Robson v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 72

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Robson v Commissioner of Police [2020] NSWCATAD 72 Hearing dates: 30 January 2020 Date of orders: 03 March 2020 Decision date: 03 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member Decision: (1) The decision by the Commissioner of Police to revoke the Applicant's Category AB firearms licence is set aside. Catchwords: Administrative Law – Firearms licence – revocation –domestic circumstances – public interest – whether real and appreciable safety risk. Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 Firearms Regulation 2017 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 Cases Cited: Kopco v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2018] NSWCATAD Tolley v The Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 149 Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 Webb v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2004] NSWADT 110 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Principal judgment Parties: Clare Ann Robson (Applicant) Commissioner of Police (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mainstone Lawyers (Applicant) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 201900288680 Publication restriction: Nil

Reasons for Decision

Introduction 1. Clare Robson ("the Applicant") has sought external review of a decision by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police ("the Respondent") under the Firearms Act 1996 ("the Act"). In August 2019 the Respondent determined to revoke the Applicant's Category AB firearms licence. 2. The application to the Tribunal is made under section 75 of the Act and the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 ("the ADR Act"). 3. The Applicant and her husband are primary producers who live on a remote property in the Bourke District of NSW ("the property"). In these reasons I will refer to the Applicant's husband as "H". It is not in dispute that the Applicant requires a firearms licence for vermin and feral animal control as well as sourcing food and humanely destroying sick and injured livestock. The Applicant's licence was issued in January 2019 and was due to expire in March 2023. 4. It is common ground that she is a person of good character. The Respondent also accepts that she is aware of her responsibilities relating to the strict safekeeping requirements of firearms. 5. H takes anti-depressant medication. However, he occasionally has episodes where he becomes very angry and verbally abusive. Consumption of alcohol worsens the situation. 6. The issue in this matter is whether the Applicant should be prevented from holding a firearms licence because of H's history of mental health issues and alcohol abuse. 7. In January 2019, the Respondent refused to grant H a firearms licence. The refusal was based on information regarding an incident at a hotel in Bacchus Marsh, Victoria in September 2008 ("the Bacchus Marsh incident"). H was reported to have threatened to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff. Police observed him to be very intoxicated, banging his head on the window of his vehicle, and he tried to assault police. 8. The Applicant was contacted in relation to the incident and she attended the police station and spoke with police. She is reported to have informed police that H suffered from depression and that when he mixed alcohol with his anti-depressant medication he often became upset and angry. The Applicant is also reported to have informed police that H had a suicide fantasy of getting into a shootout with police and being shot and killed. 9. There is no suggested that H has ever attempted to commit suicide. 10. H did not seek review of the January 2019 decision to refuse his firearms licence application. As he was unlicensed his firearms were seized. The Applicant subsequently acquired those firearms.