he was bigger. 32. She had paid for the repairs to the house with the help of his brother, who paid $40,000. The quote had been for $45,000. The applicant did not pay any of that. She never recovered the cameras and had to buy new ones for $1,450. 33. When cross-examined by Mr Eurell on behalf of the applicant, the witness referred to the pushing and shoving and said it had not always occurred from the start of the marriage. But she felt afraid and threatened, and had not told the police that she was in no fear for her safety. She could not recall the questions police had put to her at 2:00 a.m. when they arrived on 19 December 2019. She did not recall telling police that there had been no prior domestic violence events (exhibit R1, p 31). She had said there had been years of verbal and mental abuse but she did not recall not telling police that there had been no physical violence. She had said that there had been pushing and shoving but did not recall the whole conversation. She was not sure whether she had said there had been physical abuse and she had not thought that pushing or shoving constituted domestic violence. She thought her fears had only been in relation to her children, but did not know. 34. She did not know whether some of the $350,000 had been used for the purchase of the Lake Bathurst property, but it was purchased after the drawdown on the mortgage. It had been purchased by the three brothers and his share had been $50,000. He had said the money had been sent overseas for the construction of apartments. In relation to the 19 December 2018 incident, she had said it was possible they were at Lake Bathurst. She did not say that she was living with Ghassan as they had been together only until 2018. The children were never supposed to have been with him, so she went to court to obtain custody so that the children could have stability. 35. When referred to the sentence "Fears held by victim: nil" in COPS Event E 69734735 (exhibit R1, p 44), , the witness denied telling the police that she had no fears, and indeed during December 2018 and January 2019 she was very fearful. She had said on 25 January 2019 that she was living with him, but that was because she had taken him back on 18 December 2018. She had changed the locks because she was scared, and the police had advised her to do so. He was not responding to her calls and was a suspect in relation to the damage to the house. He was the only person who had a key, and the locks had not been damaged. 36. She had known on 19 December 2018 that Ghassan was at Lake Bathurst with the children, and had said they were okay. She did not know whether he had stayed with the kids at the farm in January 2019 when they were holidaying at Jervis Bay. She had seen guns in the Merrylands house after he obtained his licence around 2018. She had seen one firearm in a plain box. He had told her the following day what it was. 37. The applicant had paid the fees for their daughter's religious school, and occasionally did the grocery shopping. He paid for the Kluger and up until 2016 he supported them, but not afterwards. She had held a credit card in 2017 but could not recall the dates. Ghassan's business had paid tax and insurance bills, although they only had third-party insurance on the car. She began work in mid-2017 two days a week because he was no longer paying. By that time she knew that the marriage was going to break up. By 2018, therefore, he was not paying unless asked for particular things. He never left cash for her. On 16 January 2019 he had removed everything from the house, not just his own belongings. 38. He had called the police and they were already there when she arrived. She saw him removing the items and had told police that he was not entitled to take that property. The Federal Circuit Court orders for custody and property were finalised in February 2021 by consent. The child support payments are to date in arrears by $12,000. She believes he intends to go bankrupt. Applicant's evidence Applicant's written statements 1. The applicant tendered two affidavits, one dated 8 August 2022 (part exhibit A1) and the other dated 22 November 2022 (part exhibit A2). Applicant's affidavit of 8 August 2022 1. In the former he deposed that he was aged 45 years and had come to Australia in 2001. He had married Nora in 2002 and in 2018 they were separated and are now divorced. There are three children from their marriage of 16 years, and he now has a new partner of three years. He is self-employed as a roofer by trade and has been a roofer for 21 years, his company being named High Class Roofing, which he had operated for 20 years and previously employed two people. 2. He was initially granted a firearms licence on 18 November 2016, which was suspended on 15 January 2019. It was revoked on 1 August 2019. Before revocation, he held a licence for recreational hunting and vermin control which he primarily used for vermin control at a rural property at Lake Bathurst, which extends over 81 acres. During the time he held a licence, he never had an issue with the New South Wales Police regarding his firearms, nor had he ever been charged with any firearm-related offence or breach of his obligations as a licence holder. 3. His brothers Mohammed, Abdulhafiz and Hayssam Ramlawie own the Lake Bathurst rural property. He is responsible for maintenance and general upkeep of the property, attending there on a weekly or fortnightly basis. There are approximately 40 or 50 sheep, two baby goats and an alpaca on the property. Because of the size of the property, they had experienced predatory wild animals such as foxes, attacking their animals. Last year approximately nine sheep were killed, presumably by foxes. When he held a licence, he was able to exterminate pests and reduce the number of attacks on their animals. Since its revocation, he has tried alternative methods, such as setting up a large caged trap with meat bait, but that has not been successful. 4. The applicant and Nora separated in December 2018 because of irreconcilable differences. They had stayed together for the sake of the children, but it had not worked. It reached a point where they could not agree on anything. She enjoyed a very urban lifestyle of shopping, going to restaurants and going out to the movies, whereas he preferred spending time outdoors in nature, like camping, fishing, and spending time at the farm. Towards the end of their relationship, Nora would argue with him for spending time with his family and friends, and he was becoming very isolated. He tried to speak to her parents to help mediate their relationship, but it did not help. 5. Despite their differences, he never had any ill feelings towards her and never will, as she is the mother of his children. He was raised to conduct himself gently to women and would never in any circumstances set out to hurt Nora physically, mentally or financially. He had always provided for his wife and children for any of their needs. 6. In relation to COPS event E 70477041, he stated that during December 2018, their children were on school holidays and they would always ask their parents to take them out camping to the farm or to the beach. They liked being in the outdoors and were active kids. Nora did not want to take them out and would get frustrated when they would play loudly around the house or get dirty outside. He really wanted to take them on a holiday because he considered it good for their mental health, especially due to end of year examinations and the stress of the relationship breakdown. Sometime in the week preceding 18 December 2018, he explained to Nora that the children needed a holiday and if she would agree to that he would take them away and she was welcome to come if she wanted to. She did not want to join them. 7. On 18 December 2018, he was off work and decided that he was going to take the children to the farm so they could go camping. Nora knew about that and messaged him during the day and said if he needed to go anywhere that he could drop them off to her sister's house. He told her that he did not need to go anywhere, but if he did have to drop them off at her sister's house, he would let her know. Early the next morning around 4 a.m., the local police attended the farm and said they were conducting a welfare check on the children. He told them he was their father and invited them to have a look around the premises so they could see that he had everything that the children needed and that they were happy being with him. The police spoke to the children for about 10 minutes, and after confirming that there were no problems about their well-being, they left. 8. COPS event E 70793074 took place on 3 January 2019, being the request to Origin Energy to disconnect the electricity to the Merrylands property. It was not he who made the request and he has no knowledge of who did. In relation to the event on 10 January 2019, he has no knowledge of who damaged the electricity box or removed the sliding windows in the house. It was not he and he did not know anything about it, in fact he was at the farm at Lake Bathurst at the time. He is co-owner of the Merrylands house and it made no sense for him to do that, as he would have to pay for the repairs. As regards the event on 28 February 2019, he had no knowledge of it and it was not he who did anything to her car. He was also at the farm at Lake Bathurst at the time. 9. In relation to COPS event E69734735 on 15 January 2019, he was told that there was damage to the house. He attended the property to see for himself what the damage was and while there assessing the damage in order to organize tradesmen to fix the house, he started to measure the windows and take photographs. At the time he did not believe anybody was living at that address. As he was measuring the windows, Nora's cousin Alaa arrived. The front door was open and he was threatening Ghassan. He was surprised because he and Alaa had always been on amicable terms and he considered him like family. He yelled and screamed at him so he told him he did not have permission to enter the house and had to leave. He then closed the door and continued measuring the windows. 10. At about 3 p.m. police arrived and said someone had complained about loud noises and yelling coming from inside the premises. He explained to police that he was there to assess the damage and take measurements for repairs. He invited the police inside to look and they did. They then asked about the yelling and he told them what had occurred. They said that they had made the decision to suspend his firearms licence for 28 days and were there to collect his firearms, which would be returned after 28 days. He told them that his firearms were located at Dundas Valley and gave them the address, and called his brother to instruct him to provide the firearms to police. He also told the police that the remaining two firearms were at the farm at Lake Bathurst and organized with police to attend Lake Bathurst later that night. They did so at 10:30 p.m. and he provided them with the remainder of his firearms and ammunition. He was told he could collect them after 28 days. 11. In relation to COPS event E72703089 on 24 January 2019, he had agreed with his brother Ahmad on 18 January 2019 to move into another property in Merrylands, which was a few streets away from the Merrylands house, so occasionally on the way home he would drive past their Merrylands property to make sure everything was okay. On 23 January 2019, he was driving past the house on the way home and noticed someone installing something at the house. He spoke to the person, who told him that he was hired by "Alex", which he knew to be an alias of Nora's cousin Alaa, to install cameras on the property. Although Nora had not discussed that with him nor sought his permission, he understood that he was only doing his job so he allowed him to finish. He had already made plans with tradesmen to attend during the week to repair the windows and repair any damage to the house. In order to reduce costs, he agreed with the tradesmen to conduct some of the preparatory work himself. While he was there, he also noticed that the locks had been changed without his permission. 