AA and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2026] WASAT 86

[2026] WASAT 86 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : FIREARMS ACT 2024 (WA) CITATION : AA and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2026] WASAT 86 MEMBER : MR T CAREY, MEMBER MS J HEBITON, MEMBER HEARD : 22 APRIL AND 29 MAY 2026 DELIVERED : 17 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : CC 809 of 2025 BETWEEN : AA Applicant AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Catchwords: Firearms - Review of decision to cancel firearm authority - Fit and proper person - Interests of public safety - Association with person who is not fit and proper - Association with outlaw motorcycle group Legislation: Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021 (WA), Sch 2 Firearms Act 2024 (WA), s 5, s 9(1), s 10(2), s 28(1), s 138, s 139, s 140, s 145, s 147, s 150, s 152, s 152(1), s 156(1), s 157, s 192(1), s 193, s 194(1), s 335, -- 1 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 2 s 337(1), s 337(3), Pt 2, Div 1, Pt 4, Div 1, Div 2, Div 8 Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), Sch 1, cl 5 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 27, s 27(1), s 27(3), s 29(1), s 29(3), s 32(1), s 62(3) Result: Application successful Decision under review set aside Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : Ms J Berry Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : Commissioner of Police Case(s) referred to in decision(s): APP and Commissioner of Police [2026] WASAT 19 -- 2 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: 1 On 2 September 2025, a delegate of the Commissioner of Police (respondent or Commissioner) cancelled the firearm authority of the applicant (applicant or AA) under the Firearms Act 2024 (WA) (Firearms Act) which permitted his possession and use of three firearms (reviewable decision). 2 In the written notice of cancellation, the Commissioner justified the reviewable decision on the general ground that he had formed the opinion that AA is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm authority, and particularly on the basis of his association with another person, BB, who is not a fit and proper person, having regard to an incident involving BB when the applicant was also present. 3 The applicant seeks review of the reviewable decision.1 For the following reasons, we have decided to grant the review application, set aside the respondent's decision and order the reinstatement of the applicant's firearm authority. Statutory framework Firearms Act 4 Part 2 of the 2024 Act deals with licences. Division 1 of Pt 2 sets out the general requirements for licences. One of the requirements is that the person have a genuine reason for the licence. In the current matter, the parties agree, and we find, that the applicant has a genuine reason, namely, competition shooting, being one of the purposes for which licences of a personal nature, described in the Firearms Act as 'Individual Licenses', may be granted.2 5 Part 4 of the 2024 Act sets out the procedures for the administration of 'firearm authorities', an expression defined to mean a licence, permit or approval.3 Division 1 of Pt 4 includes general restrictions, including: (a) the Commissioner must not grant a firearm authority to a person if he is of the opinion that it is not desirable in the interests of public safety;4 1 Such a review is permitted by s 335 of the Firearms Act. 2 Firearms Act, s 28(1). 3 Firearms Act, s 5. 4 Firearms Act, s 138. -- 3 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 4 (b) the Commissioner must not grant a firearm authority to a person if he is of the opinion that the person is not a fit and proper person to hold the firearm authority;5 and (c) the Commissioner must not grant a firearm authority to a person who is a disqualified person.6 6 Division 2 of Pt 4 deals with the fit and proper person requirement. 7 If there is a reliable indication for any reason that a person is not a fit and proper person, the Commissioner is to ensure he has sufficient evidence to satisfy him that the person is a fit and proper person.7 8 Subdivision 2 of Div 2 addresses the matters for consideration in an assessment of the fit and proper person requirement. Without limiting the matters to which the Commissioner may have regard for the purpose of forming an opinion as to whether a person is a fit and proper person, the Commissioner may have regard to any of the following: (a) the person's conduct and behaviour; (b) the person's physical and mental health; (c) the person's views, opinions and attitudes; (d) the person's way of living or domestic circumstances; and (e) whether the person is of good repute, having regard to the person's character, honesty and integrity.8 9 In forming an opinion as to whether a person is a fit and proper person, the Commissioner may also have regard to 'whether any other person with whom the person associates or who is a close associate of the person' is a fit and proper person.9 10 Subdivision 2 of Div 2 concerns circumstances in which the Commissioner has sufficient grounds for forming the opinion that a person is not fit and proper. One such circumstance is if the Commissioner reasonably suspects, on the basis of an intelligence report 5 Firearms Act, s 139. 