Economides v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2004] NSWADT 156

CITATION: Economides v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2004] NSWADT 156 DIVISION: General Division APPLICANT PARTIES: Andreas Economides RESPONDENT Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service FILE NUMBER: 033298 HEARING DATES: 10/03/2004 14/05/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/14/2004 DATE OF DECISION: 08/02/2004

BEFORE: Molony P - Judicial Member APPLICATION: Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit - Firearms licence - revocation of licence or permit MATTER FOR DECISION: Prinicipal matter Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 LEGISLATION CITED : Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 Firearms Act 1996 Ward v Commissioner of Police (2000) NSWADT 28; McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357; CASES CITED: FB -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 28; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Taylor v Director General, Department of Transport (2001) NSWADT 17 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENT M Buchanan. solicitor ORDERS: Set aside the decision of the Commissioner made on 29 July 2003 to revoke Mr Economides' existing Category AB Firearms Licence.

REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1 This is an application made by Mr Economides ("the Applicant") to review the decision of the Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner") made on 29 July 2003 to revoke his existing Category AB Firearms Licence. That decision was made pursuant to clause 17 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 on the basis that the Commissioner considered it not in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold the licence. 2 The Applicant sought an internal review of that decision and made written submissions, dated 29 August 2003, in support of that request. On 23 September 2003 a review officer confirmed the decision to revoke the Applicant's firearms licence. In the reasons for that decision the review officer made the following findings of fact: · That you were issued with a Category AB firearms licence for the genuine reason of recreational hunting/vermin control on 28 November 2002; · That you have been married to your wife for seven years and on 30 March 2003 she was two months pregnant - you were delighted by the pregnancy at first but your enthusiasm diminished prior to that day; · That Ms Samantha Tinker is an ex work colleague and friend of the family; · That on 30 March 2003 in a park near her residence, you told Ms Tinker you wanted a relationship with her; · That when Ms Tinker stated she was not interested in a relationship with you, you were upset and depressed and stated to her that you had no future and wanted to end your life; · That when Ms Tinker asked if you wanted to commit suicide you told her you did and would take an insulin overdose; · That you removed your wallet from your car plus a set of keys and an insulin pen, whereupon you threw your keys at Ms Tinker and stated to her "I have no future. I haven't any happiness. I haven't anything to live for"; · That you told Ms Tinker she would be looked after in your will and then, in front of her, injected yourself with insulin into your stomach; · That Ms Tinker was sufficiently concerned about your behaviour to call for police assistance; · That when police arrived 45 minutes later you were uncooperative and attempted to play down the incident, advising them you were fine and was unsure why they were called; · That police advise that you stated to them when asked about taking your life: "I have thought about it from time to time"; · That you were taken to Ryde Hospital for a medical examination where it was discovered that your blood sugar levels were down; · That you became uncooperative and agitated when the doctor tried to put a drip into your arm to deal with this problem and police were asked to assist and restrain you whilst the drip was inserted; · That you refused to cooperate with medical staff or answer their questions about the incident; · That you were assessed by the Ryde crisis team and sent to RozeIle Hospital for assessment by a psychiatrist; · That following examination by the psychiatric registrar, Dr Ninio, in which no evidence of mental illness or mental disorder was detected, you were allowed to go home; · That you wife attended your residence with police and surrendered your firearm and ammunition; · That on 2 April 2003 you were interviewed by the Acting Commander at Gladesville Local Area Command where you were angry and upset and wanted your firearm returned; 3 Based on those findings of fact the review officer concluded: The objects and principles of the Act state that firearms are a privilege and inherent in the requirements is that persons who have access to firearms must act responsibly. As the events of 30 March 2003 demonstrate, you came to the attention of police through actions that can be considered extremely irresponsible. Notwithstanding the expert psychiatric opinions that no medical evidence was found for mental illness, I am satisfied that you made threats to take your life when you were feeling depressed. In considering whether to overturn the revocation of your firearms licence, I must ensure that there is no possibility of a similar incident happening again. Notwithstanding the applicant's good character given the seriousness of the incident the public interest dictates that a decision maker err on the side of caution and, in effect, guarantee, by the revocation of the licence, that a similar incident will not be repeated. 