Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hawkins v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2011] NSWADT 190 Hearing dates: 21 June 2011 and 29 July 2011 Decision date: 08 August 2011 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: P H Molony, Judicial Member Decision: The decision of the Commissioner of Police is affirmed Catchwords: Firearms Act - firearms licence - revocation - public interest Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 Firearms Regulation 2006 Cases Cited: Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657 Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 Huckel v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2008] NSWADT 347 Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276 Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116 Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 Wilkinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 59 Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 75 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard Neil Hawkins (Applicant) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Respondent) Representation: R Hawkins (Applicant in person) J Tillot (Respondent agent) File Number(s): 113072 REasons for decision Introduction 1Mr Hawkins has asked the Tribunal to review a decision made by the Commissioner of Police to revoke his category ABC firearms licence on public interest grounds. Background 2Mr Hawkins is an 89-year-old World War II veteran, who lives alone on his own property in rural NSW. He suffered injuries to his back and neck during his air force service during the war. Those injuries persist to this day. They can cause him significant pain and difficulty. Of recent years Mr Hawkins embarked on the preparation of a study of land use in his local area. Long hours spent sitting at a desk writing aggravated his injury, causing him, at times, intense pain and compromising his ability to walk and undertake day-to-day tasks. 3Mr Hawkins says that he was raised with firearms and strictly drilled by his father in their safe use and storage. He has had a firearms licence, in various forms, for many years. Since September 1998 he has been the holder of a category ABC firearms licence under the Firearms Act 1996 . 4Mr Hawkins told me that his principle use for his firearms in recent years had been for the destruction of stock and the elimination of myna birds from his garden. He said that between 2006 and 2008 he had effectively eliminated the mynas from his property. While he no longer has a lot of stock he does have two horses of advanced age, and will use his firearms to put them down when their time comes. 5Mr Hawkins owns two weapons: a Winchester bolt-action .22 rifle, and a Stirling .22 semi-automatic rifle. The latter is his weapon of choice. He keeps the Winchester for use by family members. Both have always been stored in a heavy, solid, lockable tool chest (not a tool box) on his property. This was the subject of a safekeeping inspection in May 2004, and was passed by the inspecting police officer. 6In May 2010 a further safekeeping inspection was conducted. Due to a change in safekeeping requirements Mr Hawkins's arrangements for the storage of his weapons did not pass that inspection. He was told that: * It required three locking points. * The padlock fitted was insufficient. * The tool chest was not adequately fastened to the wall and the floor. 7For reasons that have not been explained, a report of that inspection was not entered on the COPS database. This meant that until documents relating to the inspection were found shortly before the first day of hearing, neither the Police generally, nor officers of the Firearms Registry, were aware of the inspection and its result. 8Mr Hawkins could not effect the modifications to the tool chest himself, so he sought the assistance of a locksmith - who was also the son of a man he had served with in the war - to bring his tool chest up to acceptable firearms safekeeping standards. The advice from the locksmith was that this was not a simple task. That being the case Mr Hawkins asked the locksmith, who Mr Hawkins was aware had his own gun cupboard, whether he would store Mr Hawkins's firearms. The locksmith agreed. Before giving the locksmith the firearms for storing Mr Hawkins removed the stock, fore grip and bolt of the Winchester, and the stock, fore grip and magazine from the Stirling semi-automatic. He retained these, while the locksmith stored the barrels. Mr Hawkins regarded this as a common sense safety precaution. Unfortunately, the locksmith was not licensed to possess or use Category C firearms (the Stirling). 9By an undated letter received at the Firearms Registry on 9 November 2010 Mr Hawkins advised of the address where his firearms were now stored. By another letter, dated 25 October 2010, but also received on 9 November 2010, he advised that he had lost his firearms licence and requested a replacement. 10On 11 November 2010 Mr Hawkins attended the local Remembrance Day service. He said that this required him to spend many hours on his feet. This resulted in a severe aggravation of his neck and back injury, causing him significant pain and limiting his ability to move freely. This flare up of his back and neck condition continued for some weeks. 