Hijazi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 160

CITATION: Hijazi v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 160 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Hassan Hijazi RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service FILE NUMBER: 023278 HEARING DATES: 08/04/2003 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/08/2003 DATE OF DECISION: 07/03/2003

BEFORE: Montgomery S - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Hart -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114 CASES CITED: Phegan -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 127 Tolefoa v COP (2000) NSWADT 9 Coates v COP (2001) NSW ADT 56 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: P Kintominas, barrister RESPONDENT C Capper, advocate ORDERS: The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr. Hijazi's Category AB firearms licence is affirmed.

The Application 1 These proceedings relate to a decision by the Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service ("the Commissioner") to revoke the category AB firearms licence held by Mr Hassan Hijazi. Mr. Hijazi was issued with the licence in question on 22 March 2001, and it would have been due to expire on 17 May 2006. However, this licence was revoked on 19 August 2002. Background 2 The decision to revoke Mr. Hijazi's licence followed an incident on 25 October 2001. Hurstville detectives commenced an investigation into an unrelated discharge of firearm offence and Mr. Hijazi's brother was assisting in their enquiries. Police spoke to Mr. Hijazi and requested to see his firearms. They discovered that Mr. Hijazi's firearms were stored in an unlocked cupboard in his bedroom. Mr. Hijazi stated that he was aware his firearms should have been secured, but believed that his premises was secure enough to prevent his weapons from being stolen. 3 Mr. Hijazi was subsequently charged with the offence of 'Not keep firearm safely' and he appeared before the Local Court at Hurstville on 25 October 2001 where this charge was dismissed. 4 On 4 September 2002 Mr. Hijazi sought an internal review of the Commissioner's decision to revoke his licence. The internal review was finalised on 15 October 2002 and the decision was taken that the original decision to revoke Mr. Hijazi's licence was to stand. Mr. Hijazi applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. 5 The facts of this matter are not in dispute. With the exception of the incidents associated with this particular matter, there is no issue in relation to Mr. Hijazi's conduct or character. Mr Hijazi is a responsible honest and well-respected citizen who contributes freely of his time and effort to many community and charitable organisations. Testimonials provided on his behalf support this view. He does not resile from the serious nature of his transgression and gives an assurance that such an offence will never be repeated. Reviewable decision 6 The reviewable decision is that of the Commissioner to revoke Mr. Hijazi's firearms licence. On 18 December 2002 Mr. Hijazi applied to this Tribunal for review of the Commissioner's decision. The matter was listed before the Tribunal's Deputy President on 21 January 2003 at which time she made directions for the filing of documents and the matter was listed for hearing. The matter subsequently came before me for hearing on 8 April 2003 and proceeded on that day. Applicable Legislation 7 Section 63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act") provides for the approach to be taken by this Tribunal in determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision. Section 63 provides: "63 Determinatio n of review by Tribunal (1) In determining an application for a review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it, including the following: (a) any relevant factual material, (b) any applicable written or unwritten law. (2) For this purpose, the Tribunal may exercise all of the functions that are conferred or imposed by any relevant enactment on the administrator who made the decision. (3) In determining an application for the review of a reviewable decision, the Tribunal may decide: (a) to affirm the reviewable decision, or (b) to vary the reviewable decision, or (c) to set aside the reviewable decision and make a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision it set aside, or (d) to set aside the reviewable decision and remit the matter for reconsideration by the administrator in accordance with any directions or recommendations of the Tribunal." 8 The legislation of most relevance to these proceedings is the Firearms Act 1996 ("the Act") and the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 ("the Regulation"). The objects of the Act are set out in section 3 which, insofar as is relevant to these proceedings, provides: "3 Principles and objects of Act … (2) The objects of this Act are as follows: … (e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner". 9 A licence is held subject to conditions. Section 19 of the Act sets out conditions relevant to these proceedings as follows: "19 Conditions of licence (1) A licence may be issued by the Commissioner subject to such conditions as the Commissioner thinks fit to impose. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), each licence is subject to the following conditions: (a) the licensee must comply with the relevant safe keeping and storage requirements under this Act, …" 10 The relevant safe keeping and storage requirements are set out in Part 4 of the Act as follows: "Part 4 - Safe keeping of firearms 39 General requirement (1) A person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure: (a) its safe keeping, and (b) that it is not stolen or lost, and (c) that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm. Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both, if it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the firearm concerned was a prohibited firearm or a pistol, or 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both, in any other case. (2) The regulations may specify the precautions that are taken to be reasonable precautions for the purposes of this section. 40 Category A and category B licence requirements (1) The holder of a category A or category B licence must comply with the following requirements in respect of any firearm to which the licence applies: (a) when any such firearm is not actually being used or carried, it must be stored in a locked receptacle of a type approved by the Commissioner and that is constructed of hard wood or steel and not easily penetrable, (b) if such a receptacle weighs less than 150 kilograms when empty, it must be fixed in order to prevent its easy removal, (c) the locks of such a receptacle must be of solid metal and be of a type approved by the Commissioner, (d) any ammunition for the firearm must be stored in a locked container of a type approved by the Commissioner and that is kept separate from the receptacle containing any such firearm, (e) such other requirements relating to security and safe storage as may be prescribed by the regulations. Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both. (2) A licensee does not have to comply with the requirements of this section if the licensee satisfies the Commissioner that the licensee has provided alternative arrangements for the storage of firearms in the licensee's possession that are of a standard not less than the requirements set out in this section." 11 The Regulation makes provision for the issue of a licence only if the applicant understands the requirements of the Act concerning firearm safety and storage. Clause 7 of the Regulation provides: "7 Licence applicant's understanding of requirements concerning firearm safety and storage Before being issued with a licence, the applicant must prove to the Commissioner's satisfaction: (a) that the applicant is aware of, and understands, the requirements of the Act concerning firearm safety and storage, and (b) that the applicant will, if issued with a licence, be able to comply with those requirements." 12 The power of the Commissioner to revoke a firearms licence is set out in section 24 of the Act as follows: "24 Revocation of licence (1) A licence that authorises a person to possess or use a firearm is automatically revoked if the licensee becomes subject to a firearms prohibition order or an apprehended violence order. (1A) The Commissioner must revoke a licence that is held for the purpose of employment as an armed security guard (within the meaning of the Security Industry Act 1997) if the licensee has failed to undertake any firearm safety training required under this Act or the regulations. (2) A licence may be revoked: (a) for any reason for which the licensee would be required to be refused a licence of the same kind, or (b) if the licensee: (i) supplied information which was (to the licensee's knowledge) false or misleading in a material particular in, or in connection with, the application for the licence, or (ii) contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations, whether or not the licensee has been convicted of an offence for the contravention, or (iii) contravenes any condition of the licence, or (c) if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or (d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations. (3) The Commissioner of Police may revoke a licence by serving personally or by post on the licensee a notice stating that the licence is revoked and the reason for revoking it. (4) The revocation of a licence by such a notice takes effect when the notice is served or on a later date specified in the notice. (5) The Commissioner may, by serving a further notice on the holder of a licence, cancel a notice revoking a licence before the notice takes effect." 