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. I note Ms Tinker's advice that you reacted impulsively and recklessly on the day concerned but that she strongly believes that it was a natural reaction to a stressful situation which has now passed. In considering my decision I must consider is what would happen in any future stressful situation, particularly if you had access to firearms. When considering an individual's right to hold a licence under the Act I have formed the view that any decision should be made on the basis that the Act calls for strict controls to be exercised in the fitness of individuals who seek to be licensed. Conclusion The Act does not list the factors which a decision maker must take into account when deciding whether to revoke a person's licence. In those circumstances the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act as set out in Section 3 of the Act. I am not confident that you are a person who will react responsibly to stressful situations. I therefore cannot be assured that there is no risk associated with your continued possession and use of firearms. In this regard Ward v Commissioner of Police (2000) NSWADT 28 paragraph 29 provides: "The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk" Therefore, in giving paramount consideration to the underlying principles and objects of the Act and notwithstanding your previous good character, I confirm the decision to revoke your firearms licence. 4 On 21 October 2003 the Applicant lodged this application to review the Commissioner's decision. Relevant Legislation 5 The Firearms Act sets up a comprehensive scheme for licensing persons in New South Wales to possess and use firearms. The principles and objects of that Act are set out in s 3. 6 Where a person has been granted a firearms licence s 24 of the Firearms Act provides that the Commissioner may revoke it on one or more specified grounds. A licence may be revoked for any reason for which the licence would be required to be refused: s24(2)(a). S.11 (4) provides: (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3) (a), 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: (a) the applicant's way of living or domestic circumstances, or (b) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury, or (c) the applicant's intemperate habits or being of unsound mind. 7 In this matter the Commissioner relies principally on s 24(2)(d) which provide that a licence may be revoked for any reason prescribed by the Regulation. Clause 17 of the Firearms (General) Regulation 1997 (the Regulations) provides that a licence may be revoked if the Commissioner considers that it is not in the public interest for a person to whom it is issued to continue to hold it. 8 Section 11(3)(a) 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 possess firearms without danger to public safety or to the peace. 9 The Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal is found in s.75 of the Firearms Act 1996 and s.38 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. The Evidence 10 The Applicant said that he and Ms Tinker had both worked together, and had formed a friendship. He said that in March 2003 Ms Tinker had left work, was short of money and had no where permanent to live. She planned to move to Queensland in six months time, but needed to save money to do so. He said that he had suggested that she could live with his wife and himself. His wife was agreeable to this. He had also discussed this idea with her parents. He was also anxious that she return to work. 11 The Applicant said that on 30 March 2003 he arrived at the house where Ms Tinker was staying at approximately 2:00pm. He had not had lunch yet, he planned to have lunch with Ms Tinker. The Applicant said that he is an insulin dependant diabetic and that he gave himself an injection of insulin in the stomach as he got out of his car. He would usually eat half an hour after taking his medication. 12 He gave evidence said that he talked with Ms Tinker for approximately 20-25 minutes about whether she would move into the Applicant's house so she could save money. The Applicant said that Ms Tinker was uncertain about moving into his home. The Applicant said he got upset with Ms Tinker and so he went for a walk around the block. He said that as he departed he said, "I do not care about anything". He said he planned to eat when he finished his walk. 13 When he got back from his walk police approached him. Before that, he had observed a police car circling the block. They told him that there were concerns that he had taken an "overdose" of insulin. He said he started arguing with them about that, asking how he could take an overdose of insulin. By that time it was approximately 3:10pm. He said that the police surrounded him and he felt intimidated. He has still not eaten. He wanted to go to the car and get his lunch, but the police would not let him. He said that this discussion went on till about 4:00pm when the police put him in the police car. He said he kept on saying, "I have to have my lunch", but the police would not let him. By his own evidence the Applicant indicated that he left the area in police custody at 5:15pm, but the first hospital they went to had no emergency available, so they went to Ryde Hospital. On his own evidence the Applicant indicated this was some 2.5 hours after he had taken his insulin and he had not yet eaten. He explained to the Tribunal that his concern was that his blood sugar levels were dropping. The Applicant said that eventually the police took him to Hospital. 