Axiotis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 112

CITATION: Axiotis v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 112 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Emmanouel Axiotis RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, NSW Police FILE NUMBER: 033300 HEARING DATES: 22/01/2004, 10/03/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 03/10/2004 DATE OF DECISION: 06/08/2004

BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Firearms Act - firearms licence - issue of licence or permit - Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Firearms licence - issue of licence or permit - Firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 LEGISLATION CITED : Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 CASES CITED: Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70 Cusamano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 Wilson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2002] NSWADT 181 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT P McLaughlan, solicitor ORDERS: The decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the decisions of the Commission to revoke Mr Axiotis' class ABH Firearms Licences, and to refuse his application for renewal of those licences

REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1 This is an application made by Mr Axiotis to review the decision of the Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner") made on 8 July 2003 to refuse the Applicant's application, made in November 2002, for a renewal of his Category ABH firearms licence and to revoke his licence existing licence. The Applicant had held a firearms licence in various forms since 5 August 1993, and a Category ABH firearms licence from 23 December 1997 until it was suspended pending inquiries on 24 March 2003. 2 The Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal can be found in s.75 of the Firearms Act 1996 and s.38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. 3 The decision to revoke and refuse the Applicant's application renewal of his firearms licence followed his conviction in Bankstown Local Court on 6 June 2003 for two offences. The first, under s.69 of the Firearms Act 1996, of failing to notify a change of address within 7 days for which he was fined $750. The second, under clause 14 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997, of failing to provide particulars when notifying a change of address, for which he was also fined $750. The statement of reasons for the decision to cancel the Applicant's firearms licence found that the Applicant had been convicted of those offences, and stated that in those circumstances the Commissioner may revoke the firearms licence pursuant to s.24(2)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996. 4 The Applicant sought an internal review of the decision to refuse his application to renew his firearms licence by an undated letter to the Commissioner received on 28 July 2003. On 29 August 2003 a review officer affirmed the decision to refuse the Applicant's application for renewal of his firearms licence. In her reasons for decision the review officer took into account matters raised by the Applicant in his letter seeking internal review, and made the following findings of fact: - That you were issued with a Target Pistol licence on 5 August 1993 which was cancelled on 29 December 1997; - That you were issued with a Category ABH firearms licence on 23 December 1997 which was due to expire on 15 January 2003; - That you supplied to the Firearms Registry a signed Accreditation Approval (No AA0048712) dated 19 October 2001; - That your firearms licence reapplication dated 6 November 2002 advised your residential address and proposed weapons storage address as 25 Arab Road, Padstow NSW; - That as Secretary of Falcon Pistol Club and in a letter dated 27 November 2002, you advised the Firearms Registry your residential address as 25 Arab Road, Padstow NSW; - That you lodged a reapplication for a Category ABH firearms licence on 28 November 2002 for the Genuine Reason of Recreational Hunting only for Category A & B, and the Genuine Reasons of Target Shooting and Security Guard for Category H; - That your reapplication dated 28 November 2002 advised your residential address as 25 Arab Road, Padstow NSW; - That you provided as supporting documentation for your firearms licence reapplication dated 28 November 2002, a signed Accreditation Approval (No AA0048712) dated 19 October 2002; - That on 10 February 2003 you, as the nominated licence holder, signed the application for a Category H firearms licence in the name of Falcon Pistol Club, providing your residential address as 25 Arab Road, Padstow; - That the Falcon Pistol Club application dated 10 February 2003 nominated a weapons address as 36 Sunny Crescent, Punchbowl; - That the Falcon Pistol Club's Category H firearms licence, issued on 22 March 2003, specifies you as the nominated licence holder and specified the nominated weapons address as 36 Sunny Crescent, Punchbowl; - That on 24 March 2003 you attended Revesby Police Station where you advised police that you had not stored your firearms at 25 Arab Road, Padstow, for approximately two years and that you did not reside there; - That on 24 March 2003 your firearms licence was suspended; - That on 6 June 2003 you appeared before Bankstown Local Court charged with 'Licensee Fail to Notify Change of Address Within 7 Days' and 'Fail to Provide Particulars When Notifying of Address Change' where you were convicted and fined $750 plus costs on each count; - That on 8 July 2003 your firearms licence reapplication application was refused; - That on 26 July 2003 you were replaced as licence holder for the Falcon Pistol Club's Category H licence; - That you have no previous criminal history. 