13 The Commissioner may also revoke a firearms licence on public interest grounds pursuant to clause 17 of the Regulation. Clause 17 provides as follows: "17 Revocation of licence - additional reasons In accordance with section 24(2)(d) of the Act, a licence may be revoked if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for the person to whom it is issued to continue to hold it." Mr. Hijazi's case 14 Mr. Hijazi appeared and presented oral evidence on his own behalf and was subjected to cross-examination. A testimonial from Councillor Shaoquett Moselmane of Rockdale City Council was put in evidence in support of Mr. Hijazi's good character. Mr. Hijazi does not dispute the Commissioner's chronology of events. His case is essentially that the circumstances of his case do not justify the revocation of his licence. Mr. Hijazi also provided a written statement which purported to address some of the Commissioner's concerns and provides a reasonable outline of his case. That statement provides: "I am 27 years of age having being born in 1975 and have no criminal convictions. I am a director and 50% shareholder of Himak Constructions Pty Ltd, a building and construction company. The other director and 50% shareholder is my business partner Michael Makki. The house, in which I currently reside, stands at the rear of the property at 1 St. Georges Road. At the front of the property is a separate house in which my father Khoder Hijazi, my stepmother and their children (my half brother and sisters) reside. When I applied for a gun licence in March 2001, I was then residing at 1/32-34 St. Georges Road, Bexley. I was living there with my wife and first daughter who was born on 1 February 1999 and was then aged just over 2 years. The premises at 1/32-34 St. Georges Road, was a Villa unit. The windows had strong wire mesh covering which could not be easily penetrated and were further protected by strong iron shutters. In addition two of the bedrooms of the villa (including the master bedroom) which had external windows, also had a sensor movement alarm, as did the living room where the front door was situated. The front door had a deadlock and I also had a deadlock installed on the master bedroom. In July 2000 I had on behalf of my father submitted a development application to Rockdale Council to build a two-story home at the rear of his property. Council rejected the original application and a further plan for a single storey dwelling was submitted towards the end of 2000. The intention of my father and myself was at all times that I would move into the proposed dwelling at the rear of the premises as soon as the construction was complete. In March 2001 when I applied for the gun licence I had expected that approval for the development application would be quickly forthcoming and I would be able to move into the new home within three months. In those circumstances I have decided to postpone the installation of a gun safe until the house was completed. I understand and accept that it was wrong to keep the firearms at my home, without installing a gun safe. I kept them hidden in a wardrobe in the bedroom (not the hallway as appears in one of the reports) well out of reach of my two-year-old child. I made it a practice never to bring any ammunition home and I had the deadlock installed to the bedroom door for extra security. Development applications usually go through Rockdale Council within 6-8 weeks. The development application for my current home was not approved until February 2002. The house was built in under nine weeks following Council granting approval. Throughout the course of 2001 I had been expecting Council approval for the building application would be forthcoming quickly. I am still mystified why it took so long. If I had realised in March 2001 that I would not be able to move into the new home until April 2002 I would have gone ahead and installed the gun safe immediately. On 25 October 2001 Police left a message for me to contact them with my wife, they did not enter the premises at 1/32-34 St. Georges Road, Bexley. As soon as I got the message, I delivered the rifle and shotgun to them. The Police were later satisfied that my rifle and shotgun had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime that they were investigating in respect of Hussein my half brother. I voluntarily made a statement to the Police after delivering my rifle and shotgun to them. The Police did not inspect my home and found out about my not having a gun safe because I told them. I was in due course summonsed for two offences for not keeping a firearm safely. These matters came on for hearing before Magistrate Kevin Maughan at the Sutherland Local Court on 4 June last year. At that hearing the informant confirmed that the two firearms had had no connection with the offence that they were investigating and also confirmed that he accepted that I was an honest, decent citizen. His Worship accepted the submissions of my Counsel and concluded it was unfair in all the circumstances to admit my Statement to the Police in evidence against me and excluded it pursuant to the provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act 1995. I have never at any stage permitted Hussein to have access to my firearms and have no intention of doing so in the future. He had no keys to my previous residence and it would not have been possible to gain access to the bedroom without the knowledge and consent of either my wife or myself. Only my wife and myself have keys to my current house which although stands on the same allotment as my father's residence is completely separate and unconnected to it. I have obtained a quote and am ready to install an appropriate gun safe in my current premises immediately if the Tribunal sees fit to restore my licence. I undertake not to collect my rifle and shotgun from the Police until the gun safe is actually installed. I was prior to the Police obtaining my firearms a member of the Sporting Shooters Association and regularly practiced at the shooting ranges at Malabar and Peakhurst. I always went with my business partner Michael Makki who is also a licensed shooter … On occasions I also went shooting vermin on country properties by invitation of the owners of those properties. All my shooting activities were in the company of Mr Makki. In the event that the Tribunal has reservations about permitting me to obtain my firearms licence because of my half brother, Mr Makki is agreeable to allowing me to store the shotgun and rifle in his gun safe, which he has installed in his premises." 