11On 26 November 2011 the Firearms Registry wrote to the Police Local Area Commander advising - On 9 November 2010 a letter was received (see attached copy) from Richard HAWKINS which indicated that his firearms had been moved to the above-mentioned Firearm safe storage address. Richard HAWKINS has further indicated that he lost his firearms licence and required a duplicate licence. As a result of the above-mentioned letter being received at this Office, Richard HAWKINS was contacted via telephone on 25 November 2010. During this conversation Richard HAWKINS appeared confused when questions relating to his licence / firearms were put to him. When asked who had possession of his firearms Richard HAWKINS could not answer, all that he knew about the person who had possession of his firearms was that he was a locksmith and the person had told him that his father had served in the war with him. Richard HAWKINS indicated that Police had attended his residence (date unknown) and his firearms were stored in a tool box. Richard HAWKINS has indicated that he was advised by Police that he could not store his firearms in this manner unless he obtained three padlocks. (Note: there is no COPS Event recorded which suggests that Police have attended the premises for a firearm safe storage inspection). In relation to his lost firearms licence, when Richard HAWKINS was advised that he would have to attend the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) to have another firearms licence issued, Richard HAWKINS indicated that he was not going to have this completed and that he would just wait until his firearms licence is renewed next. He also could not remember ever getting his firearms licence issued at the RTA. Richard HAWKINS further stated that he does not use his firearms anymore due to his eyesight being poor. At the conclusion of the telephone conversation, Richard HAWKINS was distressed and believed that the adjudicator contacting him was trying to upset him. Checks have been completed of the address which the letter received on 9 November 2010 indicates where the firearms are currently stored. These checks have revealed that there is only one firearms licence holder at this residence... 12The letter went on to advise that the locksmith did not hold a Category C licence. It requested, among other things, that Police - * Confirm with Mr Hawkins the location of his firearms and that he is a primary producer with a genuine reason to hold firearms. * Seize the firearms if they were stored with the locksmith, 13Mr Hawkins has at all times denied saying that he did not use his firearms due to poor eyesight, and insists that his eyesight is good. 14As a result of the request police attended at Mr Hawkins's property on 1 December 2011. Senior Constable Schmidt was accompanied by Sergeant Keevers and Peter Lawler (a police student). There is considerable debate as to the precise events that then occurred: who said what, and in what manner. I have heard evidence from both Senior Constable Schmidt and Mr Hawkins concerning this. They were each in agreement that when police arrived at 9am in the morning Mr Hawkins was resting in a chair by the carport. 15Mr Hawkins's view of the Police attendance is that he was surrounded by three police officers who tried to intimidate and bully him. They were bent on suspending his firearms licence and did so. He does agree that he was unable to recollect the name of the locksmith with whom he had stored his firearms (as he was throughout the hearing). He also agrees that they told him that the locksmith did not have the necessary firearms licence to be able to possess and store a category C firearm. His view is that the actions of the police, in suspending his firearms licence (and the subsequent revocation), defies common sense. As he sees it, he did everything in his power to ensure the safe storage of his firearms. 16Senior Constable Schmidt's evidence was that, when told that the locksmith did not have the appropriate licence, and that, as a result, the firearms would be seized, Mr Hawkins became aggressive. He described Mr Hawkins as frail and noted that he did not get to his feet at all. Senior Constable Schmidt gave evidence of the following conversation occurring after + was told that his firearms would be seized - He Said -"I don't want you taking my guns. Haven't you blokes got anything better to do than going around harassing war veterans? I was in the war you know. You're just trying to upset me" I Said - "Are you a primary producer?" He Said - "Yes." I Said - "What is the genuine reason for you to possess and use firearms?" He Said -"To put down beasts." I Said - "How often would you need to do that?" He Said - "Not very often." I Said - "How often would you use a firearm?" He Said - "Not often, I have trouble walking, I am in a lot of pain and my eyesight isn't that good." I Said - "Unfortunately Mr Hawkins, I am going to have to seize your firearms." 17Senior Constable Schmidt said that, despite attempts to explain the situation to him, Mr Hawkins remained argumentative and 'kept talking about the war and how I was upsetting a war veteran.' Senior Constable Schmidt said he formed the view that Mr Hawkins may have dementia. 18Mr Hawkins disputes Senior Constable Schmidt's version of these events, in particular denying that he said his eyesight wasn't good. 19By a letter dated 9 December 2010 the Firearms Registry made a decision to revoke Mr Hawkins's firearms licence on the basis that it was not in the public interest that Mr Hawkins hold a firearms licence. 