5 The review officer provided the following reasons for decision based on those findings: 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 refuse 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 you 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. Your undated letter requesting an internal review of the refusal of your firearms licence application states that you "shoot in a variety of disciplines" and for that you "require Categories A, B and H". However, your reapplication dated 28 November 2002 requests Recreational Hunting as the only Genuine Reason for Category A & B. I note your application would therefore not authorise your stated requirements. Failure to Notify Change of Address On 6 June 2003 you appeared before Bankstown Local Court charged with 'Licensee Fail to Notify Change of Address Within 7 Days' and 'Fail to Provide Particulars When Notifying of Address Change' where you were convicted and fined $750 on each count. I note your advice that the Falcon Pistol Club's firearms licence shows your name and current address and that this licence was issued two day's before your firearms licence was suspended on 24 March 2003. I place no weight upon this information as all evidence reviewed previously supplied by you to the Firearms Registry specifies your residential address as being 25 Arab Road, Padstow (i.e. two signed applications - being your personal firearms licence reapplication dated 6 November 2002 and the Falcon Pistol Club licence application dated 10 February 2003 - plus a letter of advice from you to the Registry dated 27 November 2002). Further, your firearms licence reapplication dated 28 November 2002 specified your weapons storage location as being 25 Arab Road, Padstow. I note that when Police attended 25 Arab Road, Padstow, they discovered it is a warehouse unit located in an industrial area. On 24 March 2003 you advised police that you no longer lived there and in fact had not stored your firearms at that location for approximately two years. However, five months earlier on 6 November 2002 you signed legal documents stating that 25 Arab Road, Padstow, continued to be the location of your weapons storage. There is no further evidence of any advice received from you by the Firearms Registry regarding a change of your residential or weapons address. I note your advice that it is "virtually impossible of any person to move to a new location and have a Police officer from licensing inspect the new location for the safe storage within 7 days'. I place no weight upon this statement as there is no legislative requirement to conduct a safekeeping inspection within seven days, merely to provide the Commissioner with the particulars of the change of address within 7 days after the change occurs. I further note that the Falcon Pistol Club weapons storage remains at 36 Sunny Crescent, Punchbowl, your current residential address, although you are no longer the licence holder of the club's Category H firearms licence. This matter has been forwarded to the Club's Coordinator, Firearms Registry, for review. False & Misleading Statements In your application dated 28 November 2002 you reapplied for a Category ABH firearms licence. Accompanying your reapplication as supporting documentation for Category H for the genuine reason of Security Guard was a signed Accreditation Approval (No AA0048712) dated 19 October 2002. Accreditation Approval No AA0048712 was previously submitted to the Registry dated 19 October 200 1. All Accreditation Approvals are uniquely numbered. The two accreditations you supplied, one year apart, have the same Approval number. There can be no other conclusion but that the original document was deliberately altered prior to its second submission to the Firearms Registry. 1 can only conclude that this may have been an attempt by you to obtain a category H firearms licence for the genuine reason of Security Guard under false pretences. Safety Training A security guard can only be authorised to carry and use a firearm if the Commissioner is assured that that person has completed the required firearms training and safety course, as prescribed by the Regulations. An additional cause for concern is that the altered document provided with your reapplication was to prove compliance with safety testing in relation to your employment as a security guard. This raises the question why you could not supply a legitimate Accreditation Approval to prove that you are a person who should be trusted to be safe with firearms. Fit & Proper Person Despite the absence of previous adverse events or convictions, the deliberate falsification of your proof of safety training is cause for great concern not only regarding your integrity, but also your ability to act in a responsible manner with respect to firearms. In considering an individual's right to be granted a licence under the Act I have formed the