15 Mr. Kintominas, counsel for Mr. Hijazi, referred to the unusual circumstances that brought Mr. Hijazi's conduct to light. There was no breach of the peace by Mr. Hijazi or any suggestion of such a breach. There was no danger posed publicly. Mr. Hijazi had done his duty and cooperated with the Police. It is conceded that Mr. Hijazi failed to comply with the letter of the law but Mr. Kintominas submitted that if it is put in context there were mitigating circumstances. 16 Mr. Kintominas submitted that no negative inference should be drawn by Mr. Hijazi's indication of his proposed future address on his firearms application. He argued that it was reasonable for him to believe that he would have in fact been residing there within a short time because of the usual course of development applications and the building program. It was the intervention of unforseen circumstances that lead to the delay and change of plans. 17 The firearms were kept in room with no practical outside access. Both the front door and the bedroom doors had deadlocks. If there were a break-in, a sensor alarm would have been activated before the intruder reached the deadlocked bedroom. Because of the level of security, these circumstances should be distinguished from those in which a firearm is stored in an unlocked cupboard. Mr. Hijazi never took ammunition home, the firearm was stored 1.8 metres off the floor and it was not accessible to his children. 18 Mr. Kintominas submitted that there was truly minimal risk resulting from Mr. Hijazi's method of storage. It represents one of the least offensive examples of a breach of the legislative storage requirements. Mr. Hijazi has no conviction. The issue is therefore whether he can be trusted in the future. He has been without his licence since November 2001. This has effectively served as an 18 month suspension. Mr. Hijazi has experienced the concern of facing criminal charges and has also incurred the costs associated with defending those charges and the costs of prosecuting the application to this Tribunal. 19 Mr. Hijazi's brother is no more than Mr. Hijazi's next door neighbour. No guilt should be placed on Mr. Hijazi because of his brother's conduct or because of the family relationship. He concedes that the situation would be quite different and there may have been legitimate reasons for concern if Mr. Hijazi's brother resided in the same house but this is not the case. 20 Mr. Kintominas relied on submissions made by Mr. Tregenza of Counsel in the matter of Hart -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114 in which Mr. Tregenza challenged the findings of the Tribunal's Deputy President in Phegan -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 127. Those submissions are not repeated here but views I expressed in that matter will be discussed below. 21 Mr. Kintominas referred to Mr. Hijazi's undertaking that, in the event that the Tribunal has reservations about permitting him to recover his firearms licence because of his brother, Mr Makki is agreeable to allowing Mr. Hijazi to store the firearms in his gun safe, which he has installed in his premises. He asserts that the Tribunal should conclude that Mr. Hijazi has learned his lesson and that despite his failure he is a law abiding and will comply with the law in the future. Mr. Kintominas submitted that Mr. Hijazi is no threat to the public and therefore there is no reason why he should not have his licence reinstated. The Commissioner's case 22 The Police Service's file was put in evidence and the Commissioner relied on the documents contained within that file. The Commissioner's case is essentially that outlined in the reasons provided following the internal review. With the exception of the particular circumstances of the case, there is no general suggestion that Mr. Hijazi is not a person of good character. However, the Commissioner considers that there is a public interest issue to be considered and that the interest of public safety must outweigh any personal interests that Mr. Hijazi might have in possessing his firearm. The Commissioner has concerns about Mr. Hijazi being the holder of a firearms licence due to his failure to comply with the legislative storage requirements. 23 Mr. Capper, for the Commissioner, conceded that Mr. Hijazi is a person of good character and also concedes that no conviction was recorded against Mr. Hijazi in relation to the breach of the storage requirements. 