14 There are three other pieces of evidence relating to the events of that afternoon before the Applicant was taken to Hospital. The first is an internal memo prepared by Constable Taylor of Gladesville Local Area Command. Relevantly it says: On 30 March, 2003 Mr Economides attended the home of a female friend, expressing a desire to have a relationship with her. His advances were rejected due to his marital status. He became dejected, upset and immediately depressed. He informed his friend that he 'had nothing else to live for and no future.' The friend determined he was suicidal when he stated he would 'take an overdose of insulin.' Mr Economides also informed his female friend that she would have no future financial worries as he was including her in his will. Mr Economides went to his car and injected himself with his insulin pen. His friend became distressed at these actions and contacted police. When police arrived Mr Economides was unco-operative with inquiries into his welfare, however, he did express thoughts about taking his own life. He was taken to Ryde Hospital for medical examination regarding the insulin injection… 15 The second piece of evidence as to the events of that afternoon is a letter from Ms Tinker which she wrote in support of the Applicant's attempts to regain his firearms licence. In that letter she wrote: … I wish to state that while I was the concerned party who phoned the police on Sunday 30 March due to Andrew's threat of suicide and I do understand that the police were doing there job in accordance with the Mental Health Act, I do believe the confiscation of Andrews gun license was quite harsh and possibly an overreaction to Andrew's behaviour. I have spoken to Andrew many times over the last week and he seems to have calmed down considerably. He comes across as very lucid and has expressed regret about his behaviour on that day. Andrew has apologised to me and other involved and I feel that he truly means it. In hindsight, while I feel Andrew reacted impulsively and recklessly on the day concerned, I strongly believe that it was a natural reaction to a stressful situation, which has now passed, one I dare say happens to all of us at some time. I have discussed this with him and he assures me he feels well mentally and emotionally and will seek help if required to do so in the future I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. 16 In the course of the hearing Ms Buchanan made an application under s.75(2)(d) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 that the Tribunal accept a statement from Ms Tinker concerned as confidential evidence. S.75(2) relevantly provides: (2) … if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, it may (of its own motion or on the application of a party) make any one or more of the following orders: (a) … (d) an order prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceedings of evidence given before the Tribunal, or of the contents of a document lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal, in relation to the proceedings. I declined to do so being of the opinion that the need for confidentiality arose as a result of Ms Tinker's wishes and that I had no evidence before me which would justify my exercising a discretion, which would have the effect of depriving the Applicant of the opportunity to see and answer evidence given against him. I did, however, indicate that in an effort to address her concerns I was prepared to allow Ms Tinker's evidence to be given remotely, by phone or teleconference, but would not agree to the evidence being kept confidential from the Applicant. Ultimately, no evidence from Ms Tinker by way of statement or otherwise was forthcoming. 17 Finally there is a letter from the Applicant to the Firearms Registry dated 20 August 2003 in which the Applicant wrote: In reading the "Statement of Reasons" I believe there to be a lot of inconsistencies and assumptions in relation to the actual events on the 30th March 2003. It is stated that I took an "overdose of insulin" and yet in my insulin pen I did not have any more than 30 units of insulin at the time, which is certainly not an overdose. I would normally use 35 units of insulin with each meal. The pen itself will only measure out a maximum of 60 units only with any one injection. I object to the use of the word "overdose" and do not accept this as a reason to revoke my licence. I was upset the day and I had injected my self with a normal dose of insulin before taking off. I had every intension (sic) of having a meal soon after however I needed to have some breathing room off at the time. I noticed the police car circling the block and I saw the police officers watching me as they passed me by in the opposite direction