6 Firearms Act, s 140. We deal with the definition of disqualified person at para [33]. 7 Firearms Act, s 145. 8 Firearms Act, s 150. 9 Firearms Act, s 152(1). -- 4 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 5 or other intelligence information, that the person is a threat to public safety.10 11 However, the Commissioner is not required to form an opinion that a person is not a fit and proper person merely because they have sufficient grounds for doing so under the subdivision.11 12 Division 8 of Pt 4 provides for the cancellation and refusal of renewal of a firearm authority. The Commissioner must cancel or refuse to renew a firearm authority if, relevantly, he is:12 (a) … of the opinion that it is not desirable in the interests of public safety that the firearm authority continues in force or is renewed; or (b) … of the opinion that the holder of the firearm authority is not a fit and proper person to hold the firearm authority; or (c) … satisfied that the holder of the firearm authority is a disqualified person[.] 13 In circumstances where the Commissioner is of the opinion that the holder of a firearm authority may not be a fit and proper person to hold a firearm authority, he must request the holder to make a written submission about that to the Commissioner.13 The review 14 The application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.14 The Tribunal's review of the reviewable decision is by way of a hearing de novo and the purpose of the review is for the Tribunal to arrive at the correct and preferable decision on the basis of the information and the evidence before the Tribunal at the time of the review.15 In the exercise of its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is not limited in its consideration to the material that was before the original decision-maker,16 nor to the original decision-maker's reasoning.17 10 Firearms Act, s 156(1). 11 Firearms Act, s 157. 12 Firearms Act, s 192(1). This is to be contrasted with s 193, under which the Commissioner 'may' cancel or refuse to renew a firearm authority. 13 Firearms Act, s 194(1). 14 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act), s 17. 15 SAT Act, s 27. 16 SAT Act, s 27(1). 17 SAT Act, s 27(3). -- 5 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 6 15 All of the functions and discretions conferred on the original decision-maker are conferred on the Tribunal, in addition to the powers conferred on the Tribunal by the SAT Act.18 The Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision, and in the latter case, may substitute its own decision in place of the reviewable decision.19 Issues 16 In light of the parties' submissions before us, our determination of the correct and preferable decision in this review depends upon: (a) whether AA is to be considered a fit and proper person to hold a firearm authority for the purposes of Pt 4 of the Firearms Act (authority); and (b) whether it is otherwise not desirable in the interests of public safety for the applicant to hold an authority. 17 In addition to the applicant's association with BB in the specific context of the incident relied upon by the respondent in reaching the decision under review, we will consider the further ground upon which the respondent relies of the applicant's alleged past and continuing association with an outlaw motorcycle group (OMG). Parties anonymised 18 Prior to the hearing, on the application of the respondent and with the consent of the applicant, we made an order under s 62(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) that the names and identifying details of persons appearing or referred to in the proceeding be anonymised (our order extending to the relevant OMG). 19 Consistent with our order, we will refer to the people relevant to our decision as follows: (a) AA, the applicant; (b) BB, the alleged associate of AA, who is, or has been, a member of the OMG; (c) CC, AA's partner; (d) DD, a third person present at the incident; and 18 SAT Act, s 29(1). 19 SAT Act, s 29(3). -- 6 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 7 (e) EE, BB's former partner. The relevant incident 20 On 24 August 2025, AA, BB, CC and DD attended a boat moored at a suburban boat harbour in Perth where EE lived, up until shortly beforehand with BB, her then partner. Versions of the events of that day vary. 21 EE did not make a witness statement for the purpose of this proceeding and was not called as a witness. Her version of what happened is disclosed from the contents of a WA Police incident report,20 and a voice recording of her 000 call to the police. 22 EE told police that she and BB made plans for collection of his belongings subsequent to their separation. She said that this did not include BB being allowed on the boat, and that BB's attendance occurred notwithstanding EE's attempts to change the date for the collection to occur. She said that she was scared when BB and other people arrived and locked the door to the vessel. BB broke open the door and entered the boat with the others. She said that BB had hurt her in the past and she was in the process of wanting to get a Family Violence Restraining Order against him. EE said that the parties on the boat did not push her around as she had alleged earlier in a text, and that she pushed them but only did so as she felt threatened and scared. 