12. On the night of 23 January 2019, he attended Granville police station and explained to an officer that the locks on the house that he co-owned with his wife had been changed and that security cameras had been put up without his consent. He asked what he was allowed to do and was told that as he co-owned the house and the person did not gain his consent, he was entitled to remove the cameras and change the locks, provided that he gave a copy of the key to the new lock to Nora and returned her cameras. He informed the police that he was planning on doing renovations and was told that he could, because it was his property, and just to make sure to take precautions when renovations were taking place, like making sure it was empty. 13. On 24 January 2019, he arrived at the Merrylands house at 10:30 a.m. and removed the locks to the fly screen and the door by using a drill to take out the screws. He also removed the four cameras that had been installed by unscrewing them from the wall and cutting the main cord that attached to the roof. He placed them in a bucket in his van to return them to Nora through a third party, then went inside and prepared the areas that needed to be repaired to install the windows. He did that by removing some gyprock, because when he spoke to tradesmen he told them that other than replacing the windows, some walls had cracks in them. The tradesmen told him that it was cheaper and better to replace the walls than repair them, so he agreed to break some of the wall to leave a mark so they would know which walls to replace. He then went to the front of the house and wrote on the wall in texta "Skip bin come today at 3 p.m. Stay out please danger. House renovation. Danger keep out please". He wrote that to make sure anyone who attended the property was aware that renovations were occurring inside and to take the proper precautions. 14. At 1:00 a.m. on 25 January 2019, police attended where he was living at the time and told him that he was under arrest, and took him to Granville police station. He was told by police that if he didn't participate in an interview he would remain under arrest and in their custody until he was taken to a court. They told him he did not have a choice, so he participated in an interview. 15. He told police in the interview that he was at the property to renovate the house because it was damaged a week earlier, and he thought that because of their divorce and separation, the house would be sold. He said that he did remove part of the gyprock wall in preparation for windows to be installed by tradesmen. He did not do so for the purposes of causing damage. In relation to the cameras, he had removed the cameras because they were installed without his permission and he did not want to be recorded in his property. He also told police he removed the locks because they were changed without his permission. He did not do any of that to prevent Nora or the children from living in the house. He wanted the children to be happy with their mother and have a liveable house. 16. He was charged with two counts of destroying or damaging property and one count of larceny. He was acquitted of larceny after a defended hearing at the Local Court and entered guilty pleas to the destroying or damaging property charges. He was given $1000 fines for each offence and an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) order was put in place for a period of two years. The two counts of destroying or damaging property were dismissed on appeal under s 10(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). 17. He consented to Nora's proposal in relation to the custody arrangements for the children and did not oppose the property order. There had been no other issues between himself and Nora. They are divorced and he has moved on, being now in a new relationship and very happy. He holds no grudge against Nora and understands that a divorce is a very stressful time for everybody. There are parenting orders in place and Nora drops the children off to his house. They are always respectful to one another. 18. As regards fitness and propriety, he is strongly against violence in all its forms and would never engage in such behaviour. He had always avoided conflict with Nora and had never been violent towards her, nor did he do any of the acts she had accused him of, other than renovating the property. He accepts that he did not have her permission to carry out renovations, but at the time believed that he was lawfully entitled to improve the property that they both owned and that he had always maintained during the marriage. In a general or domestic context, he always avoids verbal or physical conflict because he knows that it does not achieve anything and generally only leads to negative outcomes. Even when they were going through the divorce and her family would threaten him, he would ignore it. 19. He had never been charged with or convicted of any violent offence. As a roofer, he works from heights and with tools and machinery. Safety is always at the forefront of his mind when working at heights and with tools and it would be no different with a firearm if he were to hold a firearms licence. He understands that firearms can be very dangerous and safety is extremely important. He would take that responsibility with the highest standards of safety, as he has in the past. Applicant's affidavit of 22 November 2022 1. This affidavit was sworn in response to Nora's statement of 10 October 2022. In it the applicant said that it was not true that he and Nora had been living separate lives from 2017 until 18 December 2018. She did not suffer emotional and financial abuse and did not find his alleged mistress in the house. He did not have any affair, nor was there ever a mistress in the house. He supported Nora financially throughout their entire marriage and did not abuse her emotionally. They were just very different people who drifted apart. She did not tell him in 2016 that their relationship was over. 2. They had previously discussed building a duplex on the Merrylands land to sell for a profit in 2016. At that time their mortgage was $350,000 owing to the bank. Nora agreed to the proposal and consented to refinance the house. They ended up obtaining an additional $350,000 from the bank, which brought the total mortgage to $700,000. It transpired, however, that the project could not proceed as $350,000 was insufficient to do so. At the time he was also not working for about a year as he had injured his finger while at work on 29 August 2015 (photographs were attached and marked "A"). In 2017 he had more time off work because of gallbladder surgery and an injury to his foot. 3. As they had the refinanced amount of $350,000 available to them and the applicant had no income, Nora asked for a 7-seater 4-wheel drive, so he used some of the money and bought her the Kluger. At her request they also bought new furniture and also used the money to pay their bills, including the mortgage and living expenses. When Nora states that he did not support her financially, the only thing he can think of is that she wanted to go overseas to Paris, Morocco, Abu Dhabi and Turkey, but he could not afford it. He never stopped paying the mortgage or the bills and her practice was to use his credit card, to which she had access to pay for purchases. On some occasions his customers would pay their invoices in cash. He would never hide money around the house, let alone in the walls. Rather he would give Nora cash so she could pay for the mortgage and pay bills for general expenses and for the children. Although she started working part-time around June 2017, none of that money went towards the mortgage. 4. He had never wanted Nora to leave the family home as that is where his children had grown up, nor did he tell her to take the kids and go. Sometimes when there was an argument he would leave the house and take the children to buy provisions and return when she had calmed down. If he knew that she would not calm down in a short time, he would go by himself to the farm for a night or two. Their arguments centred mainly on the treatment of the children, as she would yell at them and swear at them, which he did not find appropriate especially because of their ages. He did not ask her to sign over the house to his name on 20 October 2022. He had always been the only person who paid the mortgage and he had never asked Nora to contribute. 5. In relation to COPS event E70477041, he added that he had never forged Nora's signature on a passport application for their daughter. Nora had filled the form out a few months earlier as they were planning to go overseas, but it did not happen. He only signed it at Nora's request in connexion with her idea of travelling overseas to Paris, Morocco, Abu Dhabi and Turkey. 6. He had never spoken to his brother Hisham about his speaking to Nora, and did not tell him he was planning to move interstate because that was not something he had ever thought about. He had never intended to keep his children with him and away from their mother permanently, but only took them on a holiday to the farm and to Jervis Bay. He only hoped that the time Nora spent away from the children on holiday would allow her to think about treating them better. 7. At no time did he speak to his brother Hisham about taking the children to Lebanon, a parental agreement, or plans to sell the Merrylands house. The only time his brother had spoken to Nora on his behalf was when he offered Nora a proposition of transferring his share of the house to her, making all the mortgage repayments and giving her an additional $50,000 on the condition that she would not sell the house until the children were old enough to move out, so that they had a stable home. He thought Nora had spoken to her mother and came back and said she would only do so if he raised the amount to $150,000. He told his brother to tell her "No". He reiterated that he did not call the electricity company. 8. Responding to his ex-wife's statement about property destruction on 10 January 2019, he responded that the only other person he knew had a key to the house was Nora's sister Nessren. He had never touched Nora's passport, birth certificate or anything that belonged to her, including the pantry items. He had nothing to do with the windows being removed, the damage to the electricity box or the plumbing pipes or taps, as he was still away on holidays with the children at Lake Bathurst. On 15 January 2019, he removed the furniture from the Merrylands house and placed it in storage, as there were no windows and he was worried about rain ruining the furniture or somebody going inside the house and stealing the items. Nora had the locks changed and security cameras installed without his permission. 9. On 23 January 2019, he did not threaten the camera installer, but simply asked him who had sent him to install them without his permission. On the same day he noticed when checking the garage that all his property had been stolen, including his refrigerator, work equipment and machines such as air compressors, high pressure washers, brand-new mechanical items and fishing rods. 10. As regards his ex-wife's statement about malicious damage to the property on 24 January 2019, he stated that the Local Court had not ordered any compensation as it was not satisfied about what the quote referred to, whether any of the work had been completed, if it was paid for and that it was solely for the repairs. He denied her statement that he had put a tracker in a car, and the first time he had ever heard of that was in her statement dated 10 October 2022. It was not reported to police and was not true. 11. He had never left firearms around the house at Merrylands, in fact he had never even brought any firearms inside the house on any occasion. He had always stored them safely at the farm at Lake Bathurst. On 15 January 2019, he had one firearm secured at his brother's house at Dundas Valley, in an approved safe, because he did not want to have a firearm in his vehicle when he attended the Merrylands property. His intention was always to collect it on the same day and take it back with him to the farm at Lake Bathurst and store it securely in the safe. The firearm had been secured at his brother's house because he also has a firearms licence. He added that he does not drive erratically and does not engage in road rage. Nora had never cried or complained about his driving. Applicant's oral evidence 1. In oral evidence (with an interpreter) at the hearing, the applicant told his counsel Mr Eurell that he had been present when his son Rami signed his statement dated 18 November 2022 (part exhibit A2), and he did so of his own free will, being left alone with the solicitor. 