and they proceeded to stop approximately 100 metres down the road. I was on my way back to my vehicle when the police finally approached me. Aside from giving the police my driver's license and personal details, my conversation with them was limited and I did not say that I had thought of taking my life from to time. I felt that I had nothing to discuss with them as I had done no wrong. Instead I feel that their actions were wrong as they detained me on the street for over one and a half hours knowing that I had taken insulin and that I needed to have a meal. They refused to allow me to leave and return to my vehicle. The second officer placed black leather gloves on his hands and surrounded me like I was a criminal and I heard him say to the other officer that we have a "mission". Every side step I took he was towering over me and standing only inches from my face. I am a very proud person and refuse to be treated in this way. I became very irritable, upset and therefore very uncooperative. It is also important to note that some time had passed and my blood sugar level was dropping. The Applicant said that this document was written by his wife for him. She verified this. The Applicant was asked about the statement in this letter that he injected insulin before taking off. He said this was wrong, that he had taken his injection when he got out of the car. 18 In cross-examination the Applicant denied that he made any advances towards Ms Tinker. He denied that he made any threats of self-harm in front of either the Police or Ms Tinker. He explained that he had become upset with Ms Tinker when she said that she was unsure that she wanted to move in with him. Because he was upset he had walked away. He denied saying to Ms Tinker that he had made provision for her in his will, or that he had nothing to live for. 19 In evidence the Applicant said that he was that he was taken to Ryde Hospital. From the time he arrived he continually asked for a coke to help balance his blood sugar levels. This was refused. He said that he had frustrated attempts to treat him, and had pulled a needle out of his arm. Only after this had he been allowed to drink and eat. The Applicant said that his wife arrived at the Hospital at around 6:30pm and has asked him for his keys, so that she could give his gun to the police. He said he had refused to give her the keys, but had relented when she had told him that she was pregnant. His wife had then gone with the police, and later returned to the Hospital. The Applicant said that after a number of hours, at around 9:00pm, he was taken to Rozelle Hospital to be assessed under the Mental Health Act. He was assessed by Dr Ninio, a Psychiatric Registrar. Dr Ninio found no evidence of mental illness or mental disorder, so the Applicant was allowed to go home. 20 In his memorandum Constable Taylor explained the events at the Hospital as follows: … He was taken to Ryde Hospital for medical examination regarding the insulin injection. The treating doctor sought police assistance when Mr Economides refused to co-operate. Subsequent tests indicated his blood sugar level was down. Further assistance was required to maintain specific treatment. Mr Economides behaviour at the time was extremely unco-operative with him hissing at the doctors. The mental health service acute crisis team were summonsed and their decision was to schedule him for assessment by a psychiatrist at Rozelle Hospital. He was later released following that assessment. Due to his irrational behaviour, concerns over his apparent unstable medical condition and his threats of self harm permission was granted by Mr Economides' wife to confiscate his firearms for safe keeping pending his question of fitness to remain the holder of his firearm's licence. The following property has been secured by police: 1 Beretta double barrel shotgun, 268 x 12 gauge live rounds and 3 x 19 x .303 rounds sealed in a box. 21 The Applicant's wife also gave evidence at the hearing. Mrs Economides told the Tribunal she had been married to the Applicant for nine years. She described him as man who gets very passionate about things, and when that occurs can come across as person who is "in your face". She said that on the evening of 30 March 2003 she had received a phone call telling her husband had been admitted to Ryde Hospital and that there were concerns about her blood sugar levels. On the way to the Hospital she was inundated with phone calls from the police concerning the whereabouts of her husband's firearms. 22 When she arrived at the Hospital she was told by police that her husband had threatened to take his life and had overdosed on insulin. They had asked her to surrender his firearm. Mrs Economides said that she was not comfortable with this request, and had said she wanted to speak to her husband first. When she did so he had been very upset. He was on a drip. He asked her to get him some coke, which she did. She discussed the police request for his firearm with him, and he refused to give her his keys. She announced to him that she was pregnant, and he agreed to surrender the firearm. She then went with police and arranged for the firearm to be moved to her father's custody. He holds a firearms licence, as do all the family. 