20Mr Hawkins sought an internal review of that decision on 18 January 2011. On 31 January 2011 the decision was affirmed on internal review. 21Mr Hawkins then sought review of that decision in this Tribunal. The first day of hearing 22The hearing took place on 21 June 2011 at Wollongong, when I heard evidence from Senior Constable Schmidt and Mr Hawkins. 23A number of factors associated with Mr Hawkins's appearance and presentation on the first day of hearing at Wollongong caused me some concern, and led to my wishing to hear from Dr Grant. 24When Mr Hawkins arrived at the hearing, he was unable to walk into the hearing room without assistance, but was assisted into the room by being rolled on a chair with castors. He had significant difficulty hearing what was said, such that I had to leave the bench and sit in the body of the court, in close line of sight, so that he could hear me and see my lips move. Mr Hawkins told me that he is good at reading lips. During breaks in the hearing Mr Hawkins required assistance in getting to the bathroom. 25In the hearing Mr Hawkins's train of thought wandered. While firm in his opinions, annoyed by the "intimidatory" actions of Senior Constable Schmidt and convinced there was a lack of common sense in the decision making with respect to the firearms licence, Mr Hawkins found it hard to keep on point. A recurring theme was his war service: including the provision of details of his role in the development of radar, the introduction of radar at the Air Force Base at Sale, his reasons for participating in the war, and concerning the respect with which he was held by other officers. During that hearing it was obvious that Mr Hawkins was experiencing significant difficulty with managing his papers, searching through them and being unable to find what he wanted. It was apparent that Mr Hawkins was uncomfortable and in pain. 26Mr Hawkins said that as a result of an injury to his neck and back at the end of the war he has a 'severe lumbar stenosis' and a 'C4/5 stenosis'. At times these cause him severe pain. He tries to avoid heavy pain killers and to manage his condition with physical therapy and paracetamol. 27Mr Hawkins told me that following the Remembrance Day service in 2010 he experienced a severe and long recurrence of back and neck problems. This was effectively disabling. His ability to walk was affected: he had to rely on crutches and a wheelchair for a time. A series of facet block injections, the last of which was administered on 19 May 2011, had assisted in reducing some of his pain, as had his use of a TENS machine. Despite this, his physical condition was not stable: he had experienced an episode of severe pain on the Friday before the hearing. This had caused him some difficulty with his balance. He commented that this was unusual, as normally a severe episode affects his hearing and speech. In response to a question from me as to the level of support he was presently receiving, he said that a nurse was coming into his home daily to fit his TENS machine. Mr Hawkins said that he still drives a car, but had not driven into the hearing, having been dropped by a carer. 28Mr Hawkins said that his eyesight is good. 29I asked Mr Hawkins how given his medical condition he could use a rifle. He said that he does so by using a rest for the rifle, 30Mr Hawkins produced a letter from his general practitioner, Dr Grant, which advised that Mr Hawkins- ... has been a long standing patient of mine who has a chronic spinal problem which became very intense due to his having to stand for a long period of time during Remembrance Day on November the 11 th 2010. Richard had been unable to think and concentrate clearly due to the pain and analgesics on the day he was interviewed by the Police but normal he is a very methodical, calm, ordered person who behaves in a most responsible manner at all the times I have seen him. Recently he has had several facet joint blocks which have settled his severe pain to a level that is far more manageable and he has required far fewer analgesic and I believe suffers from no medical condition that would preclude currently from a safe possession of firearms 31In his evidence Senior Constable Schmidt was insistent that Mr Hawkins had said that his eyesight was poor in their discussion on 1 December 2010. 32In response to a question from me Senior Constable Schmidt said that when Mr Hawkins firearms were seized from the locksmith, the Stirling was still capable of being fired (if a single round were put in the chamber). He expressed the view that Mr Hawkins had shortened it in breach of the Firearms Act 1996 . Later, during the second day of hearing, Mr Hawkins made the point that his modification to the Stirling resulted it being incapable of semi-automatic operation. 33At the conclusion of the first day of hearing I indicated that I wished to hear evidence from Mr Hawkins's treating doctor, Dr Grant. The second day of hearing 34The hearing reconvened on 29 July 2011 when Dr Grant gave evidence by phone. Mr Hawkins, by prior agreement, participated in that hearing by phone. 