2. He used his firearms at the Lake Bathurst farm, but only in an emergency, to deal with pests such as foxes, which were causing him to lose between six and nine lambs a year. The farm is owned with his brothers, but he is in charge. The firearms were stored in a garage and locked in an approved safe. He had asked the police to inspect it, but they had not come. When asked whether he had ever stored firearms at the Merrylands house, he said he had only done so in the garage, double locked in a safe. His firearms had been purchased packaged in a locked leather case, not a cardboard box. He had never left a firearm for his wife or children to see, and had never told her that there was one in a box. 3. He had a number of SMS exchanges with his ex-wife, including in relation to her car, groceries, swimming lessons and money for a driver to take the children to school. He also left $300 for her to pay the fees for the weekend religious school. She used his Westpac Visa card, and he paid the balance. She had a second card that she could use. She had wanted him to repay some money that she owed Centrelink because of adjustments in relation to her part-time work. 4. When cross-examined by Ms Chenhall on behalf of the respondent, the witness agreed that he had asked Rami to make his statement and he had agreed. He had explained her account to him, telling him all. He took him to the solicitor's office and sat on the balcony while the solicitor was talking to Rami and had asked him to tell him if there was anything wrong. He told Rami that the statement was in connexion with his firearms licence application and had explained that he needed it because of the depredations against his sheep. He did not explain why the licence had been refused, but he explained that he was not qualified adequately to explain it in English, so the solicitor would make it clear for him. At that point the hearing was adjourned part heard to 27 March 2023. 5. When cross-examination resumed on the adjourned date, the applicant said he had not given a copy of the internal review decision to Rami, but he knew what had happened as the solicitor had explained it to him. He denied that he did not want his son to know what he had done to the house, saying that Rami knew all about it even though he had not been given a hard copy of the decision. He had not given Rami a copy of his statements or his mother's statements, but Rami had heard him talking on the telephone. He had not mentioned the court proceedings as he had been renovating the house, which was unfit to live in at the time and the police had said it was permissible for him to enter the matrimonial home. He had pleaded guilty, but had not damaged the house. The breakages shown on the photographs (exhibit R2, pp 69, 72, 73, 75, 77) were part of the renovations. He was removing part of the damaged sections so that the workers would know which ones to remove. He had no-one lined up to work on that day, which was why he had to do it. He did not need to arrange it with the workers as he was in daily contact with them. 6. He had produced the copies of the SMS texts to show that he had been in communication with Nora and was telling the truth, and that she was not. He had been accused of not paying the bills. He had omitted messages of a personal nature, which were not relevant. The Westpac credit card records showed that he had given her a copy credit card (exhibit A5). Everything was paid from there, including electricity, water and rates for the matrimonial home. He had not lived there since 18 December 2018 and had only removed items required for the holiday with the children. When he returned after the holiday, the windows had been stolen and he removed some furniture as he was going to live with his brother. 7. He had not removed the windows or cut off the electricity and water, however, as he had not been there. He had not been trying to get Nora out of the house, which would have been bad manners. The police had told him that as the locks had been changed and the cameras installed without his permission, he could take them down, provided that he returned them to Nora. As there were 12 windows missing, doing so did not affect the security of the property. The house was not habitable as it was. He had changed the lock as he had no key to the existing one and he wanted access to his own house, and access for his workers, as he had organised them to come, but Nora had called the police about him, and he did not like anyone being at the house when he was not there. 8. He had asked her to come on holiday with the children, but she did not want to. He had told the police that she could come with them but she was not interested. His text message to her had said nothing about going to the farm at Lake Bathurst, because he had spoken to her face-to-face at the house. They had discussed these matters on many days. He had not telephoned her from Lake Bathurst because there was no reception at that location. He had taken the children because she had a mental issue and could not see him for 4 months. The police had reported that the children were well and looked after. He had taken them to the farm every weekend, and she had not been concerned. She knew where they were when she called the police. 9. When it was pointed out to him that the police had twice made contact in connexion with the children, once in their visit to the farm and once at Jervis Bay, he replied that it was because she had not called him. He did not know whether Nora had been living at the Merrylands house between 18 December 2018 and 10 January 2019. He acknowledged that his brother had contacted Nora before 10 January 2019 asking her to leave the matrimonial home, but said he had no right to do so. He had taken the refrigerator and other items without discussing it with her, because they were needed in the other house and as there were no windows in the matrimonial home, it was not secure. He had taken measurements for windows. He did not want to board up the windows but wanted replacements, as they were safer. 10. He had not been living at the Merrylands house on 24 January 2019, but needed to enter on that date because he intended to renovate the premises. He had not contacted his wife about his intentions, as the police had said he could enter the property, which needed renovation as it was not in good condition. He came for the purpose of renovating, but Nora had called the police and interrupted the process. 11. In his November 2016 firearms licence application he had stated that he would be keeping his firearms at Dundas Valley. When Ms Chenhall asked had he not stated that some of the firearms would be at Lake Bathurst, he replied that he had to take them to Lake Bathurst where they were in a safe place in a safe secured to the ground. He did not have to inform the police every time he moved them, and he had not been storing them at Lake Bathurst, as he had been there himself. He had moved them from Dundas Valley to Merrylands, as only his brother had the key to the Dundas Valley property. 12. When it was pointed out to him that since his licence had been revoked on 1 August 2019, he was not able to perform any vermin control at Lake Bathurst, but could have arranged for someone else to do it, he replied that he did not trust others to do vermin control as there had been thefts of cattle in such cases. There was no re-examination. Statement of Rami Ramlawie 1. The applicant's son Rami completed a signed statement dated 18 November 2022 (part exhibit A2) stating in relation to his mother's statement that she had been separated from his father under the same roof from 2017 until physical separation in December 2018, that he himself did not notice any difference in their relationship during that time because they were always arguing just as before. It never seemed to be serious or physical. He would just leave the room and play video games and his siblings would also just go to their rooms. 2. He did not realize how bad it had become between his parents until the police came to the farm when they were on holiday at Lake Bathurst and said that their mother wanted them home. The police were there for about 10 minutes and spoke to him and asked if he was okay and if his father had forced him or his siblings to go with him, and why they were there. He told the officer that his father did not force them to be at the farm and they just came for a holiday, and that his cousins were also coming up for the week. His mother never used to come to the farm with them, so he thought nothing of her not being there on holiday with them. 3. When his parents were together, they argued quite regularly but their arguments were never physical. He never really understood what they were arguing about. Sometimes his mother or father would leave and take them with them until they calmed down. His mother would go to his aunt Nessren's or grandmother's house and his father would usually go for a drive and take them somewhere to eat and then bring them back. On one occasion in 2016 after an argument his father went away for a couple of days but came back. He had never heard his father say to his mother that she could take the kids and go. 4. He had never heard his mother complain about his father not giving her money. He used to leave cash for her every day but he had never seen or heard of his father hiding money in walls. He was not aware that his father ever had firearms at the house and certainly had never seen any of them. He only ever saw his father and uncle using firearms at the farm, but he never knew that his father owned any of them. 5. He was not aware of his father being unfaithful to his mother or any arguments in relation to that and had never heard his mother mention another lady or an eight-year affair. He always saw his father doing things around the house, like watering the plants and cutting the grass. His mother would clean the house, but his father would do all the fixing of odd jobs around the house. He had never seen his father drive in a crazy manner or succumb to road rage or yell at other drivers and never heard his mother complain or cry about his driving. 6. He was aware of the 24 January 2019 incident and understood that his father was renovating the house because someone had damaged it while he, his siblings and their father were away at the farm in Lake Bathurst. His mother ended up renovating the entire house, including the kitchen, bathrooms and pretty much everywhere. 7. He had always had a good relationship with his father, who taught him a lot about life and takes good care of him. Since their separation, he has not seen his parents fight anymore. They drop him off to each other's house and seemed fine with each other. Even though his parents used to argue, his father is not an angry type and does not like arguments and from what he knows, he does his best to avoid conflict. He would always support them financially. When his parents were together, he used to see money that his father left on the couch for his mother. He would leave around $200. 8. His father always paid for all his expenses. He attends a private school and his father pays the fees, which he has seen him do at the school office. He also pays for school sport and bought him and his two siblings mobile telephones, which they have had for 4 years. Every Friday, he gives Rami money to pay their driver for taking them to school and picking them up. He also gives him money for clothes. Around 2 September 2022, his father took him for his learner permit test. He paid for the test and for the actual licence, and also for an instructor for 2 hours. He also purchased the logbook and takes him driving almost every day to teach him. He is a good teacher and always make sure he is being safe when he drives, like checking his speed and his blind spots. His mother had never taken him driving because she says she does not trust him. 9. In December 2018, the children were on school holidays and they wanted to go camping at the farm, especially his sister, as her father had just bought her a new quad bike. His mother did not like the farm at all and never went with them. She had only been there once and returned home the same day. He and his siblings enjoy the outdoors because they are active and like to play games and be outside rather than sitting inside. They go camping every year with his father's family, but since his uncles got the farm at Lake Bathurst, they now go there. They also go to Nelson Bay each year and stay in cabins. He has always known his father to be an outdoor type. His mother loves to go to restaurants and indoor kind of things. Rami does not like going to restaurants, which he finds awkward. His mother would get annoyed when they played outside and came back inside dirty. 