23 Mrs Economides said that she returned to the Hospital to find that her husband was about to be transferred to Rozelle Hospital. He was transferred there by Ambulance. She followed in her own car. At Rozelle Hospital he was assessed by Dr Ninio, who spoke with both her husband and herself. Dr Ninio told her she had no concerns about her husband. 24 Mrs Economides said that she had spoken with her husband about the events of that afternoon. She said that he denied propositioning Ms Tinker or threatening suicide. He told her he had become upset with Ms Tinker and had taken his insulin and walked away. She said she thought it unfair that her husband should loose his firearms licence on the basis of Ms Tinker's interpretation of events. 25 Mrs Economides said that when she arrived at the Hospital Ms Tinker was there and had told her that the Applicant had threatened suicide. She made no mention of attempts to proposition her. Mrs Economides said that she had since spoken with Ms Tinker about the incident and that she had not said that her husband was suicidal, but had said he was "down". She had said that her husband had not made advances to her. She said Ms Tinker had been concerned that she might have acted prematurely. Ms Tinker had written the letter supporting the Applicant's attempts to regain his firearms licence at her request. 26 Mrs Economides said that she supported her husband's efforts to regain his firearms licence. She had spoken with the Firearms Registry about it and on their recommendation had arranged for her husband to see a psychiatrist, Dr Roberts, for assessment. Dr Roberts report is dated 14 July 2003. It says: I have assessed the above (Mr Economides) in relation to his suitability to hold a licence to own a firearm. The need to do so arose from him being Scheduled to Rozelle Hospital on 20/3/03. The Schedule was not upheld. Rozelle Hospital records indicate no Psychiatric Illness was diagnosed. I have interviewed Mr Economides three times and find no evidence to indicate a mental illness. I find no Psychiatric Ground to deny Mr Economides the right to hold a firearms licence. 27 On 2 April 2003 Mr and Mrs Economides saw Acting Commander Chris Welfare of the Gladesville Local Area Command in an effort to secure the return of his firearms. Mr Welfare prepared a written report of that meeting. About 2.00pm on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 I spoke with Mr Andreas ECONOMIDES of 101 Northcote Road, Earl~ at the Gladesville Police Station. At the time he was in company with his wife Angela ECONOMIDES. I firstly spoke with Mr ECONOMIDES alone with Acting Crime Manager Denise BENNETT. He told me that he wanted his firearm back. I told him that a 'Question of Fitness 'had been submitted by Constable TAYLOR. I told him that his firearm would not be returned at this stage until the question of his fitness was explored and a determination made. At the time Mr ECONOMIDES was angry and upset and wanted his firearm back. I told him that was not possible at that stage as a 'Question of Fitness' had been submitted by Constable TAYLOR. I requested his Firearms licence /permit and as he handed me the licence he told me, "If I wanted to I could go and get another firearm, you and I know that I, you could get a firearm anywhere, I am safe though I look after my firearms properly they are safe and secure!' He told me that if he wasn't going to get the firearm back he would like to make a complaint about the Constable who seized the weapon and stated the Constable threatened his wife when it was seized. He also added, 'I want him charged. " I then spoke to his wife alone with Acting Crime Manager Denise BENNETT. Mrs ECONOMIDES told me her husband's firearm was part of him and that he just wanted it back, he had been cleared by the doctor at the Hospital and did not think that he threatening suicide was an issue to do with the firearm. I told her that at this stage a 'Question of Fitness' had been submitted and I would not be releasing the firearm. It was important to explore all the details, conduct further inquiries with the medical practitioner and forward the investigation to the Firearms Registry. She told me she was not threatened by the Police seizing the weapon but gave the firearm to them but felt she was coerced. I stated that in these circumstances and I would not be releasing the firearm. I also requested she prepare a report for inclusion with the file. I then had a conversation with both of them with Acting Crime Manager BENNETT and said to Mr ECONOMIDES that at the time I would not be taking any action about his complaint as it was not true, that I would not be releasing his firearm and keeping his permit until the question of fitness had been determined. Mr ECONOMIDES became upset and said, 'You are keeping my permit, you have betrayed me." He then got up and walked out of the Local Area Command office and his wife followed. I gleaned from the meeting with Mr ECONOMIDES that he was confrontational, irrational and angry and that further exploration and investigation on his 'Question of Fitness' was essential in his case because of his irrational and angry disposition and the circumstances of the seizure. I was also concerned about his alleged ability to get firearms anywhere. 