23 According to the WA Police incident report, BB said that he made plans with EE to collect his belongings, and he attended the boat with 'his friends' for that purpose. He said that a few days previous, EE had acted strangely and accused BB of having an affair. Upon attending, EE refused to open the door and BB forced open the door. He said that EE started yelling at him to get out, and he attempted to calm her down and assure her that he just wanted his belongings. EE pushed and punched at him, and she pushed CC and DD as well to try to get them off the boat. She then retreated into another part of the boat and BB started collecting his things. 24 According to the WA Police incident report, each of AA, CC and DD said that they were there to assist BB to collect his property under his arrangement with EE. They expressed their lack of understanding why the matter had escalated as BB just wanted to collect his belongings. 20 Hearing book (Exhibit 1) commencing at page 276. -- 7 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 8 25 The incident report goes on to state that police established offences of assaults to which defences were present (in context, EE being the assailant); police assisted BB with collecting his remaining belongings; a 72 hour Police Order was issued to BB in light of BB's behaviour described in terms that the 'behaviour appears intimidatory as he ignored [EE's] requests to reschedule'; and BB was not appreciative of the Police Order but accepted it and left the area with no further issues or incidents. 26 EE's 000 telephone call to the police contemporaneous with the incident, which we have listened to, did not add any factual matters of assistance, in light of the apparent fact that AA was not on the boat, and he had no interaction with any of those who were. 27 The applicant filed a witness statement in which he states:21 • he attended the boat harbour in response to a request by CC to help collect belongings because he owned a utility; • his involvement was limited to carrying items passed to him by DD; and • he did not enter the boat and did not participate in any confrontation. 28 The other participant who made a witness statement, DD, explained22 that he acted as mediator between BB and EE to arrange for BB to collect his belongings from the boat. As part of the arrangement, according to DD, EE was to be off the boat at the collection time in order to avoid conflict. 29 DD's statement goes on: • upon arriving at the harbour, he attempted to call EE to let her know they were on their way, but EE did not answer his calls; • when they reached the boat, he called out to EE and there was no response. The boat appeared empty; • BB and CC entered the boat and began passing BB's belongings out to DD, who handed them on to AA, who was standing on the jetty; 21 AA witness statement dated 21 May 2026; Exhibit 2 at pages 11 and 12. 22 DD witness statement dated 21 May 2026; Exhibit 2 at pages 13 and 14. -- 8 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 9 • DD heard yelling from inside the boat, and EE appeared; • EE appeared and began abusing everyone present and started hitting CC and BB; • the harbour master attended and agreed to remain as an impartial witness; • after loading two trolley loads of belongings, AA and DD walked toward the cars; • they encountered police officers on the jetty, with whom they stayed until permitted to leave; and • AA did not participate in any confrontation. BB 30 The parties agree, and we find, that BB has been a member of the OMG for a considerable period. There is a suggestion that he has retired from membership, although AA himself has, in the course of the current proceeding, satisfied himself that BB remains an active member. 31 We consider that even if he has retired from active membership, BB still qualifies as a member by reason of the expansive definition of 'member' of an organisation in s 10(2) of the Firearms Act, which includes a person who identifies in any way as belonging to the organisation. In this regard, we note that BB continues to exhibit a large club-related tattoo on his neck. 32 The parties further agree, and we find, that the OMG is a disqualifying organisation under the Criminal Law (Unlawful Consorting and Prohibited Insignia) Act 2021 (WA), Sch 2. 33 As a member of the OMG, BB is a 'disqualified person' for the purpose of s 9(1) of the Firearms Act and incapable of being granted a firearm authority.23 That being so, we accept that BB is to be regarded as not a fit and proper person for the purposes of Pt 4 of the Firearms Act, and particularly s 152(1). AA's association with BB 34 The nature and extent of AA's association with BB are the subject of competing narratives. The applicant suggests in his statutory 23 Firearms Act, s 140. -- 9 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 10 declaration dated 12 April 202624 that he has known BB for approximately four years (in his oral evidence, he effectively altered this by saying that the men first met in February 2023) and that BB was primarily a friend of CC whom he met during a social ride with CC. He says that during the period he has known him, he has had minimal contact with BB. 35 The applicant's statutory declaration also states that he has cut all ties with BB, including removing him from social media and ceasing all phone and personal contact. 