10. Rami Ramlawie was not available to give oral evidence or be cross-examined. Applicant's submissions 1. In written submissions filed on 11 August 2022 the applicant, after outlining the background of the case and the applicable law, submitted that the respondent's decision was effectively based on allegations made by his ex-wife as recorded in a series of records recorded in the Computerised Operational Policing System (COPS) and the charges that were laid against him. 2. COPS Event report E72703089 formed the basis of the criminal charges. On 23 January 2019, the applicant attended Granville police station and sought advice from an officer in relation to the property he co-owned with his ex-wife at Merrylands. He said that the house door locks had been changed and cameras installed without his permission. He was advised that he could likewise change the locks to the premises and also remove the cameras as they were not installed with his permission. The applicant attended the premises to remove the cameras and commence renovations. His understanding was that once he and his wife were officially divorced, the property would be sold and the proceeds equally split. The basis of the renovations was for the betterment of the property so that when the property was sold they would be able to secure a high selling price. The applicant's ex-wife had also conducted renovations on the property, in addition to changing the locks and installing cameras. 3. On a complaint from his ex-wife, he was charged with destroying or damaging property and larceny, to which he entered a plea of guilty to two counts of destroyed or damaged property, and not guilty to larceny. He was acquitted of larceny but convicted of the damaging property counts, and fined $1000 for each offence, an ADVO also being made. 4. COPS Event report E70477041 concerned a holiday that the applicant provided for his children. Although she was aware of the children's whereabouts, his ex-wife contacted the police to confirm the well-being and safety of the children. 5. COPS Event report E70793074 concerned the disconnection of the electricity to the Merrylands property on 3 January 2019, and some alleged damage to an electricity box and removal of sliding windows on 10 January 2019, as well as an incident involving his ex-wife's motor vehicle on 28 February 2019. The applicant denies any knowledge of or involvement in relation to those incidents and was at Lake Bathurst at the time of two of them. 6. COPS Event report E69734735 concerns repairs he made to the Merrylands property on 15 January2019. While he was at the property, his ex-wife's cousin (not brother-in-law) attended the property, yelling and threatening him. In response the applicant refused him permission to enter the house and closed the door to avoid conflict. Police attended the property and the applicant invited them inside to make their own observations and confirm that there were no signs of property damage that could cause any banging or loud noise. It was following that incident that the applicant's firearms licence was suspended. 7. The applicant is a man aged 45 who has lived in Australia for 21 years and has no criminal convictions. The allegations relied on by the respondent were made by his ex-wife in the context of divorce proceedings. They concern disputes over the right to make improvements or alterations to a residential property and parenting arrangements. There is no allegation of violence by the applicant, nor any allegation that he acted in breach of a court order. He has provided multiple character references from people who have known him for a long time, each one speaking highly of him and supporting the fact that he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. 8. In relation to the public interest, the applicant has a genuine need for firearms in conducting pest control on rural properties in which he engages in farming. He has a history of compliance with the Firearms Act and no history of failing properly to use or store firearms. He is a fit and proper person and the tribunal can be satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to issue him with the licence. He submits that the decision should be set aside and in lieu an order granting the application. 9. In oral submissions at the hearing the applicant relied on those submissions and pointed out that in her Local Court evidence Nora had said that she had lived at the Merrylands house until 10 January 2019 (exhibit A2, p 132). The judgment of Smith DCJ at the District Court appeal on 17 December 2019 (exhibit A1, tab 2) showed that Nora had not been living at the Merrylands premises on 24 January 2019. It was not a case of the applicant damaging the house while Nora was out. He had renovated the premises after she had moved out. The respondent had thus impugned its own witness. The District Court had dismissed the malicious damage charges under s 10 in the most lenient manner possible. As Smith DCJ noted, there had been no violence, threats or injuries. Nor did the applicant have any firearms legislation breaches. 10. The respondent had expanded its case with her statement (exhibit R3) but without corroborating evidence. In the Local Court she had said she had moved out by 10 January 2019, contradicting her own evidence and that of her son Rami. The record of SMS messages showed that he had not stopped paying household bills but acceded to her every demand. She had her own credit card (exhibit A5). She had resorted to exaggeration, saying that he had left guns lying around the house, but in cross-examination said there was only one firearm involved and that she had not in fact seen it. He had stored his firearms safely at the Dundas Valley address, and when they were used, they were at Lake Bathurst in an approved safe. One was still at Dundas Valley, and two were at Lake Bathurst. 11. Both the applicant and Nora had been renovating the Merrylands house by 24 January 2019, so it was necessary to disconnect the electricity and water. He had cooperated fully with the police in relation to the children, as appeared from Rami's statement. The orders of the Federal Circuit Court showed that the issues between the parties had been resolved and there was a state of domestic calm. The contentious issues were at an end and the circumstances in which the applicant's firearms licence had been revoked no longer existed. His traffic record was unremarkable, amounting to an offence every 3 or 4 years, and the applicant drives for a living. Of his own motion he undertook a Traffic Offender Intervention Program, which he completed on 24 March 2023 (exhibit A4). Respondent's submissions 1. In written submissions filed on 24 August 2022, the respondent, after setting out the background and the applicable law, pointed out that there was a real concern in the community about the potential of firearms to be involved in domestic violence incidents. Many matters arising from allegations of domestic violence did not result in formal convictions because the alleged victims did not wish to proceed. Victims of domestic violence did not always report incidents or pursue proceedings because of fear of repercussions: Manning v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 111 at [51]. In Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 124 at [104], the tribunal concluded that it was not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence in circumstances where he was subject to a provisional AVO that was withdrawn. 2. All licence holders are required to comply with the safe keeping and storage requirements prescribed by the Firearms Act, including taking all reasonable precautions to ensure a firearm's safe keeping and that it is not lost or stolen or come into the possession of an unauthorized person. An applicant's traffic record is also directly relevant to the question of public interest. In Himo v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWCATAD 321 at [102], the tribunal stated that a disregard for a regulatory scheme aimed at ensuring public safety was a very relevant consideration in determining whether or not it was contrary to the public interest for the applicant to hold a licence. 3. In O'Brien v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 259 at [59], the tribunal considered it widely accepted that prior conduct can provide some guidance about how an individual will behave in the future. It was not unfair to compare a lack of compliance with traffic laws with the likelihood that an applicant might adopt a similar view towards compliance with firearms legislation. 4. The Commissioner's refusal decision relied on a number of recorded police events and charges in 2018 and 2019. The first was in December 2018 when the applicant had left the family residence with their children, and the applicant's ex-wife was concerned about their welfare, as she did not know where the applicant had taken them and he was not answering his telephone. Once the children were sighted and spoken to by police, police took no further action as the children were with their father. 5. The second incident was in January 2019 when Ms Hammoud stated that all the windows had been removed from the premises and the electricity box tampered with. She told police she held concerns for her safety and welfare. Before that happened, the applicant had contacted Origin Energy and requested that it disconnect the power to the home. Ms Hammoud countermanded that direction. 6. On 10 January 2019, Ms Hammoud on returning home at 11:00 p.m. found that all the lights were off and two switches in the electricity box appeared to have been snapped or cut off. She also found that all of the sliding windows had been removed and were not on the property. Police advised her to change the locks and install cameras. 7. On 28 February 2019, she contacted police to add further information to COPS event report E70793074, reporting the incident in which it appeared that someone had tampered with the engine bay of her car and drained the oil from the engine. 8. A further event occurred on 15 January 2019 when the applicant attended the Merrylands home. Ms Hammoud's brother-in-law called police after a neighbour had alerted them to the applicant's presence at the house. He began yelling at the brother-in-law, stating "What the f*** are you doing here?". Police were called and the applicant told them he was at the house measuring up windows for repairs, as well as gathering the children's items for school. As a result of the argument between the applicant and the brother-in-law, police issued the applicant with a notice of suspension of his firearms licence. 9. The final event, which resulted in charges being laid against the applicant, occurred on 24 January 2019. The applicant attended the Merrylands home and removed the CCTV cameras, cut electrical wires attached to the cameras and inside the walls and then placed the items in his vehicle. He then removed a fly screen from the front window but was unable to unlock the front screen door with his key. He then used a drill to remove the lock from the front screen door and the front wooden door, and gained access to the house. 10. Once inside he began removing window frames and then wrote on the wall outside in black texta, "Stay Out please danger. House Renovation. Danger keep out please". Police then attended his residence in Merrylands and spoke to the applicant, who admitted removing the cameras and parts of the walls, timber frames and fly screens, but claimed he did not maliciously damage the property as he was "renovating it". He was then arrested and charged with two counts of destroying or damaging property and one count of larceny, with an interim apprehended violence order (IAVO) being taken out for the protection of the victim, Ms Hammoud. Police records made at the time of the 24 January 2019 incident stated that his ex-wife was residing at the property when he attended and caused the damage. 