28 Neither Mr nor Mrs Economides took issue with the substance of this report. Mr Economides pointed to the fact that he had not secured another firearm as evidence of his ability to comply with firearms licensing requirement. Mrs Economides added that after events had calmed down she had stored her husband's firearm at their home, under her licence. The police had known of this. She had done so on her husband undertaking that he would not touch it. He had honoured that undertaking. Some three months after taking custody of the gun, police had asked her to place it in safe custody elsewhere, which she had done. Findings of Fact 29 In her written submissions to the Tribunal Ms Buchanan correctly summarised the factual dispute confronting the Tribunal: I would submit that we are in a situation where we have two versions of events. The first version involves the Applicant making advances towards Ms Tinker and becoming depressed after his advances were rejected. He then takes off after making comments about taking an overdose of insulin. Ms Tinker called police due to her concerns and police attended. The second version put forward by the Applicant is that he made no advances; he was just upset that Ms Tinker would not move in with him and his wife and he took off for some time before returning to find the police there. By that time because he had not eaten his sugar levels had dropped and he was uncooperative with police and later with the medical staff at the hospital. 30 The Tribunal's role is to make the correct and preferable decision having regard to all the material before it. In determining issues of fact, where the is a conflict, the Tribunal is required to do so in accordance with the civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities: McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354 at 357; FB -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2003] NSWADT 28 at para 7. I have considered whether given the allegations made with respect to the Applicant's conduct in allegedly attempting suicide, this is a case in which the Tribunal should apply the rigours of the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 to the assessment of the evidence, and require that it be satisfied of the facts relating to that alleged attempt to the extent of reasonable satisfaction. I have concluded, however, that given that the Firearms Act 1996 is essentially aimed at ensuring the protection of the public, and given that the consequences of a finding adverse to the Applicant go to the privilege to hold a firearms licence, rather than his ability to earn an income or engage in a profession, that the rigours of the Briginshaw test should not apply: Taylor v Director General, Department of Transport (2001) NSWADT 17. 31 While Ms Buchanan correctly identified the two competing versions of events before the Tribunal, and pointed to questions concerning the Applicant's version of events, she did not address the weaknesses inherent in the view advanced by the Commissioner. Those weaknesses are a lack of detail with respect to what it is alleged the Applicant actually did and the circumstances in which they are said to have occurred. In her undated letter Ms Tinker speaks of a "threat of suicide", not an attempt. She gives no details. In the memo from Constable Taylor, he writes that Ms Tinker, "determined he was suicidal when he stated he would 'take an overdose of insulin'". He also wrote that Mr Economides "expressed thoughts about taking his own life", but does not say what was said or give the context in which they were made. This statement from Constable Taylor can best be described as containing on unspecific assertion of fact, which it is extremely hard to test. The detail provided in Mr Whelan's memo is in positive contrast. The Applicant has at all times denied making any such statement or threat, or of taking an overdose of insulin. There is no evidence that he actually did so. The Respondent points the Applicant's angry response to the Police, his treating doctors at Ryde Hospital, and his heated interview with Mr Welfare, three days later, as corroborative of his emotionally instability and irrationality. 32 The Applicant has at all times given a version of the events which, if accepted, provides an innocent explanation of the days events. While his response to the police, the doctors at Ryde, and Mr Welfare, can be criticised as ill considered and heated, they are consistent with the actions of a man angered at being intercepted by police, held, taken to hospital, treated against his wishes, and scheduled, all on the basis of an allegation which was untrue. It needs also to be borne in mind that the evidence points to the fact that from the time of his interception by police, to the arrival of his wife at the Hospital, the Applicant was not allowed access to food or drink to stabilise his blood sugar levels. I have no reason to doubt his evidence that he asked Police to allow him to go to his car and eat, but was restrained from doing so. Similarly, his wife's evidence that, when she first saw him at Ryde Hospital he asked for a drink of coke, supports his evidence that he had been seeking to manage his blood levels since being intercepted. The fact that Dr Ninio, when she assessed the Applicant on the night of the incident, found no evidence of mental illness or mental disorder lends supports the Applicant's view of events, and casts further doubt on the