36 Counsel for the Commissioner, Ms Berry described as 'weak' the applicant's evidence of cutting ties with BB, observing that he could have, but failed to, produce any corroborative evidence. 37 For reasons we will give, we accept the applicant's evidence. 38 In relation to the events of 24 August 2025, AA's witness statement describes his involvement in terms that he was there 'to assist my partner … who had asked me to help collect belongings because I owned a ute', and that it was limited to carrying items passed by DD. 39 In its amended SIFC,25 the respondent contends that it is open to find that the incident depicts a standover incident to which AA was a party with a member of an OMG. He was aware of BB's affiliation and membership of the OMG but chose to associate with him regardless. And he rendered his support to BB in a heightened, violent and sensitive situation. 40 According to the Commissioner, BB may seek to leverage his relationship with AA to access his firearms for unlawful purposes just as he may have utilised the applicant as a stand over man as a threat in the incident. AA's association with the OMG 41 The respondent contends that AA was a member (at least at the probationary level) of the same OMG as BB, commencing in about 2014. It accepts that his membership had ceased by 2017. However, it argues that since that time, there has been an ongoing association with the OMG, as evidenced by his participation in two group rides (in September 2020 24 Exhibit 2 at page 237. 25 Respondent's Amended Open-Source Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions filed 6 May 2026 (respondent's SIFC). -- 10 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 11 and February 2023) involving OMG members, and the 25 August 2025 incident at the behest of BB. 42 The Commissioner's reliance on any OMG association has become apparent only in the course of the procedural steps preceding the initial hearing listing on 22 April 2026 and at that hearing. It is referred to obliquely in its original SIFC,26 the primary emphasis in that document being on AA's association with BB and the August 2025 incident. Further, the material cited in support was limited to contents of its Part B book of documents, being matter the subject of claim under s 337(1) of the Firearms Act that it is or contains matter that is exempt matter under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA), Sch 1, cl 5. One effect of such a claim is that the relevant material is unable to be disclosed by the Tribunal to the applicant, including in any decision of the Tribunal.27 43 When the matter first came on for hearing, in the course of discussing, in the applicant's absence, the Part B material before us, Ms Berry, indicated that reliance would be placed upon the alleged OMG association as a second ground for the reviewable decision to be affirmed. Having so indicated, Ms Berry accepted that this would not have been apparent to the applicant from the open material to which he had to that point had access. She also accepted that, subsequent to a review of all the relevant material, it may be possible to provide the applicant some material (whether part of the Part B material as it then stood or otherwise) relied upon in support of the ground additional to the material already provided. 44 The hearing was vacated and relisted to allow the respondent to amend its SIFC so as to articulate the second ground and to file and serve any fresh supporting material and evidence, in open or closed form. 45 In the event, the Commissioner filed the respondent's amended SIFC, a supplementary supporting affidavit and some short closed (Part B) submissions. Although it continues to rely upon Part B materials which the applicant cannot access, we are satisfied that there has now been sufficient disclosure of the Commissioner's case, and the evidence relied upon, to satisfy as far as possible the requirement that the applicant be afforded procedural fairness.28 26 Respondent's statement of issues, facts and contentions filed 11 March 2026 (respondent's original SIFC). 27 Firearms Act, s 337(3). 28 SAT Act, s 32(1). -- 11 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 12 46 Although the amendments to the respondent's original SIFC are not so limited in scope, we will for the moment confine ourselves to the amendments expanding on the 'association with OMG' ground. 