11. The applicant was convicted of the two offences of destroying or damaging property and fined $1000 on each count, but the larceny charge was dismissed. All the events involved domestic incidents, with police taking out an IAVO for Ms Hammoud's protection, with a final AVO being made upon conviction for the offence of destroying or damaging property on 26 July 2019. On appeal the convictions were quashed and the AVO was revoked. The applicant had been issued with four traffic infringement notices since 2015, three of them for exceeding the speed limit (one in a school zone) and the other two for exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 km/h. 12. The applicant had thus come to police notice on numerous occasions relating to domestic violence incidents in which his actions during some of those events caused his ex-wife to fear for her safety. Although the malicious damage charges were quashed and the AVO revoked on appeal, there is no onus of proof attached to the administrative function of refusing an application for revoking an existing firearms licence. 13. The COPS event reports raised significant concerns about whether the applicant satisfies the character requirements for a firearms licence and in the context of public safety would be held to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. He had also failed to notify the firearms registry of a change of his safe storage address, and had provided no explanation for his failure to do so. 14. The reports also raised significant concerns about the risks posed by his domestic circumstances and his intimidating behaviour. The fact that domestic violence matters do not give rise to any proven charges is immaterial in the context of firearms licensing decisions. 15. In this case, the reports of the applicant's behaviour and intimidatory actions towards Ms Hammoud, together with the damage caused by him at the matrimonial residence indicate that there is reasonable cause to believe that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence, in that he may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms, and that the tribunal cannot be satisfied that he can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety, including his own safety. 16. In oral submissions Ms Chenhall relied on the written contentions, adding that the District Court did not have all the relevant information before it, such as the body worn camera evidence, as it was a severity appeal only. Consequently, its findings did not mean that Nora had no fears for her safety. 17. The COPS event reports showed that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Event report E70477041 dated 18 December 2018 (exhibit R1, pp 31 – 32) was her first contact with the police in relation to the children. In an SMS message he had stated that he would take the children to her sister's place. She did not know where they were as his telephone had been switched off. She had gone home and found that the children were gone, possibly to Lake Bathurst, but also other locations. His behaviour in relation to the children was not that of a fit and proper person. The respondent had never said that he was at the matrimonial home on 10 January 2019, but he wanted her out of the house, but she had refused. He had decided to leave her on 18 December 2018 and started a chain of events to make the house uninhabitable. She was still there until 20 January 2019, but the electricity had been cut off, and it could only have been by him. She had not been there by 24 January 2019 because of the damage to the house. She did not discuss with him the work she had arranged for on the house because she was not carrying out renovations, but rather repairs. 18. The copies of the credit cards in her name (exhibit R5) merited little weight and had not been shown to Nora. The record of SMS texts was incomplete and there could be others. The applicant had evaded cross-examination on that point. The bank statements showed no record of any mortgage payments. Nora was a truthful witness, having no interest in the licensing issue. Her evidence in the Local Court was the same as before the tribunal. She had fears for her safety and had seen a firearm in the house. She is currently owed money by the applicant. 19. Rami must have been shown the relevant documents but not the reason for the revocation of the Applicant's licence or the charges about damage to the house. In relation to the firearms safe storage issue, he had only had a short licence period of 2 years and 2 months. His firearms were not all at the safe storage location and he was in breach of Firearms Act, s 39. There was no evidence of how long such arrangements had gone on, and his conduct was not that of a fit and proper person. 20. The character references merited little weight as they did not mention the malicious damage charges, and had similarities of wording. The referees had no knowledge of all of the facts, including the damage and the facts relating to the period from 18 December 2018 to 24 January 2019. 21. His traffic record was not unblemished and included some suspensions, suggesting a likelihood that he would not comply with the firearms licensing scheme and protect public safety. His conduct from 18 December 2018 to 24 January 2019 also showed that he was not a fit and proper person. Consideration 1. Under s 63 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (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 at 77; [1979] FCA 39. 2. The tribunal has jurisdiction to exercise any functions conferred or imposed upon it by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, s 30 ("the CAT Act") and the Firearms Act, including the Commissioner's refusal of a licence or permit: Firearms Act, s 75(1)(a). 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) 1 FCR 354 at 357; [1984] FCA 57. 3. Clear guidance as to how the Firearms Act is to be administered generally is provided in the underlying principles of the legislation set out in s 3(1), which declares that firearms possession and use is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Consistent 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 at [28]-[34]) and the standards of proof in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 316; [1938] HCA 36 and s 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) do not apply: Bronze Wing International Pty Limited v SafeWork NSW [2017] NSWCA 41 at [89]-[91], [127]; Sterjovski v Director-General, Department of Transport [2002] NSWADT 10 at [10]-[12]. They do, however, provide guidance for the tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction. Fit and proper person 1. The first ground on which the respondent's case was based was that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Section 11(3)(a) of the Firearms Act provides 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". 2. The question of whether a person is fit and proper in the licensing context has been considered in numerous cases before the courts and the tribunal. In Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 156-157; [1955] HCA 28, the High Court gave a general overview of the concept and the discretion that it embodies: "The expression 'fit and proper person' is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocations. But their purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. 'Fit' or 'idoneus' with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty, knowledge and ability…. It is evident that the Commissioner is invested with an authority to accept or reject an applicant the exercise of which depends on no certain or reliable criteria and which in truth involves a very wide discretion." 1. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380; [1990] HCA 33;, Toohey and Gaudron JJ explained that: "The expression 'fit and proper person', standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of 'fit and proper' cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, or whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question." 1. Fitness and propriety is a question of fact to be determined objectively, taking into account all the evidence: Smith v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force and NSW Fair Trading [2014] NSWCATAD 184 ("Smith"). The Appeal Panel has pointed out that public interest considerations play a role in the assessment of fitness and propriety: Director-General, Transport NSW v AIC (GD) [2011] NSWADTAP 65 at [37]; Smith at [30]. 2. In the context of the Firearms Act, fitness and propriety "must be considered in the context of at all times ensuring public safety": Barlow v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 254 at [22]. 3. In this case, the respondent's case for licence refusal rests on five main incidents occurring between December 2018 and January 2019. They may be considered in chronological order. 18 December 2018, event E 70477041: Mother concerned about children's whereabouts 1. The police event report for the first incident (exhibit R1, pp 31 – 33) records that as Nora was leaving for work on 18 December 2018, she spoke with the applicant in regard to the children, who normally stayed with her sister when their parents were at work. The applicant said he would look after the children as he was on holidays, to which Nora agreed. She sent a text to him at about 10:30 a.m. that day asking how the children were and saying that if he needed to do so he could take them to her sister's house. The applicant replied that everything was okay and he did not need to take them to her sister's. When she returned home from work the children were not there and at about 9:10 p.m. she contacted police. 2. Nora gave attending police an address at Lake Bathurst, where there is a farm property that he owns, as a possible location where the children might be. She also gave other addresses at Dundas Valley, Eastwood and Ryde as possibilities. On the following day, after some investigations, police spoke with the children and the applicant at the farm for about 10 minutes. The report states, "Police left the location and contacted the OIC and informed them of the outcome stating the children were in good health and were looked after by the POI who is their father". 3. In her statement of 10 October 2022, Nora gave further details, including that she arranged for the children to be put on the airport watch list, as she believed her husband would try to leave the country with them, as he had threatened to do in the past. The boys had passports, but their daughter did not. At about 4:30 a.m. on 19 December 2018, she received a telephone call from Goulburn police saying that they had located the children at the Lake Bathurst property. She attempted to telephone the applicant but was unable to get through, and believed that he was ignoring her calls, whereupon she again contacted police, who again located the children. 4. The applicant's version of events, which is consistent with Rami's statement, was that in December 2018 the children were on school holidays and would ask him and their mother to take them out camping to the farm or to the beach. He considered that it would be good for the children to have a holiday, especially due to end of year examinations and the stress of the relationship breakdown between him and their mother. During the week preceding 18 December 2018, he explained to Nora that the children needed a holiday, and if she would agree, he would take them away and that she was welcome to come if she wanted to. Not being an outdoors type, she was unwilling to join them 5. On 18 December 2018, he was off work and decided to take the children to the farm. Nora was aware that he had the children and she messaged him during the day and said if he needed to go anywhere, that he should drop them off to her sister's house. He told her that he did not need to go anywhere, but if he did have to drop them off at her sister's house, he would let her know. 6. Early the next morning, the local police attended the farm and said they were conducting a welfare check for the children. He told them that he was the father and invited them to have a look around the premises so that they could see that he had everything that the children needed and that they were happy being with him. The police spoke to the children for about 10 minutes, and after confirming that there were no problems about their well-being, they left. In oral evidence he explained that he had not ignored Nora's telephone messages, but did not receive them because no service was available at the farm and consequently did not know that she wanted to hear from him about the children. 