view that any decision should be made on the basis that the legislation imposes a duty upon the Commissioner not to issue a licence unless he is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to possess and use firearms. When considering an individual's right to hold a licence under the Act I believe that any decision should be made on the basis that the Act calls for strict Controls to be exercised regarding the fitness of individuals who seek to be licensed. The term "fit and proper" includes three things: honesty, knowledge and ability. Honesty to comply with the requirements of the firearms licence, knowledge to know what ought to be duly done to so comply, ability to comply with the licence diligently without neglecting it. The falsifying of documents, together with inconsistencies regarding information supplied to police and the Firearms Registry concerning residential and weapons storage addresses, begs the conclusion that you do not hold the law in high regard. The concept of 'fit and proper' includes a person's moral integrity and rectitude of character so that they can be trusted by the public to hold the relevant licences. I believe your actions have called your moral integrity into question. Conclusion I note that your firearms licence reapplication for category H was to support your chosen occupation as a security guard. However, not all security guard positions require use of a firearm. Additionally, in Hill v The COP it was held that a decision maker should not shy from an exercising discretion adversely to an individual merely on the grounds that the applicant/ licensee may suffer hardship and or inconvenience. While not determinative, an offence of the Act and/or a breach of a condition of licence will be highly relevant to a decision to revoke a 6 licence. The question of your honesty, together with your inability to provide a legitimate proof of safety testing, raises doubts as to your fitness to use firearms in the course of your occupation. I believe that your actions were not those of a responsible law abiding firearms user as required by the Act. Further, notwithstanding the question of your being a fit and proper person, a current Accreditation Approval must be provided to obtain a firearm licence for the purpose of being a security guard. Without the provision of this Approval I cannot be satisfied that you have completed the required firearms training and safety course. Therefore I have no discretion to issue a licence in this instance as Section (11)(3)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996 requires that the Commissioner of Police must not issue a licence unless satisfied that the applicant has completed the required firearms training and safety course, as prescribed by the Regulations in respect of the licence concerned. In determining whether or not the Registry (acting as the Commissioner's delegate) made the correct and preferable decision in exercising his discretion to revoke/refuse your licence I refer to the decision of Cusumano v COP where the Administrative Decisions Tribunal held at Para 23: "There is no guidance in the legislation in relation to how these discretions should be exercised. In my view the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act." I have therefore decided against varying the decision of the Commissioner to revoke your firearms licence. The Applicant's Evidence 6 Mr Axiotis gave sworn evidence to the Tribunal. He said that his family had purchased a house and factory unit at 25 Arab Road, Padstow in 1989. They had lived there and conducted a family transport business there until his father retired. 7 In 2000 the house at 25 Arab Road, Padstow was demolished and the block redeveloped with the old factory unit remaining. The factory was let out while this was occurring. His parents moved to a new house at 36 Sunny Crescent, Punchbowl. His firearms remained stored in a firearms safe in the factory unit. 8 From 2000 to April 2003 Mr Axiotis said that he had worked as a security guard at Sydney University. He worked four 12 hour shifts, followed by 4 days off. When working day shifts he slept at the University. The balance of time was spent between his parent's, his girlfriend's, and friend's homes. In cross-examination he said about 50% of his time was spent sleeping at the University, but none of his mail was delivered there. 9 Mr Axiotis said that in 2001 25 Arab Road, Padstow was sold. He negotiated a deal with the new owners to retain 3-4 square meters of space to store his goods, including his firearms safe, which weighs about a ton and a half. 10 In December 2002 he placed a deposit on the property at 34 Sunny Crescent, Punchbowl. The purchase of this property settled in April 2003. 11 Around Christmas 2002, he moved all his good, including his firearms, to his parents, in preparation for his purchase of the house next door. He agreed that he had not notified the Commissioner when he moved the guns. He agreed he knew he was obliged to notify, but said he had not realise that it was to occur within 7 days of the move. Mr Axiotis said he had continued to use the Arab Street address as his place of residence. He planned to change all his addresses when he moved into his own house. He agreed that this might mislead, but said he had no residential address. 