47 The following paragraphs of the respondent's amended SIFC are pertinent: 72. The Commissioner says that, on the face of the evidence, it is open for the Tribunal to find that: … c) the Applicant has been recorded as riding with members of the [OMG] between 2014 and 2023. On these rides, on one occasion he is recorded as wearing [OMG] regalia in the form of identifying vests. The intelligence indicates that the Applicant was at least a "probationary outlaw". He is also recorded as partaking in a number of [OMG] rides outside of Western Australia. Two of these matters have directly involved [BB], and the Commissioner says it is open for the Tribunal to find that he had an association with [BB] during this period. … 75. The Commissioner says that the Applicant has not ceased to be involved with the [OMG] and whilst the most recent interaction with the [OMG], as captured by police intelligence, was 2023 the Applicant continues to associate with an [OMG] member until, at least, August 2025. (footnotes omitted) 48 The respondent relies upon the evidence of Detective Sergeant Brock Tucker, who is currently with the Gang Crime Squad's Gang Response Team (approx. 2.5 years), having previously been with the Squad's Detectives Team (Investigations) (1 year). Detective Sergeant Tucker has made two statements upon which the respondent relies: his original statement dated 14 April 2025 (Brock original statement) and his addendum statement dated 5 May 2025 (Brock addendum statement). 49 The Brock addendum statement reveals further details of the alleged association with the OMG. It refers to the following six 'events': • On 22 October 2014, and again on 19 October 2016, Police conducted traffic stops on the Eyre Highway in Eucla, when a number of persons riding motorcycles including the applicant -- 12 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 13 was stopped and identified as fully patched or probationary members of the same OMG (first and second events respectively). • On 15 April 2016, a motorcycle registered to AA was being ridden along the Kwinana Freeway. Although not the subject of a traffic stop, the male driver was wearing a 'Probationary [OMG reference]' waistcoat (third event). • In September 2017, the Gang Crime Squad received intelligence that AA was no longer 'a member of, or associated with' the OMG (fourth event). • On 5 September 2020, a large group of OMG members was observed in Fremantle, and stopped in Cottesloe, on a memorial run for a deceased member. The applicant was recorded as one of the group, riding the same motorcycle as in the first, second and third events (fifth event). • On 15 February 2023, police conducted a traffic stop of 15 motorcycles in Scarborough, one of which was ridden by the applicant. Two of the 15 riders were members of the OMG (sixth event). 50 Based upon his review of the information concerning the six events, and his knowledge of OMGs through his experience with the Gang Crime Squad (which is particularised in the Brock original statement), Detective Sergeant Brock opines that: • AA was, in about 2014 - 2016, a probationary member of the OMG; • when he ceased being a probationary member, AA did so on good standing; • AA is currently an associate or supporter of the OMG; and • AA appears to have 'several friends and associates within' the OMG spanning over many years. 51 Among a variety of topics canvassed in the Brock original statement, the author covers a number of different supply chains enabling the acquisition of firearms (or the commission of offences involving firearms) by outlaw motorcycle groups. He gave several actual examples where OMGs or their members have leveraged their relationships with -- 13 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 14 non-club members to obtain firearms themselves of procure others to commit offences. 52 At the hearing, Detective Sergeant Brock gave further evidence-in-chief and was cross-examined. His evidence contained some common themes, which we list here: (a) OMGs have strict rules regarding wearing and displaying club colours, emblems or other insignia, which is regarded as important or sacred. Entitlement belongs only to those who have attained a specified length of membership (usually 2 years). Club tattoos are regarded in a similar vein, entitlement to which is usually 5 years. (b) Strict rules also apply to the termination of membership. A member who terminates may do so on 'good standing' or 'bad standing'. A member with life membership status (generally, after ten years' membership) who leaves on good standing is generally permitted to keep any tattoos, but must add a marking indicating the retirement. Therefore, it is fair to assume that a person with a club tattoo with no end date indicated is a current member. (c) A member leaving on bad standing (for example, where they have broken club rules or due to another issue) must return club-related clothing, and cover all club-related tattoos. There are repercussions for failure to do so. (d) 'Memorial ride' is an expression which describes a tribute to one or more club members who have died. They are regarded as a sacred event. They are 'club sanctioned', that is, sponsored and promoted by the club, and are open to members and associates of the club only. 'Associates' are limited to friends of members and others conducting business with the club. Anyone attending a memorial ride would be aware that it is a club sanctioned event. 