35Dr Grant said that Mr Hawkins spinal condition is a permanent, chronic condition. At times it caused him severe pain, which requires strong medication. As a result of that condition he has problems holding his arms up. He thought that Mr Hawkins physical limitations would not prevent him using a firearm, although he doubted Mr Hawkins physical capacity to react quickly or respond in an emergency situation involving a firearm. In saying that Dr Grant made the point that he is not a shooter, and was not fully aware of the physical demands. 36Dr Grant could not say when Mr Hawkins eyesight was last tested. He was aware that Mr Hawkins had a cataract removed in 2005 and had experienced some difficulties with his vision after that operation. He said that Mr Hawkins sees several eye specialists and has been diagnosed with mild macular degeneration. Despite this, Dr Grant considered Mr Hawkins's eyesight adequate for driving. 37When asked about Mr Hawkins's cognition Dr Grant said that Mr Hawkins has a normal score on MMSE for a person of his age: while the results would be concerning for a person of 30, they are not for a person of 89. He acknowledged that Mr Hawkins has some memory loss, but added that Mr Hawkins manages this well by the use of aide de memoirs. 38I asked Dr Grant about Mr Hawkins's hearing, explaining that in the hearing at Wollongong I had to sit close to Mr Hawkins in a position where he could read my lips, so that we could communicate. Dr Grant said he had not tested Mr Hawkins hearing, and was not aware of their being a difficulty. He commented that he generally sees Mr Hawkins in one on one surgery consultations. 39Ms Tillot, who appeared for the Commissioner of Police, had filed fresh submissions before the second day of hearing. These had been sent to Mr Hawkins by express post, but he had only got hold of them an hour or so before the hearing. They contained observations of Mr Hawkins' presentation at the Wollongong hearing - consistent with those I have outlined above - and submitted that Mr Hawkins 'whether because of his spinal injury, his frailty, or his failing memory, cannot be said to pose virtually no risk to others, and the decision of the respondent should be affirmed.' 40Mr Hawkins said he had only had an hour to consider those submissions before the hearing. I offered to allow him additional time in which to read them, or, if he preferred, to allow him to file written submissions in response. He elected to respond to the submissions verbally during the hearing. 41He explained that on the morning of the Wollongong hearing he had been dropped at the other side of the Court building, He had difficulty in locating which court room the Tribunal was using. The time spent doing so had aggravated his neck condition, causing pain and discomfort. His documents had become disorganised when he was assisted to the court room by a sheriff. 42He said that he believed his conduct with respect to his firearms had been reasonable and had been aimed at doing everything in his power to keep his firearms safe. He objected to what he considered the untrue evidence given by Senior Constable Schmidt and the hearsay allegation from the Firearms Registry. Relevant Legislation 43The Firearms Act 1996 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. The use and possession of a firearm is a privilege, not a right. 44Section 19(2) provides that all licences are subject to the following condition, among others - (a) the licensee must comply with the relevant safe keeping and storage requirements under this Act, (b) the licensee must not permit any other person to possess or use any firearm in the licensee's possession if that other person is not authorised to possess or use the firearm, 45The safekeeping requirements for category A and B licence holders are set out in s 40, while those applicable to category C, D and H licences are found in s 41. Section 39 provides that a person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable steps to ensure that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm. Section 42 provides that - A police officer must seize any firearm or ammunition that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is not being kept in accordance with this Part. Seizure, where firearms are not stored in accordance with the safekeeping requirements, is mandatory not discretionary. 46Section 62 provides - (1) A person must not, unless authorised to do so by a permit: (a) shorten any firearm (other than a pistol), or (b) possess any such firearm that has been shortened, or (c) sell or give possession of any such firearm that has been shortened to another person. Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 10 years. (2) The regulations may provide that certain kinds of firearms are to be considered as having been shortened for the purposes of this section only if they (or specified parts of them) have prescribed characteristics. 47Clause 129(1)(b) of the Firearms Regulation 2006 provides - (1) For the purposes of section 62 (2) of the Act, a firearm is to be considered as having been shortened only if: (b) in the case of a firearm that is a rifle, not being a combination smooth bore shotgun and rifle or an air gun: (i) the length of the barrel or, if it has more than one barrel, of the longer or longest barrel is less than 40 cm, or (ii) the length of the stock is less than 30 cm or it has no stock, or (iii) the overall length is less than 80 cm, and 48Where 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. S 24(2)(b)(ii) provides that one such ground is that the licensee has contravened any provision of the Act or the regulations, 'whether or not the licensee has been convicted of an offence for the contravention.' 