24 The Internal Review Reasons on which the Commissioner relies provided in part: " D. REASONING PROCESS: The Firearms Act 1996 ('Act') sets up a scheme for licensing people to possess and use firearms. There are several provisions, which allow the Commissioner to revoke a licence. I have formed the view that the legislative provisions listed above are relevant to your particular case. Further, I have noted the abovementioned issues raised by your solicitor in support of your application. After fully and independently considering all relevant matters I make the following fresh determination. In 1996, the government enacted "tough new gun laws". One of the underlying principles of that law is to improve public safety by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms. In considering your request to have the decision to revoke your firearms licence overturned I have given consideration to the submissions made on your behalf by your solicitor and I have weighed these against the principles of the Act. I have formed the view that notwithstanding the fact that the unsafe keeping offences against you were dismissed by the Sutherland Local Court, I am not satisfied that your actions promote community confidence. Whilst I accept the submission of your solicitor that the Local Court dismissed these charges, I remain satisfied that your firearms were being kept unsafely namely, inside a wardrobe in your bedroom. I note that you were issued with a firearms licence as recently as March 2001 and that the discovery of your firearms occurred in October 2001, only six months after the issue of your licence. It is noteworthy that when making an application for a firearms licence, individuals sign and declare to understand and comply with the relevant safekeeping provisions of the Act should they at any time possess and/or own firearms to which the licence applies. In my opinion, you have disregarded the conditions upon which you were granted your licence and in doing so you have acted in direct contradiction to the underlying principles and aims of the Act and I do not have confidence in your assertion that you will now observe all conditions and requirements relating to this licence (including safe storage requirements). As quoted in the Firearm Bill Second Reading speech the underlying principles and aims of the Firearms Act 1996 are to confirm firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the over riding need to ensure public safety by imposing strict controls on same. It is my view that in keeping your firearms in your bedroom wardrobe you placed members of the public at risk, Ensuring that firearms are stored in a safe and secure manner decreases the likelihood that they will contribute to an accidental, or deliberate injury or death or, that they may be used by the criminal element in committing offences of violence against the community. I concede that this is the first time you have come to adverse notice with respect to firearms and your character is not in question. However, the issue of public interest is operated in the absence of character defects with respect to exercising discretion adversely to an individual. I refer to Tolefoa v COP (2000) NSWADT 9, which provides: "(Public interest) is an inherently broad concept giving the appellant the ability to have regard to a wide variety of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual. As the possibility of refusing an application on the ground of character is dealt with elsewhere in the same section, it is reasonable to infer that the parliament intended the public interest discretion to operate in areas to which the character found was not relevant or, possibly, in circumstances where an objection on character grounds would not be sufficient in its own right to warrant objection." Another concern with respect to you having possession of firearms is your present domestic situation whereby your brother, Hussein (Sam) Hijazi, resides at your home. Information provided by local police authorities state that he is presently on bail for the offences of: · 'Malicious Wounding'; · 'Robbery'; · 'Affray'; and · 'Detain person for advantage'. In addition to the above charges your brother is presently the subject of an Apprehended Violence Order that does not expire until 27 March 2004. These facts, I believe, raises serious concerns with respect to the issue of firearms being present within your residence at which your brother resides. Further, I hold the view that this domestic living situation compromises your ability to ensure that firearms kept at your residence would not be misused. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that your domestic circumstances are conducive to the presence of firearms and if firearms were present the safety of the public would be jeopardised. The interests of the public in certain circumstances include its interest in its own safety, in maintaining the principle that individual access to firearms is a conditional privilege not a right and its related interest in tight, strict and fair control of the presence of weapons in the Australian community. These interests are clearly reflected in the principles and objects of the Act. Notwithstanding that you were not convicted of the firearms offences and that there is no suggestion that you used your firearms irresponsibly, in Coates v COP (2001) NSW ADT 56, pp 33-34, the Tribunal held that the decision maker would be justified in revoking a licence if there is evidence sufficient to give rise to a finding that a licence holder may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms in the absence of conviction of a criminal offence or evidence that a firearm has been used irresponsibly or unsafely. Having considered the aforementioned, and with a focus upon public safety, I would find it difficult to convince the public that you can continue to demand their trust and confidence as a firearms licence holder. I hold the view that such trust and confidence was breached by your disregard and failure to comply with the important safe keeping conditions incumbent upon you as a firearms licence holder. In addition, it is my opinion that due to your present domestic circumstances you cannot promote community confidence or guarantee that firearms in your possession will not be misused. Accordingly, in light of these issues I do not consider that it would be in the interest of the public for you to hold a firearms licence." 25 Mr. Capper argued that Mr. Hijazi's failure to store the firearms safely placed the public at risk. In these circumstances there is a legitimate concern in relation to public safety. Mr. Capper submitted that that concern is not reduced because the firearms were not the subjects of any breach of the peace. He said that there was nothing to stop Mr. Hijazi installing a gun safe at his father's house and storing his firearms there. There is no evidence that he approached his landlord about installing a gun safe at his former residence. Nor is there any evidence of why Mr. Hijazi could not have stored the firearms at Mr Makki's premises. 26 Mr. Capper referred to the decisions of the Tribunal's Deputy President in Phegan and he argued that Phegan provides that, prima facie, if there is a breach of the storage requirements of the legislation, a licensee will lose their licence unless they can show some good reason why that should not be the case. He submitted that for the Tribunal to set aside a revocation decision based on failure to store firearms safely an applicant must show that there are persuasive and relevant considerations that take their matter outside the ordinary case. 27 He submitted that Mr. Hijazi's circumstances were not out of the ordinary. Mr. Hijazi could have and should have ensured that the firearm was safety stored. The legislation establishes a strict regime to be followed. Mr. Hijazi had the opportunity to install appropriate storage and he could have complied with the legislative regime. Mr. Capper argued that the Commissioner has the power to revoke the licence if a licensee does not comply with the safe storage requirements. 28 Mr. Capper also referred to the fact that when he applied for the firearms licence he had given incorrect information about where the firearms would be stored. He argued that Mr. Hijazi has not adequately explained this misinformation and urged the Tribunal to draw a negative inference from it. 29 He submitted that Mr. Hijazi, as a licensee, has obligations. He was aware of those obligations but failed to meet them and in doing so has put the public at risk. Mr. Capper argued that there is nothing in the circumstances of this matter to take it outside the ordinary case. Nature of proceedings 30 I note that both Mr. Kintominas and Mr. Capper made reference to the decision of the Deputy President in the matter of Phegan. I considered arguments in regard to Phegan in some detail in my recent reasons for decision in the matter of Hart -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 114. I do not propose to repeat that analysis here, however in Hart I expressed the view that these are not adversarial proceedings in which Mr. Hijazi carries an onus of proof. 31 Mr. Hijazi does not take on the responsibility of having to prove a case, nor does he cause the Commissioner to have to prove a case. Mr. Hijazi and the Commissioner are before the Tribunal as parties by virtue of section 67(2) of the ADT Act. The Tribunal makes its own decision in place of the Commissioner's, and there is no presumption that the Commissioner's decision is correct. 32 I must consider all relevant circumstances and the subject matter of Mr. Hijazi's breach of the storage requirements is a highly relevant consideration. In my view it is also highly relevant that Mr. Hijazi had only held a firearms licence for a short time and he had never satisfied the storage requirements. As I have observed elsewhere, since breaches of the storage requirements erode the protection of public safety, there would need to be other persuasive considerations before I would be prepared to set aside the Commissioner's decision. Findings Generally 33 I have considered all of the evidence and the oral argument presented before the Tribunal. In particular I have reached the following findings of fact: · Mr Hijazi is a responsible honest and well-respected citizen who is an active member of the community who goes out of his way to help those in need; · on 22 March 2001 Mr. Hijazi was issued with a Category AB