7. This incident did not involve any violence, threat of violence or any form of child abuse and appears to have resulted from anxieties created by a breakdown of communication in a marriage that had itself broken down, perhaps aided by an obdurate attitude on the part of the applicant, stemming from the same cause. It does not provide significant assistance on the question of fitness and propriety. 11 January 2019, event E70793074: Removal of windows, damage to electricity box 1. The police report for the second incident explained that the Applicant and Nora had "been inimically married since 2002 and separated in July 2017", continuing to live at the same address following the separation. On 3 January 2019, a person unknown (which Nora claimed had been the Applicant) had contacted Origin Energy and asked them to disconnect the electricity to the address, saying that they were moving. Nora later countermanded that instruction. 2. On the day in question, Nora arrived home and noticed that all the lights in her house were off and that the electricity box had been damaged, snapping off two damaged switches including the main power switch. The damage prevented Nora from returning the switches to the 'on' position. On further examining the house she found that all of the sliding windows had been removed, and a further inspection by her brother confirmed that the windows were not on the property (exhibit R1, pp 36 – 37). Police advised her to change the locks and install surveillance cameras. 3. The event report then states, "Due to the POI's efforts to disconnect the electricity…., Police believe he may be involved in the damage to the electricity box occurring on 10th January. As such, police do not have any evidence linking the POI to the stolen windows, only that it has occurred in the same timeframe" (exhibit R1, p 37). Police did not apply for an AVO as it had not been confirmed that the incident was in fact domestic related. In her statement (exhibit R3) Nora explained that she was the only person living in the property at the time as the applicant had moved out. He was the only other person to have keys. She was very upset at the level of damage that had been caused, as well as being quite scared of being in the house by herself. 4. On 16 January 2019, the applicant attended the property and removed his personal belongings as well as all the major items of furniture from the home that were jointly owned by them, including white goods and many of her own belongings. He had not told her about his intended actions. All he had left in the house was her bed and her clothes. After the above incidents, and upon recommendation by the police, she had the locks changed and installed security cameras. She had concerns for her safety because of the windows having been removed from the house, while police noted that they had "Nil fears at this stage" (exhibit R1, p 38). 5. The applicant denies any knowledge of, or involvement in, the incident in question or the apparent tampering with the engine bay of Nora's car and the draining of oil from the engine (outlined below) as he was at Lake Bathurst at the time with the children. In his internal review request he explained that after he had left the matrimonial home in 2018 Nora had also moved out to stay with her parents, and the home had remained empty for three months. During that time it was damaged and the security cameras were installed. As the house was unoccupied, he decided to repair it and carry out renovations. 6. A house standing empty for a significant period creates opportunities for thieves and vandals, and the disappearance of 12 sliding windows rather suggests theft. There does not appear to be probative evidence linking the episode with the applicant, and it would not seem rational for him to damage his own house in that way, especially as he was planning to renovate it for sale. This incident does not, therefore, reflect adversely on his fitness and propriety. Event E 70793074 (continued): Loss of oil from car 1. The third report was made on 28 February 2019, when Nora contacted Granville police to add further information to the above event report and her statement. In her statement of 11 January 2019, she wrote that as she started her car on 10 January 2019, she noticed that the "low oil" light came on, which she thought strange as the car had been serviced on 7 January 2019. She told police that she had taken her car to the mechanic who usually services it, and he informed her that "it appeared as if someone had tampered with the engine bay and drained the oil out of the engine. The same mechanic had serviced the car two days before" (exhibit R1, p 40). 2. The event report also states that "Police have insufficient evidence to proceed with any charges in relation to the incident. There are no witnesses to this incident and Police would be only relying on the Victim's suspicions". It seems improbable that the applicant had anything to do with this incident. The applicant would be unlikely to seek to ruin the engine of a late-model Toyota Kluger which, as Nora notes, he had paid for himself. It is also not unknown for mechanics inadvertently to fail properly to tighten oil drain plugs during service or to add insufficient oil. More importantly, a person intending to harm the driver would be more likely to drain brake fluid than engine oil, as lack of oil would stop the engine in short order. 18 January 2019, event E69734735: Argument with Nora's cousin 1. The fourth event relied on by the respondent occurred on 15 January 2019 when the applicant attended the Merrylands home. Nora's cousin, who had come to the house at her request in connexion with the applicant's presence there, called police after a neighbour had alerted her to the applicant's presence at the house. At the time of the cousin's attendance, the applicant began yelling at him, saying "What the f*** are you doing here?". The argument continued for a further five minutes before the applicant slammed the door shut. Police were called by the cousin and duly attended. 2. The applicant told them he was at the location measuring up windows for repairs, as well as gathering the children's items for school. He invited them into the premises, where they ascertained that he was indeed measuring up windows for repairs, as well as gathering the children's items for school (exhibit R1, p 43). The report notes that "Police did not detect any signs of property damage, nor any signs of a physical altercation occurring and have ascertained that this was a verbal argument only". As a result of the verbal argument, police issued the applicant with a notice of suspension of his firearms licence, "[i]n accordance with domestic violence legislation". 3. This incident involved no violence, no threat of violence against Nora or the cousin and no damage to property. No doubt the noisy argument between the two men could be regarded as disturbing the peace, but it arose because Nora had summoned her cousin on witnessing the applicant doing things he was entitled to do. It could only technically be regarded as an example of domestic violence. It does not significantly advance the respondent's case. 24 January 2019, event E 72703089, charge H 69880340: Removal of screens, etc. 1. The fifth and final event, which resulted in charges against the applicant, occurred on 24 January 2019. According to the police fact sheet, Nora left the house at Merrylands in which she resided by herself during the separation from the applicant, locking it before leaving. While she was out, she received a notification that her newly installed surveillance cameras, which she had installed for her protection and that of the property, were disconnected. At about 9:30 a.m. that day, the applicant drove to the property and removed the surveillance cameras, cutting electrical wires attached to them. 2. He removed the fly screen on the front window, but as his key did not operate the lock, he removed the lock from the front screen door and then the front wooden door. He then began to remove parts of several walls and bedrooms and several door and window frames. He remained at the property for about 30 minutes. He had told Nora of his intention to sell the house in the past, but Nora did not agree. He had removed parts of the house without her knowledge or permission. 3. Police interviewed Nora about this incident, recording it on body-worn camera (the USB flash drive forms part of exhibit R3). She describes the damage and says that she had not sustained any injuries, but was feeling anxious because he did not tell her of his intentions and she did not know what he would do next. She said that he had never assaulted her, though in the past there had been some pushing and shoving, but she considered herself the victim of financial and emotional abuse that caused her anxiety. 4. Following his arrest by Granville police, he denied causing malicious damage and said he was renovating, and that half of the property was under his name. He admitted removing the surveillance cameras and parts of walls, timber frames and fly screens. The fact sheet states that his actions had caused her to fear for her safety while staying at the property, "as she has no external person i.e. lock [sic] on doors or security cameras, which Police believe was a deliberate action on behalf of the Accused to intimidate the Victim and cause the Victim to fear for her safety" (exhibit R1, p 62). 5. In his affidavit of 8 August 2022, the applicant stated that on 23 January 2019, he had attended Granville police station and asked an officer about the property he co-owned with his ex-wife at Merrylands. He told the officer that the door locks had been changed and cameras installed without his permission, and was advised that he could likewise change the locks and remove the cameras as they were not installed with his permission. His evidence on that point was not contradicted. He attended the premises to remove the cameras and also to begin renovations. His understanding was that once he and his wife were officially divorced, the property would be sold and the proceeds equally divided. He was renovating it in order to improve it so that they could obtain a good selling price for it. Nora had also conducted renovations on the property, in addition to changing the locks and installing cameras, without his approval. 6. On a complaint from Nora, the applicant was charged with destroying or damaging property and larceny. In the Local Court he entered a plea of guilty to two counts of destroy/damage property, and not guilty to the larceny charge, of which he was acquitted. He was convicted of the damaging property counts and fined $1000 for each offence, and an ADVO was made against him. On his appeal to the District Court, both convictions were set aside and dismissed, and the ADVO was revoked. 7. The crux of the respondent's narrative was that Nora had been living in the house at the time of the incident, leading to the inference that the applicant's actions were calculated to make the premises uninhabitable and thereby drive her out. But in her evidence before Parramatta Local Court, on 8 April 2019 (R v Ramlawie, 2019/00036572, Swain LCM, TS p 18, exhibit A2 p 132) she explained that the applicant had moved out on 18 December, and that she had herself moved out on 10 January 2019, taking up residence with her family. Asked about whether there was an agreement about the property when the applicant left, she replied "There was no agreement. He was just trying to get me out. He'd been trying to get me out for the past two years". 8. In the District Court, Smith DCJ noted in his judgment on the severity appeal that "the appellant and his former wife lived at premises in Merrylands up until they separated on 18 December 2018. The appellant relocated with three children to another property in Merrylands and on 10 January 2019 it was agreed between the parties that his ex-wife moved to another property. So that by 24 January 2019 nobody was living at the home, however the property remained in the joint ownership of the two parties": Ramlawie v R (District Court (NSW), Smith DCJ, 17 December 2019, unrep), transcript p 1, exhibit A1 (emphasis added). As she had already moved out by 24 January 2019, the police fact sheet is incorrect on that point and the contention that his actions were directed to forcing her from the premises cannot be sustained. 