amorphous allegations relied on by the Respondent. One would expect that a psychiatric assessment made within hours of an attempted suicide by an individual, would yield more than a finding of no evidence of mental illness or disorder. Dr Robert's later report merely reinforces this. 33 In making these observations I do not seek to minimise the questions raised by the Applicant's own account. These principally emerge from the allegation that the Applicant propositioned Ms Tinker, and then reacted to her rebuttal of him. The only evidence before me of the Applicant seeking to have a relationship with Ms Tinker is that contained in Constable Taylor's memo. Mrs Economides said she asked Ms Tinker whether her husband had made advances, and Ms Tinker denied it. There is no mention of such a proposition in Ms Tinker's letter. As a result the evidence before me on this issue consist of the Applicant's firm and consistent denials and two hearsay statements: one indicating that Ms Tinker says that the Applicant did proposition her and the other that he did not. One can no doubt argue the relative merits of these hearsay statements, and of what, if any, weight they each deserve, given whom they were made to and what they concern. The reality is, however, that in the face of the Applicant's firm and consistent denials, the evidence is not sufficient to persuade me on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant did proposition Ms Tinker and threaten suicide, or act on that threat, when she rejected him. 34 In her submissions Ms Buchanan wrote: I would also refer you to the letter of the Applicant's wife to Chris Welfare dated 7 April 2003 (see tab 4 of the Respondent's brief of evidence). Ms Economides indicated that she did not want to ignore or make light of the events of 30 March 2003. She did not go into detail as to what actually occurred on that night and when she gave evidence at the hearing she indicated that the applicant had been working long hours and was tired on the day in question. She indicated that he made a comment such as " I just want to disappear" which Ms Tinker took the wrong way when the applicant took off. No one seems to be saying what really happened on that day. I would submit is that the applicant's behaviour in taking off after injecting himself with insulin and not eating lunch (whether this was because his advances were rejected or because he was upset she would not move in with him) led Ms Tinker to believe that he meant himself harm. He did not eat after taking his insulin as he usually would and he offered no valid excuse for why he did not. The Applicant conceded that he was upset on that day. Ms Tinker also indicated that he was upset on that day and that he later expressed regret over his behaviour. I can give no credence to this submission which is pure speculation, and not consistent with the any of the various versions of events advanced in the evidence. While I share Ms Buchanan's apprehension that, "No one seems to be saying what really happened on that day", the task for the Tribunal is to determine issues of fact on the basis of the materials before it, on the balance of probabilities. For the reasons I have explained above, on balance, I accept the evidence of the Applicant as being the more likely and probable. Decision 35 The decision under review was based on a finding that the Applicant made threats to take his life when feeling depressed. The revocation of the licence was said to ensure that a similar incident did not happen again while the Applicant was in possession of a firearm. This was seen to be in the public interest. 36 Given that I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant made threats to his life when feeling depressed, or attempted suicide, I am not satisfied that there is evidence upon which I could conclude that allowing the Applicant access to a firearm poses a risk to public safety: Ward v Commissioner of Police (2000) NSWADT 28. The incident said to be evidence of the risk has not been established. On the facts, as I have found them, there is virtually no risk in allowing the Applicant to have access to a firearm. 37 In her submissions Ms Buchanan highlighted concerns which she said flowed from the Applicant's statement to Mr Welfare, that he could go and get a gun if he wanted to. Given my acceptance of the Applicant's evidence as to the events of 30 March 2003, I consider the Applicant's statement to Mr Welfare to be perfectly understandable, if intemperate, for a man trying to redress a wrong done to him. This statement is not, however, reflected in the Applicant's conduct. It is clear from the evidence that despite the concerns relating to him being a risk near weapons, his firearms remained at his home for a period of three months, in the formal custody of his wife. Throughout this time he honoured both his legal obligations and his undertaking to his wife by not touching the weapon. There is no evidence that he has otherwise contravened the Firearms legislation. His intemperate statement is not sufficient to persuade me that there is a risk to public safety in allowing him to possess a firearm. 38 For these reasons, the decision of the Tribunal is to set aside the decision of the Commissioner made on 29 July 2003 to revoke Mr Economides' existing Category AB Firearms Licence.