49In this matter the Commissioner relies on s 24(2)(d) which provide that a licence may be revoked for any reason prescribed by the Regulation. Clause 19 of the Regulation 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. 50Section 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. 51The 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. Consideration 52The decision under review in this case is one made by the Commissioner of Police to revoke Mr Hawkins's category ABC firearms licence in the public interest. 53In Martin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2010] NSWADT 276 Montgomery JM discussed the relevant case law with respect to consideration of the public interest in firearms licensing cases. He wrote, at [69-74] - 69 The Applicant's individual interest in retaining his licence must be subordinate to the public interest in ensuring public safety. This position is supported by the decision of Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657 where it was stated at 681: "The purpose of the reference to 'public interest is to ensure that private interests are not only matters taken into account: to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the Commissioner's consideration. The effect of the reference is to amplify the 'scope and purpose' of the legislation." 70 In Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9, at paragraph [25], the Appeal Panel said that the 'public interest' "is an inherently broad concept giving [the Commissioner] the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual". 71 There is discretion with respect to whether to revoke the licence in this case. The Tribunal has previously found that any discretion must be exercised to promote the objects of the firearm legislation: Cusumano v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 50 at [23] and the discretion is to be exercised in clear preference to the public interest than an individual's private interests. That view has been followed in numerous decisions and I agree that it is the correct approach to be taken in this matter. 72 In Wilkinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 59 Deputy President Hennessy stated at paragraph [25] 25 As the Firearms Act does not list factors which a decision maker must take into account when exercising a discretion about revocation, the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Firearms Act. ... 73 A firearm licence is a privilege and not a right. 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: Wiltshire v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2005] NSWADT 75 at paragraph [25]. 74 The underlying principles of the Act stated in section 3(1) emphasise that firearm possession and use is a privilege conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. Strict controls on the possession and use of firearms are imposed in the interests of public safety. In Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28, at paragraph 28, Deputy President Hennessy said that in terms of public safety, "the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk". See also Tannous v Commissioner of Police [2011] NSWADT 116. 54In Mr Hawkins's case there is no dispute that he entrusted his category C firearms (the Stirling semi-automatic) into the care and safekeeping of his locksmith, who was not authorised to use or possess a category C firearm. This was in clear breach of the conditions of his licence (s 19(2)(b)) and of s 39(1)(b) of the Act. While I accept that, in giving his firearms to the locksmith for safekeeping, Mr Hawkins intended to ensure their safety, he nonetheless did so in breach of the conditions of the his licence and the provisions of the Act, and without apparent regard to them. Similarly I accept that by breaking down his firearms (removing stock, fore grip, bolt or magazine) Mr Hawkins intended to ensure the safety of his firearms. The effect of what he did, however, was to shorten the rifles in breach of s 62 of the Act and, in the case of the Stirling, place a shortened category C firearm in the possession of an unauthorised person. 55The fact that Mr Hawkins was properly motivated does not detract from the fact that he had breached a number of provisions of the Act. Similarly it does not reflect well on Mr Hawkins' understanding and comprehension of the guidelines and laws regulating the privilege of firearms ownership and possession. This points to his continuing to hold a firearms licence not being in the public interest. 56Even more concerning, in my opinion, are issues relating to Mr Hawkins's physical capacity to possess and use a firearm. In submissions the Commissioner argued that 'age and infirmity, when they impact on the activity for which the licence is required, are relevant factors in determining the public interest.' In my view this misstates the position. 