firearms licence for the 'genuine reason' of 'Target shooting' and 'Recreational Hunting/vermin Control'; · on 25 October 2001 Hurstville detectives commenced an investigation into an unrelated discharge of firearm offence and Mr. Hijazi's brother was assisting in their enquiries and as a result Mr. Hijazi was spoken to by police who requested to see Mr. Hijazi's firearms. Mr. Hijazi's firearms were stored in an unlocked cupboard in his bedroom; · on 4 June 2002 Mr. Hijazi appeared before the Sutherland Local Court for two offences of 'Not keep firearm safely - not prohibited firearm' which were dismissed; · Mr. Hijazi is aware of his responsibilities with respect to the safekeeping of firearms. He regrets the failure to comply with the legislative storage requirements and he has obtained a quotation for a gun cabinet which satisfies those requirements; · Mr. Hijazi has no criminal history or adverse firearms history; · if his licence is restored and firearms returned Mr. Hijazi intends to comply with the legislative requirements in regard to the storage of the firearm. 34 The principal issue that I have to decide is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if Mr. Hijazi's licence is reinstated. Before a licence is issued, the Commissioner must conclude that there is virtually no risk to the public associated with the issue of the licence. In these matters the Tribunal stand in the shoes of the Commissioner and must assess that risk. The likelihood of risk must be assessed by reference to the applicant's prior conduct. Mr. Hijazi has breached certain provisions of the Act in relation to safe keeping of firearms even though he was not convicted of those offences. Against this must be weighed his undisputed good character and his undertaking as to future conduct. Mr. Hijazi does not have a long history of firearms use and compliance with the legislative storage requirements that is incident free. This is in fact an ongoing breach rather than a single incident of failure to comply with the legislative requirements regarding storage of firearms. 35 I am persuaded by Mr. Hijazi's arguments in relation to his failure to provide accurate information on his firearms licence application. While there is no doubt that the information that Mr. Hijazi provided was inaccurate, I draw no negative inferences in regard to Mr. Hijazi's character in relation to this issue. Nor do I draw any negative inferences in regard to Mr. Hijazi's character because of his brother's conduct. I am satisfied that Mr. Hijazi's brother had no access to Mr. Hijazi's firearms. 36 However, I consider Mr. Hijazi's failure to comply with the legislative requirements regarding storage of firearms as extremely serious. One of the underlying principles of the Act is the improvement of public safety by promoting the safe and responsible storage of firearms. Ensuring that firearms are stored in a safe and secure manner decreases the likelihood that they may be used in committing serious offences against the community. It is clear from the legislation that Parliament has identified the safe storage of firearms as a central and critical objective of the legislation. Those principles and objectives have been reinforced in numerous decisions of this Tribunal. Mr. Hijazi's breaches must be viewed with reference to them. Parliament did not leave the manner in which firearms are to be stored to the discretion of licence holders but instead elected to impose detailed and prescriptive requirements on all licences. 37 I note the evidence that was presented in regard to the level of security that existed at Mr. Hijazi's premises. I find that this goes some way to mitigate the gravity of the breach. However, I also note that there were options available to Mr. Hijazi, which would have allowed him to comply with the statutory requirements to safely store his firearms. Mr. Hijazi has acted in complete disregard of those requirements. 38 Responsibilities extended to licence holders are of a serious nature and licence holders must not only understand and comprehend the guidelines and laws that govern them, they also must act in accordance with them. Mr. Hijazi's actions suggest that he did not fully appreciate the importance of strict observance of those obligations. In my view, Mr. Hijazi would need to be able to demonstrate such an appreciation before the public to be comfortable with his holding a firearms licence. At this time I am unable to say that he has sufficient appreciation of the importance of strict observance of his obligations as a licensee. It follows in my view that the correct and preferable decision is that Mr. Hijazi's firearms licence should not yet be returned. Accordingly I affirm the Commissioner's decision. 39 In my view, Mr. Hijazi would benefit from undertaking a course in relation to the use and safe storage of firearms. If Mr. Hijazi were to reapply for a firearms licence and were he able to satisfy the Commissioner that he has sufficient appreciation of the importance of strict observance of his obligations as a licensee, the Commissioner may well reach a different conclusion. Orders The Commissioner's decision to revoke Mr. Hijazi's Category AB firearms licence is affirmed.