12 Mr Axiotis said that he held a target pistol licence from 5 August 1993 to 29 December 1997, when it was cancelled as part of the overhaul of firearms laws following Port Arthur. He was issued with a category AB & H firearms licence on 23 December 1997 and held it until his licence was suspended on 24 March 2003. 13 As part of maintaining his licence for the purpose of use in his employment Mr Axiotis said that he has undertaken yearly courses accrediting him in the use of pistols as a security guard. Mr Axiotis said that when he satisfactorily completed a training course, certificates of accreditation are prepared in triplicate by the instructor. It was his understanding that copy is kept by the instructor, one is given to him, and one is sent to the firearms registry by the instructor. His evidence was that they are colour coded. 14 Mr Axiotis said that when he applied for his licence (Tab 4) on 6 November 2003 he did not send a copy of the accreditation dated 2002 and he did not alter the 2001 accreditation to show 2002. He did not undergo reaccreditation in 2002. He does not know how the accreditation certificate got to the firearms registry. He proposed a theory, involving a person associated with his gun club, against who he was giving evidence relating to firearms offences, placing the altered accreditation certificate in the papers he sent to the Firearms Registry. He said that the person concerned had the opportunity to see and touch his firearms licence application. Mr Axiotis agreed that this was a theory only, and that he could not prove it. He remained firm in denials that he had sent any accreditation, yet alone the apparently altered accreditation to the Firearms Registry. 15 Mr Axiotis agreed that he had pleaded guilty and been convicted of failing to notify a change of address within 7 days, and of failing to provide particulars when notifying a change of address. He said he had pled guilty having been advised by police that the offences were minor, and that a conviction would not occur with his firearms licence. 16 Mr McLaughlin referred Mr Axiotis to his application for a firearms licence, which was stamped as received by the Firearms Registry on 28 November 2002. With that application Mr Axiotis also filed a "Genuine Reason Form" outlining that he required a Category H (Pistol) licence for use in the course of his employment in the security industry. Mr Axiotis agreed that he had signed that form. In that form there was a selected a box indicating that there was attached a "current Accreditation Approval Certificate from an approved instructor for Semi-Automatic pistols and revolvers. Mr Axiotis denied that he had sent any accreditation approval with the application. 17 The copy accreditation approval which the Commissioner maintains was filed with Mr Axiotis' firearm application is date stamped as received by the Firearms Registry on 228 November 2002. It is not possible to tell from the copy Accreditation Approval Certificate provided to the Tribunal what colour the original was. The certificate bears the number AA0048712, and bears the date 18.10.2002 as the date of accreditation. The "2002" appears to have the last figure "2" written over a "1". It shows that it was forwarded to the Firearms Registry on 19.10.2002. The last figure "2"may be written over a "1". At the base of the Accreditation Approval Certificate there is the following instruction: IF FAILED, FORWARD BOTH ORIGINAL (WHITE COPY) AS WELL AS DEUPLICATE (PINK COPY) TO FIREARMS REGISTRY 18 I asked the Commissioner to clarify what colour copies of the Accreditation Approval Certificate went where, and for the original Accreditation Approval Certificate received by the Firearm Registry to be produced to the Tribunal. My reason for doing so was that if the original document was of a colour, which would not ordinarily have been in Mr Axiotis' possession, it would provide some support to his contention that he had not sent the altered Accreditation Approval Certificate to the Firearms Registry. This request necessitated an adjournment so that inquiries could be made with the firearms registry. 19 On the resumption of the hearing Mr McLaughlin told me that the Commissioner was unable to produce the original document, which had not been retained by the Commissioner. He had hoped to have an affidavit from the Manager of the Firearms Registry outlining what had happened with them, but unfortunately did not have it. Respondents Submission 20 Mr McLaughlin, for the Commissioner, submitted that it was clear that Mr Axiotis had been convicted of offences under the Firearms Act 1998 and Regulation. In committing those offences he submitted Mr Axiotis had demonstrated a disregard for provisions of the Act aimed at ensuring and monitoring the safe and secure storage and use of firearms. Those convictions were grounds for the Commissioner determining to revoke Mr Axiotis licence under s.24(2)(a) & (b)(i) of the Act. 21 Further, Mr McLaughlin submitted that the evidence before the Tribunal should lead me to conclude that Mr Axiotis, in applying for a renewal of his licence, had supplied an Accreditation Approval Certificate which had been issued on 18.10.2001 but altered to show that it was issued on 18.10.2002. As a result it appeared as if it was an accreditation current at the time Mr Axiotis made his application for renewal. Mr McLaughlin urged me to reject Mr