9. On the seriousness of the applicant's conduct on 24 January 2019, his Honour had this to say (Ramlawie v R, transcript p 2, exhibit A1): "First, the facts of the offending while evidently constituting a criminal act show very low criminality indeed. I accept that the purpose of the damage to the property, which was jointly owned by the appellant and his ex-wife, was to in fact improve the property for the purpose of him increasing the value of the property for subsequent sale. There was nobody living at home, there was no apprehension of violence caused as I see from the evidence. It is quite true that he should have asked permission of his ex-wife to undertake these acts, he did not, and he accepted responsibility for that by pleading guilty as I apprehended at the earliest opportunity." 1. The respondent submitted that the court was not in possession of all the evidence that has been available to the tribunal, but most of the additional new evidence relates to other matters such as financial issues. His Honour had all the evidence he needed to decide the issue relating to the 24 January events. I therefore respectfully agree with his Honour that the case involves "very low criminality indeed". It may also be noted incidentally that Nora herself admitted carrying out renovations to the property without seeking the applicant's permission. Safe storage 1. When police attended the applicant's residence to collect the firearms that were the subject of the licence in connexion with event E69734735 on 15 January 2019, they recorded that one of the firearms was taken from his nominated safe storage address at Dundas Valley, but the other two were at the Lake Bathurst address. The Firearms Registry had no record of the applicant notifying a change of safe storage address (see Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5 at [60]). Clause 17(3) of the Firearms Regulation 2017 (NSW) (the Regulation) provides that if there is any change in the address of the premises on which a firearm is stored, the licensee must notify the Commissioner in writing within 14 days after the change. 2. The applicant's explanation was that he kept his firearms in his safe storage at the Dundas Valley address, but when he was using them they were at Lake Bathurst where they were kept in an approved firearms safe. One of them was still at Dundas Valley, but the other two were at Lake Bathurst. He left them there briefly to go to Merrylands to obtain some items that the children needed, and had thereby complied with the Regulation. 3. Clause 17 allows the holder 14 days to notify the Commissioner of any change of safe storage address, but the applicant maintains that there had been no change, and the firearms were at Lake Bathurst because he was using them. Whether there had been a breach of the Regulation or not would depend inter alia on evidence of intent and how long he had been away from Lake Bathurst when collecting the children's items. The respondent gives no dates or estimated dates in that connexion, and the evidence does not warrant a finding that any breach had occurred. 4. In her written statement, Nora alleged that the applicant had left guns lying around in the house to intimidate her at a time when there were children in the house, but in cross-examination said it was only one gun and she had not actually seen it because it was in an unmarked box overnight. Rami stated that he had never seen any firearms at the house, but only at the Lake Bathurst property where his father and uncle used them. He did not actually know that any of them belonged to his father. The evidence does not support a finding that the applicant was guilty of a breach of safe storage law or practice. Traffic record 1. The respondent pointed out that since 2015 the applicant had been issued with four traffic infringement notices, three of them relating to speeding, one of those being in a school zone. It was submitted that the facts giving rise to those charges raised a serious issue as to his being a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence and raised concerns about his ability to act in a responsible manner with respect to firearms, despite the absence of previous adverse events or convictions. 2. It is settled doctrine that a bad driving history can suggest a disregard of regulations designed to protect public safety and therefore weigh against the issuance of a firearms licence to an applicant: Keegan-Jacques v Commissioner of Police [2017] NSWCATAD 145. The applicant's record is far from satisfactory, and since issuance of his licence in 2001, he has incurred three demerit points suspensions, a warning letter and two demerit points courtesy letters. His record has improved in recent years and he has now averaged only one contravention per three or four years. Of his own motion he undertook a Traffic Offender Intervention Program, which he completed on 24 March 2023 (exhibit A4) and says he benefited from it. 3. He points out that in his occupation as a roofer, he does a great deal of driving for work, but that is no excuse. His record, however, is not such as to portray him now as a person who habitually disregards traffic laws designed for public safety and does not weigh substantially against a finding of fitness and propriety. Other matters 1. Nora's evidence was that the applicant in 2017 (in cross-examination she said 2016) had ceased paying household bills or making mortgage payments, conduct which she regarded as a form of domestic abuse. She was also critical of his making major financial decisions, such as drawing down their house equity to pay for some property ventures, without her approval. The evidence showed, however, that he continued to contribute to the household's living expenses until at least 2018 and acceded to her demands for special payments for particular purposes, except on one occasion when he declined her request that he finance an overseas trip for her. 2. Rami attested that he never heard his mother complain about the applicant not giving her money and remembers that she would always ask him for money before he went to work (exhibit A2, p 3) and that he left cash for her, usually about $200, every day. Rami said that his father paid for the children's educational expenses, including his private school fees and that he "would always support us financially". The documents do not, however, show any mortgage repayments, which tends to support Nora's evidence that he admitted to her that they were behind on their mortgage payments and the banks were pressing him for payment. 3. These are issues that can loom large in the context of a marriage breakdown, but in this case there are custody and related consent orders in place and, as Rami notes, the conflict between the parties has dissipated. The conduct shows the applicant as being on occasion inconsiderate, secretive or stubborn, but has little relevance to fitness and propriety for firearms possession. The references 1. The applicant tendered eight recent signed references, the first from Mr Hayssam Ramlawie, the applicant's brother, who co-owns the property at Lake Bathurst with his brothers Mohammed and Abdulhafiz. When they purchased the property, they had a mutual understanding that Ghassan (the applicant) would take care of the general upkeep and maintenance of the property, as they were unable to travel to the farm owing to work and family commitments. He has had that agreement with Ghassan for many years as his property is roughly 81 acres and they have approximately 50 sheep and lambs, a couple of goats and a llama. 2. Unfortunately, there are wild foxes that come onto the property and kill the sheep. In the last 13 months they have lost 10 lambs in total to foxes. He does not have the funds to pay someone to take care of that problem and would be appreciative if Ghassan was approved for his gun licence so that they were able to solve this issue. He trusts Ghassan with firearms on the property because of his responsible nature and commitment to safety and he has no hesitation in giving him permission. He has worked on jobsites with Ghassan as they are both roofers and he has witnessed how safety is his first priority. He has also seen first-hand how careful Ghassan is when it comes to safely storing and handling firearms. 3. Mr Nizar Alameddine, director of Sydney Open Tree Services, has known the applicant for the past 10 years and says he is a very respectful man who has a great character as well as being very helpful in many ways. Over those 10 years he has seen numerous occasions of his selfless help towards himself and others. He supports Ghassan's application for a firearms licence as the livestock on the Lake Bathurst property have been "getting absolutely destroyed" by the feral vermin, foxes and wild dogs. His stock has regularly been reduced at a significant rate. He has numerous sheep and many lambs that are being attacked, thus decreasing his stock numbers. 4. He is himself a firearms licence holder and when Ghassan had his licence, he attended the property a few times and witnessed how he handles and conduct himself with firearms. He is very particular with the safety aspects, never takes risks or making any mistakes, as he knows there are severe consequences. He always makes sure his firearms are stored properly and safely and takes his responsibilities seriously. Mr Alameddine is aware of the reasons Ghassan's licence was refused and it does not change his opinion. As far as he knows, Ghassan is not a violent man but a responsible family man and a very honourable person who can be trusted to have a firearms licence. 5. Ms Rawaa Rifa (Ms Rifa) has known the applicant since 2019 and is aware of the reasons why his application was refused. They have been living together since October 2019 and during that time she has come to know Ghassan very well and knows him to be a loving and caring father and a very hard worker. From the first few times she met him, she saw his true character as a father and a person in the way he was interacting with his children. He treats them with the utmost respect and they have a bond like no other. He speaks with them with understanding and nurtures them to the best of his ability. She truly admires their relationship. 6. They have a great social life together, constantly visiting and hosting visitors. Ghassan is very close to his family and relatives, and they see at least one relative every second day. He always treats them with kindness and respect and she has never seen him allow differences of opinion to get in the way of relationships. He does not have a violent bone in his body and is a person who dislikes violence. From the time she has known Ghassan, she has not experienced a time when he would speak or treat anyone in a manner that would make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe. He has always made her feel protected and his character is something she admires. She supports his firearms licence application. 7. Mr Moustapha Moheich (Mr Moheich) is a self-employed truck driver who has known the applicant for over 20 years from their hometown Elminieh in Lebanon. He was always a responsible person, a good neighbour and kind-hearted. He strongly supports the firearms licence application because he knows that the applicant would never be involved in any trouble or disrespect in the community or his work environment. Ghassan is a well-known man in their community and a great example to their youth for all his generous contributions and his well-mannered behaviour. 8. He has never known the applicant to be violent or disrespectful, on the contrary he is a gentle, kind, respectful man. Mr Moheich understands that Ghassan was going through a divorce a few years ago and during that time there was a lack of communication and some misunderstandings. Ghassan explained to him that he had some issues and was given an AVO. 9. He does not understand that Ghassan was violent or threatening or that any issues had been made against him since the divorce. He also understands that the AVO was removed. Mr Moheich himself holds a gun licence and is always available to give Ghassan help if he is unsure. He supports Ghassan's application for a firearms licence to sort out the issues he has at the family farm with foxes eating the animals. 10. The applicant's brother and workmate, Ahmad El Ramlawie, knows the applicant and his wife and all other close and extended family. Since childhood, Ghassan has been very well-mannered, extremely polite and very well behaved. He has a strong ethic, is responsible and a trusted person in the community. 