53 In cross-examination, Detective Sergeant Tucker made the following concessions: (a) in relation to the sixth event, there is no evidence that the applicant was wearing the probationary vest; and (b) in relation to the sixth event, there were several members of the group who were not OMG members. -- 14 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 15 AA's evidence at the hearing 54 The applicant was cross-examined extensively. In one sense, his cross-examination fulfilled the role of an interview which might form part of the Commissioner's investigation and consideration of the question of whether AA is a fit and proper person under s 147 of the Firearms Act. 55 AA described his relationship with BB as one of 'minimal contact' and 'nothing to do with the club'. According to BB, the first time he met him was as part of the sixth event in 2023. Since then, he saw him 'a few times', in relaxed settings such as at a café. His previous understanding that BB was a retired member was gained at such a café catch-up. 56 The applicant was asked about his understanding of the strict rules applying to membership of the club. He indicated that he did not have a good understanding of those rules, and that he was 'just there for the social side'. He said he did not seek membership and that they invited him, but he declined. His refusal was based upon what he knew about what members could do and what was expected of them. 57 He accepted that at a time more than 10 years ago, he wore supporter clothing. This however was unrelated to being a member or probationer, saying anyone could wear it if they paid for it. He denied that he was ever a membership prospect or wore clothing a prospect was entitled to wear. 58 AA denied any knowledge about retirement and such matters as restrictions under the rules about retirees continuing to display club tattoos. 59 Regarding the 24 August 2025 incident, AA repeated that he was there because CC asked him and because he has a utility. He understood that he was there to assist BB to retake his possessions. He said that he is a 'helpful guy'. He also said that he understood that DD had made an arrangement with EE whereby BB's things could be retrieved without any intervention. 60 AA was asked about when things on the boat became heated. He said that when that occurred, it was happening at the back of the boat, when he was on the jetty near the front waiting for 'more stuff' to be passed to him. He said that the police arrived which prevented him from leaving had he wanted to, and in any event, his partner was on the boat and he did not regard it as his place to demand that she leave. -- 15 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 16 61 The applicant was probed in relation to his failure to intervene. He repeated his lack of knowledge of BB; somewhat incongruously, he based his confidence regarding his partner's safety upon the presence of BB and DD (he finally conceded as a 'fair point' that he could have left and taken CC with him). He said that the dispute proceeded for some twenty minutes, and that it had 'nothing to do with me'. 62 AA conceded that his participation in the first and second events depended upon either an established relationship with, or an invitation from, the club. When asked whether it could therefore be inferred from the subsequent events involving such participation that he does have a continued relationship with the club and its current members, he said that the fifth event (the memorial run) was the sole occasion where either premise existed. 63 In relation to the third event, the applicant said that the person identified as wearing a probationary member's vest was not him, but someone who had borrowed his motorcycle. This was, according to AA, a not uncommon occurrence. 64 Regarding the fifth event, AA says that he was invited to attend the memorial run by a relation of the deceased. According to the applicant: • he received a phone call from the relation, although he had no knowledge that the relation had his number; • he attended purely to pay his respects to someone he regarded as a 'nice young bloke'; and • he went with CC and did not remain with the rest of the group on its return to Scarborough but went home. 65 In relation to the sixth event, the applicant gave evidence that he knew only one other rider with an association with the OMG, who was BB. He claims that there was nothing about the event or those present to reasonably alert him to the presence of any other OMG members. 66 The applicant was asked further questions regarding his knowledge of BB's club membership status. In particular, it was suggested to him that he well knew that he was at all times a current member, given that only current patched members are allowed to exhibit club tattoos. AA stated that he did not take notice of BB's tattoos; that whenever he saw him he had his shirt turned up at the neck; and that he was not aware of the rule restricting tattoos to current members. He repeated that -- 16 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 17 following the mediation in the Tribunal he 'cut him off' and had not had any contact with him since. 67 In summarising his position in relation to the three events upon which the respondent particularly relies (the fifth and sixth events and the August 2025 incident), he said they are unconnected, 'one-off' events not consistent with an ongoing association. 