Axiotis' denials. He submitted that Mr Axiotis had provided false and misleading information in relation to his application and that, as a consequence, I could not be satisfied that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. For these reasons, he submitted that the decision being appealed should be affirmed. The Legislation 22 In discussing the application of the Firearms Act 1996 it is important to bear in mind the principles and objects underlying the act set out in s.4 of the Act which provides: (1) The underlying principles of this Act are: (a) to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and (b) to improve public safety: (i) by imposing strict controls on the possession and use of firearms, and (ii) by promoting the safe and responsible storage and use of firearms, and (c) to facilitate a national approach to the control of firearms. (2) The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to prohibit the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns except in special circumstances, (b) to establish an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms, (c) to require each person who possesses or uses a firearm under the authority of a licence to prove a genuine reason for possessing or using the firearm, (d) to provide strict requirements that must be satisfied in relation to licensing of firearms and the acquisition and sales of firearms, (e) to ensure that firearms are stored and conveyed in a safe and secure manner, (f) to provide for compensation in respect of, and an amnesty period to enable the surrender of, certain prohibited firearms. 23 The circumstances of Mr Axiotis case raise the provisions of the Act relating to both revocation of licences and the granting of licence, given the refusal to grant his reapplication. S.24 provides for the revocation of licences and relevantly provides: … (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) … (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 (c1) if the Commissioner is satisfied that the licensee, through any negligence or fraud on the part of the licensee, has caused a firearm to be lost or stolen, or (d) for any other reason prescribed by the regulations. It should be noted that the power to revoke a licence in the under ss.(2) is discretionary, whereas revocation is mandatory under ss.1. In Cusamano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 at paragraph 23 the Deputy President said that the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act 24 With respect to the issue of licence, the Act sets out a number of general restrictions on the issue of licences (s.11) and then sets out specific restrictions on the issue of specific categories of licence (s.14 to 16). Relevantly, s.11 provides: (1) The Commissioner may issue a licence in respect of an application, or refuse any such application. (2) … (3) A licence must not be issued unless: (a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person and can be trusted to have possession of firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace, and (b) in the case of a person who has never held a licence (including a firearms licence under a previous Act), the applicant has completed, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, such firearms training and safety courses as are prescribed by the regulations in respect of the licence concerned, and … 25 It can be seen that the Commissioner has a discretion to refuse to grant a licence, and to revoke a licence, on the ground that the person concerned is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. There is no definition contained in the Act of the meaning of fit and proper. It is, however, a phrase that has been the subject of considerable exposition, both in the Courts and in this Tribunal. What is 'fit and proper' will vary depending on the nature and purposes of the role being considered. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, Chief Justice Mason said at 380: "The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration." It is clear that in determining whether Mr Axiotis is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, consideration must be given to the circumstances surrounding his convictions, not merely to the convictions themselves, as well as the improper conduct alleged against him, and the activities for which his fitness and propriety are being assessed: Wilson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2002] NSWADT 181 at paragraph 28. 26 Whether a person is possessed of the honesty and personal integrity necessary to hold a licence is also a factor to be considered in assessing whether a person is fit and proper. In Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70 Walters J said: "In my opinion what is meant by that expression is that the applicant must show not only that he is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him as the holder of a particular licence … but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public … as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails." While those comments relate to occupational licensing they are, in my opinion, applicable to the question of whether a person is fit and proper to be granted the privilege of holding a firearms licence. 