57A person's physical and mental health, and their cognitive capacity, are relevant factors. If and how those factors impact on the activity for which the licence is required, are relevant to the public interest. Thus, it is not in the public interest that a person with a diagnosed mental illness and a history of self-harm have a firearms licence: Huckel v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2008] NSWADT 347. Similarly, it is not in the public interest for a person, who does not have the cognitive capacity to understand the safe use of or the rules applying to the possession or use of a firearm, to have a firearms licence. Equally, in my opinion, it is not in the public interest for a person to hold a firearms licence if that person does not have the physical capacity to safely use a firearm, including use in unexpected or emergency situations. It is not a matter of age: but of the licensee's physical capacity affecting the public interest in preventing risks to public safety. 58In Mr Hawkins' case, the Commissioner argued that both his poor memory and his physical frailty were relevant to the public interest in determining whether he should continue to hold a firearms licence. 59I am not persuaded that Mr Hawkins' memory is so poor that it gives rise to public interest consideration. There is no doubt that Mr Hawkins experienced considerable difficulty retrieving the name of his locksmith. At all times, however, it was apparent that he knew who was being discussed. While Mr Hawkins had trouble naming him, he was able to identify him by reference to his function. Being unable to recall and individual's name is not, in my view, sufficient to found adverse findings about a person,s cognitive capacity and memory. The other matters pointed to by the Commissioner were Mr Hawkins propensity to wander from the point and reminisce, and his disorganization on the first day of hearing. Being disorganised when placed in an unfamiliar situation does not demonstrate incapacity. Neither does a propensity to wander and reminisce, especially when, as is the case with Mr Hawkins, the essential point under discussion is retained, despite the deviation. 60The Commissioner also relied on admissions Mr Hawkins had made with respect to his sight as demonstrating a public interest in his not continuing to hold a firearms licence. Mr Hawkins denies those admissions. Dr Grant's evidence about Mr Hawkins's sight is such that I am not persuaded that it is so poor that it effects his capacity to use a firearm. I do note, however, that he has been diagnosed with macular degeneration, This is a condition of sufficient seriousness that it would warrant the imposition of a condition under s 19(1) requiring Mr Hawkins to undergo regular eyesight test and to provide copies of the results of such tests to the Firearms Registry. 61I am, however, persuaded that Mr Hawkins' frailty and chronic neck and back condition give rise to issues that are relevant to the public interest. On his own evidence he is no longer able to hold, support and sight his rifle without the use of a rest. Dr Grant told me that the condition of his cervical spine was such that he had difficulty holding up his arms, yet alone a rifle. Dr Grant expressed doubts about Mr Hawkins physical capacity to react quickly or respond in an emergency situation with his firearm. In my opinion, this gives rise to a real concern as to whether it is in the public interest that he has a firearms licence. A firearms licensee should have the physical capacity to react to emergency situations when using their firearms. I am not persuaded that Mr Hawkins has that capacity. 62When combined with the obvious and admitted difficulties Mr Hawkins has with his hearing, and the fact that, as result of those difficulties, he may not be alerted to emergency situations as soon others - thereby reducing his reaction time - I am reinforced in that conclusion. 63Moreover, when these factors are considered together with his demonstrated breaches of the Firear ms Act 1996 and Regulation I am satisfied that it is not in the public interest that Mr Hawkins continues to hold a firearms licence. As a result I affirm the decision to revoke Mr Hawkins's firearms licence. 64Finally, this case raises issues concerning the standards of physical health, eyesight and hearing necessary for a person to hold a firearms licence. The Firearms Act and the Regulation are silent on this issue. Section 79 does provide - (1) If a health professional is of the opinion that a person to whom the health professional has been providing professional services may pose a threat to public safety (or a threat to the person's own safety) if in possession of a firearm, the health professional may inform the Commissioner of that opinion. (2) A health professional is not subject to any criminal or civil liability, including liability for breaching any duty of confidentiality, if the health professional informs the Commissioner in good faith of the health professional's opinion referred to in subsection (1). (3) In this section: health professional means any of the following persons: (a) a medical practitioner, psychologist, nurse or social worker, (b) a person who provides professional counselling services, (c) a person who is of such other class of health professional as may be prescribed by the regulations. 65There is, however, nothing in the Act or regulation that points to minimum standards of fitness necessary for the holder of a firearms licence. The provision of publicly accessible guidelines or standards addressing the issue would be of assistance to all involved. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 August 2011