68 DD was also cross-examined. He has a long-standing association with BB and attended his wedding as a groomsman. According to DD, BB is no longer a club member, and retired as long ago as 2013 and 2014, shortly after moving to Western Australia from Victoria. DD corroborated the applicant's evidence regarding the latter's limited involvement with the fracas at the boat harbour, for which DD blamed EE. Our consideration Issue 1: Is AA to be considered a fit and proper person to hold an authority? 69 This Tribunal has recently examined the statutory scheme which now applies to the grant and maintenance of an authority in APP and Commissioner of Police [2026] WASAT 19 (APP). We respectfully agree with and adopt the following features of the scheme identified in APP: • the purpose of the Firearms Act is directed to minimising or diminishing the risks posed by firearms in the community to ensure public safety; • possessing a firearm is a privilege that is always conditional as against the overriding need to ensure public safety; • the requirement in the Firearms Act that a person be a fit and proper person to hold an authority prompts the widest scope for judgment, and rejection, of an application for an authority; • compared with the previous legislation, the scope of the Commissioner's inquiry as to whether a person is a fit and proper person has been significantly strengthened; • the Commissioner may, at any time, investigate whether an authority holder remains a fit and proper person. Upon being provided with an apparently reliable indication that a person may -- 17 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 18 no longer be a fit and proper person, the Commissioner must ensure that sufficient evidence exists in order to be satisfied that the person is fit and proper; • the reference in s 152 of the Firearms Act to whether any other person with whom the person associates is a fit and proper person allows the Commissioner to have regard to a wide range of relationships; • it is necessary to consider the actual association in question. This includes the basis, nature and extent of the association and whether it has been voluntarily entered into. If the nature and extent are unclear, it is likely that the Commissioner should obtain more information under s 147 of the Firearms Act; • despite the risk minimisation purpose of the Firearms Act, any statutory scheme providing for firearms to be in the community for professional or recreational reasons carries an inherent risk of misuse. The broadening of the Commissioner's powers to inquire in relation to a holder of an authority to include persons with whom the person associates is an important aspect of achieving the risk minimising purpose; and • having regard to the Second Reading Speech of what was to become the Firearms Act, the Commissioner's ability to have regard to a person's associations is directed to an understanding as to whether there is a significant risk of any associate deemed by the Commissioner to not be a fit and proper person gaining access to a firearm. 70 We are mindful of the heavy responsibility imposed upon the Tribunal in exercising its review jurisdiction in the area of firearm regulation. We are alert to the principles ventilated in APP; in particular, the statute's objective of minimising or diminishing the risks posed by firearms to ensure public safety, the fact that a firearm licence is a privilege rather than a right, and the ability of the Commissioner (and the Tribunal on review) to inquire into a person's suitability is significantly enhanced under the new legislation. The question of risk minimisation, which looms large in this matter, must be considered on a case by case basis having regard to, among other factors, the basis, nature and extent of any ongoing association with the club or club members. -- 18 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 19 71 After considering all the matters that the Commissioner relies upon to support the view that the applicant is not a fit and proper person, we are unable to come to the same opinion. 72 Regarding AA's association with BB, there is no evidence which contradicts the applicant's position that this association is not a particularly close one. Its origins stem from BB's friendship with AA's partner, CC. Although, on the face of it, this might reasonably give rise to an inference of a relationship approaching a friendship, at least on a vicarious basis, the evidence before us is suggestive of a less familiar relationship. 73 AA told us that the relationship has been restricted to the occasional catch-up over coffee (in addition to the sixth event when, according to the applicant, they met). 74 With reference to the August 2025 incident, the corroborated evidence supports AA's position that his role was as the supplier of the utility and as the final link in transferring BB's property from the boat to the utility. 75 In our view, it is particularly significant that AA had no involvement in the dispute which occurred on board the boat while AA was on the jetty. Although Ms Berry put to the applicant in cross-examination that his conduct in allowing his partner to remain in the boat as the dispute raged was problematic, this is quite different from the Commissioner's original attribution to the applicant of a direct involvement and contribution to the dispute. AA accepted Ms Berry's proposition, having said that the dispute was not his, and he did not know BB 'from a bar of soap'. 