27 The Firearm (General) Regulation 1997 sets out certain additional ground upon which the Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence. Of particular relevance is clause 69 which provides: (1) The Commissioner may refuse to issue a licence to a person who is employed as a security guard unless the person: (a) has completed, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, an approved firearms safety test, and (b) produces the person's class 1A licence under the Security Industry Act 1997 . (2) In addition to the firearms safety training courses required in connection with an application for a licence, a security guard who possesses a firearm must undertake, at least once a year, such continuing firearms safety training courses as may be approved. … Findings of Fact and Decision 28 While I understand the point Mr Axiotis made in relation to his moving between his parents, the university and his friends home for a considerable period of time, that does not take away from or adequately explain his convictions for offences under the Firearms Act. What is clear from his evidence is that while his weapons were stored in an appropriate safe throughout the time in issue, they were stored in factory premises, which he did not supervise on a regular basis. They were subsequently moved to his parents and stored there for a considerable time, without any effort by Mr Axiotis to comply with his obligation to notify the Firearms Registry of where they were stored. This is a blatant disregard of his obligations. The conviction for those offences was of itself sufficient ground for the Commissioner to consider revoking his firearms licences. 29 There is also the issue of the altered Accreditation Approval Certificate. Mr Axiotis denies sending this or any other Accreditation Approval Certificate to the Firearms Registry with his application in November 2002. Yet his application contains a statement in the Genuine Reason Form, signed by him, that he is annexing a "current Accreditation Approval Certificate from an approved instructor for Semi-Automatic pistols and revolvers". An examination of the copy application and accompanying forms submitted by Mr Axiotis in November 2002 shows that the Firearms Registry received them all on 28 November 2002. The altered Accreditation Approval Certificate also bears a stamp showing the Firearms Registry received it on that date. The Accreditation Approval Certificate bears the number AA0048712. That was the number that appeared on the previous Accreditation Approval Certificate supplied by Mr Axiotis to the Firearms Registry in 2001. The Accreditation Approval Certificate has obviously been altered to show it was issued in 2001 rather than 2002. 30 Mr Axiotis has offered an explanation for this which is no more than a theory. It involves someone at his gun club gaining access to his firearms application, and malevolently including with it the altered Accreditation Approval Certificate. I did endeavour to see the original altered Accreditation Approval Certificate provided to the Firearms Registry in an effort to determine whether that in anyway supported what Mr Axiotis said. That original document, however, is not available to me and I am not persuaded that its unavailability is crucial. 31 It is my view that the combination of the facts set out above relating to the completion of the Firearms Application and attached documents, and their filing at the Firearms Registry, compel the conclusion that Mr Axiotis attached the altered Accreditation Approval Certificate to his firearms application, and filed it with the Firearms Registry, as an attachment to that document. I am comfortably satisfied that he did so knowing that he held no current Accreditation Approval Certificate, and that the altered Accreditation Approval Certificate falsely represented that he did. I am similarly satisfied that Mr Axiotis thereby provided false and misleading information to the Commissioner in connection with his application for renewal of his licence. 32 This was not the act of an honest person. As a consequence, I am not satisfied that Mr Axiotis has sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character to permit him the privilege of holding a firearms licence. His convictions for offences against the Firearms Act and Regulation reinforce this, showing that Mr Axiotis has not taken his obligations under the Act seriously. Accordingly, I am satisfied he is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. I am therefore of the view the correct and preferable decision was to revoke his firearm licence. Having reached that conclusion the Commissioner was required by the legislation to refuse Mr Axiotis' for a renewal of his firearms licence (s.11(3)(a)). 33 While strictly unnecessary because of that conclusion, I would add that the Commissioner was in any case required to revoke Mr Axiotis' category H licence when it became apparent that he had failed to undertake his additional firearms training (s.24(1A)). On the other hand, I do not agree that the s.11(3) required the Commission to refuse Mr Axiotis' application for a renewal of his licence, as that provision applies to a person who has never held a licence before. 34 For the reasons set out above the decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the decisions of the Commission to revoke Mr Axiotis' class ABH Firearms Licences, and to refuse his application for renewal of those licences.