11. He has witnessed him on all occasions and his relationship with his wife was extremely respectful, no fighting or conflict in the home, except that he had issues with his mother-in-law, which towards the end of 2018 made him very unhappy and he left the marital relationship, but even during that period there was no fighting between him and his wife, except only disagreements about personal involvement of his mother-in-law. He does not believe that there was any fighting or abuse, threat or intimidation towards his wife or anyone else. Abuse or violence are not in his character and he poses no risk to the public or to anyone. 12. Mr Gabi Hadchiti (Mr Hadchiti) is a builder who has known the applicant for the past 15 years, and has regularly worked with him on jobsites. At all times, he has found him to be an honest person, extremely well-mannered and respectable. He is very polite and a very calm person in all situations. He had never witnessed him raising his voice or even swear. 13. Mr Hadchiti knows that in the past he was having issues with his in-laws, but he was always very good to his wife and children. He believes the applicant is highly responsible with high integrity among his peers and the community, and does not pose a risk to any person. 14. Mr Tarek Al Moubayed has known the applicant for over 10 years and is aware of the suspension of his firearms licence. He has known the applicant as a good friend and knows all his family and his wife. He is in regular contact with him and has often visited his home. All the time he has known Ghassan, he knows him as a person of good repute and calm demeanour. He is not a type of person that would abuse or curse or raise his voice towards his wife and children or anyone else. He does not have a violent nature and is a person of good character, posing no risk. He is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Evaluation – fitness and propriety 1. The applicant is a man aged 45 years who has lived in Australia for 21 years and has no criminal convictions. He has been a roofer for 21 years and has his own company, High Class Roofing, which he has operated for 20 years. He previously had two employees. He was married to Nora in 2002 pursuant to a religious marriage (apparently not a marriage under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth)), but in 2018 they separated as a result of irreconcilable differences over such matters as what she saw as emotional abuse and what the applicant viewed as interference by his in-laws and Nora's harsh and profane upbringing of their children. 2. They stayed together for the sake of the children but there came a point where they could not agree on anything and are now divorced. There are three children from this marriage of 16 years, and he now has a new partner of three years. The event reports arose during a relatively limited period when the strains of a marriage breakup were generating stresses, frictions, and anxieties in relation to children, money, and property. Rami stated that while he witnessed many arguments between his parents, there was never any physical assault. 3. Following the dissolution of the marriage, custody and related orders by consent have been in place since February 2021 and Nora acknowledges that both parties are in compliance. There is no longer any conflict between the parties. Their son Rami notes that there are no clashes at handover times or on other occasions. The evidence no longer raises concerns that the applicant's domestic arrangements might impair his ability to maintain proper control over firearms. 4. He was initially granted a firearms licence on 18 November 2016, but it was suspended on 15 January 2019 and revoked on 1 August 2019. He held a licence for recreational hunting and vermin control, primarily using it for vermin control at the rural property in Lake Bathurst, which covers 81 acres. During the (relatively limited) time he had a licence, he had never had any problems with the police regarding his firearms nor had he ever been charged with any firearm-related offences or any breaches of his obligations as a licence holder. 5. He has no history of violence or of threatening violence. Although the respondent's licence refusal was largely based on his involvement in domestic violence incidents, none of them actually involved any violence or threats of violence or any breach of a court order. The putative victim, Nora, did not regard herself as having suffered from physical violence, but rather from emotional and mental abuse. She denied having twice told police that there had been no physical abuse (see below), but her evidence on that point was vague and marked by unconvincing lapses of memory. She stated that at one point there had been some "pushing and shoving" (which may have been mutual, as she said in evidence that she had "defended" herself), consisting of his pushing her shoulder and arm. While that would constitute domestic violence, it lies towards the lower end of culpability for such offences, especially as it appears to have been an isolated occurrence. 6. At the time of the 18 December 2018 incident (the children's stay at Lake Bathurst), the incident report states that she told police that there had been no previous instances of domestic violence but years of verbal and mental abuse (exhibit R1, p 31), and in relation to the 15 January 2019 incident, she told police that she held no fears for her safety (p 44). At one point she did express fear for her safety because he owned firearms, but she never actually saw any. Rami witnessed regular arguments between his parents, but never saw any physical conflict, nor was he aware of any having occurred. He also did not see any firearms at the house, but only at the Lake Bathurst farm. 7. The most significant of the event reports is E72703089, 24 January 2019, relating to the damage to, or renovation of, the Merrylands residence, which is discussed above. In relation to that incident, it is important to note the applicant's uncontradicted evidence that on the night of 23 January 2019 he attended Granville police station and explained to an officer that the locks on the house that he co-owned with his wife had been changed and that security cameras had been put up without his consent. 8. He asked the officer what he was allowed to do and was told that as he co-owned the house and the other person did not gain his consent, he was entitled to remove the cameras and change the locks, provided that he gave Nora a copy of the key to the new lock, returned her cameras and made sure the house was empty. Seeking the advice of a police officer in that way is not the behaviour of a man intending to commit malicious damage or other nefarious act the next day. 9. The applicant's traffic record is unimpressive, but it has improved in recent times and he has taken active steps to improve his performance by taking the Traffic Offender Intervention Program, which he says has greatly benefited him. His record is not such as to warrant licence refusal. 10. His referees, who have all known him for a long time, praise his integrity and his respectful, responsible, and non-violent nature. Several emphasize his keen safety consciousness, partly stemming from his occupation as a roofer, but also specifically in his handling of firearms. He is highly esteemed in the community, and while not all the references detail the incidents recorded in the event reports and the fact sheets, it is likely that in a closely-knit community such as his they would be at least generally aware of them. Although the respondent was critical of the references in some respects, there does not appear to be any good reason to discount them. 11. The applicant's oral evidence was not completely satisfactory as he had a marked tendency to give protracted, convoluted and unresponsive answers to straightforward questions, making the interpreter's task difficult. He also displayed a propensity to answer questions with a rhetorical question. Nevertheless, cross-examination extending over three hours revealed no contradictions, changes of story, or significant conflicts with established facts. 12. The totality of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the possession and use of firearms without danger to the public, and I so find. The public interest 1. 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, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16. 2. The underlying principles of the Firearms 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 at [23]. The applicant's personal interest in retaining his licence is subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety. 3. As the Court of Appeal observed in Kocic v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (2014) 88 NSLWR 159; [2014] NSWCA 368 at [1], the power to grant an application under the Firearms Act places significant emphasis upon the need to control risks to public safety, with the concomitant need to assess the trustworthiness of an applicant. Similarly, in Hill v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 218, the tribunal stressed that public safety is to be given paramount consideration. 4. Tribunal decisions have pointed out that the question of potential risk to public safety is not to be applied in an absolute manner, 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]. The applicant also relied on Carroll v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2021] NSWCATAD 301 at [95]-[98]. 5. Thus, in Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2004] NSWADT 110 ("Webb") at [32], Montgomery JM when considering the question of public safety, stated that, "[i]n 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, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAD 117 at [74]. 6. The respondent submitted that the event reports raised significant concerns about the risks posed by the applicant's domestic circumstances and his intimidating behaviour, which would have the cumulative effect that it is not in the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence. The fact that domestic violence matters do not give rise to any proven charges is immaterial in the context of firearms licensing: see Hariri v Commissioner of Police [2022] NSWCATAD 5 at [60], citing Joseph v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCA 31 at [62]-[64]. 7. Ms Chenhall also pointed out that in Grenfell v Commissioner of Police [2021] NSWTCATAD 124 ("Grenfell") at [101]–[103], the applicant had a propensity for aggressiveness and threats of violence and actual violence, especially after heavy drinking. The tribunal thought that would probably remain an issue and therefore there was a risk to the public should the applicant be given access to firearms, notwithstanding that he had never misused firearms or threatened to do so. 8. In this case, however, the applicant's domestic circumstances have changed radically with the dissolution of his marriage, the making of custody and other ancillary family law consent orders, and his entry into a new relationship, now of three years' standing, which his de facto partner, Ms Rifa, describes as harmonious and supportive. His domestic arrangements are thus no longer of concern. Unlike the applicant in Grenfell, he has not been shown to have any propensity for threats of violence or actual violence, with or without alcohol consumption, and the most one can charge him with is a tendency, at least in the past, to be on occasion obdurate, high-handed, or inconsiderate. 9. He has the primary responsibility for managing the grazing property at Lake Bathurst that he owns with his brothers, and that includes controlling feral animals and other destructive vermin. It is in the public interest for law-abiding persons engaged in farming or grazing activities to have access to longarms for the protection of the environment and of primary industry. Nothing in his record suggests that his possession of firearms would create a real or appreciable risk to public safety, as understood in Webb. Conclusion 1. The totality of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence without risk to the public or the peace, and that it would not be contrary to the public interest for him to do so, and I so find. The decision under review should be set aside and a licence issued. Orders 1. Decision under review set aside. 2. A category AB firearms licence is to be issued to the applicant. ********** 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: 28 April 2023