76 Rather than supporting a submission that BB may have utilised the applicant as a stand over man in the incident, and this might reasonably be regarded as a precursor to BB leveraging his relationship with AA to access his firearms, the evidence supports the applicant's assertion that he was not particularly close to BB, that he had no interest in getting caught up in BB's dispute with his former partner, and that he was simply there to lend assistance with transporting BB's possessions at CC's request. 77 For the above reasons, we are satisfied, and we find, that the August 2025 incident does not give rise to any significant risk of any club member gaining access to a firearm through the agency of AA's relationship with BB. -- 19 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 20 78 The Commissioner also relies upon what it asserts as the applicant's continued involvement in the OMG, even at a level less than official membership, as a factor relevant to the assessment of his fitness and propriety. The continued choice of AA to associate with an OMG which survives on a creed to openly dispute law and order is sufficient, the respondent contends, to find that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm authority. 79 The Commissioner submits that the applicant was at one time a probationary member of the OMG.29 In cross-examination, Detective Sergeant Tucker said that the Gang Response Team identified the applicant as a former probationary member based upon both his participation in the first and second events and his having been observed wearing a probationary jacket. Given his subsequent concession of a lack of evidence about the second matter, the cogency of this rationale is diminished. 80 The applicant agreed with the characterisation of his involvement in the first and second events that it denoted either membership or that he was an invitee. On balance, we do not think that he was ever a member, full or probationary, but we are satisfied that at one time he met the description of 'associate'. 81 On the applicant's version, AA stopped any regular association with the club itself in 2016; the Commissioner has accepted this to be the case at least since the Gang Crime Squad's intelligence received in September 2017. 82 In the interim 10 or almost 9-year period, apart from the August 2025 incident which we have concluded does not support any adverse finding against AA on fit and proper grounds, the respondent relies upon two further occurrences - the fifth event and the sixth event. Two events in 9 or 10 years would generally signify merely incidental or fleeting contact with the club or club members. 83 When proper regard is given to the circumstances of the two events, we are satisfied that neither gives rise to the existence of a significant risk arising from his association, such as it has been, with the OMG or any of its members were the applicant to have his licence restored. 84 Those circumstances are quite different for each event. 29 Respondents amended SIFC, para 103. -- 20 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 21 85 The fifth event, whilst club-sanctioned, relates to commemorating a life. Although Detective Sergeant Tucker doubts that the applicant was invited by a relation of the deceased rather than the club, given the time which had expired since he ceased his regular association, we accept his explanation. We also accept his evidence that he attended simply to honour a life, that his attendance had nothing to do with the fact (if it was one) that the memorial run was club-sanctioned, and that he 'didn't give a shit about the club'. 86 The sixth event was clearly neither club-sanctioned nor a club run, and there is no evidence to contradict the applicant's that he knew of only one member or former member in attendance. 87 We consider the fifth and sixth events to be two disparate and unrelated occurrences which do not signify AA's continued interest and association in the OMG. Nor do they signal the existence of a material risk that a club member may in the future prevail upon the applicant to access his firearms. 88 Although we acknowledge the potential significant risk arising from associating with OMGs or their members described by Detective Sergeant Tucker, having regard to the time that has passed since AA's regular association with the OMG and the paucity and circumstances of his interactions with the club in the 9 - 10 years since, we do not consider any such risk arises here. 89 We find the applicant to be a fit and proper person to hold a firearm authority. Issue 2: Is it otherwise not desirable in the interests of public safety for the applicant to hold a firearm authority? 90 According to the Commissioner, it is not desirable in the interests of public safety to grant the applicant an authority for largely the same reasons as those supporting a finding against the applicant on fit and proper grounds. 91 With particular reference to the public safety ground, Ms Berry submitted that AA has been observed in circles 'where (OMG) members keep popping up', and that by reason of such a relationship, risks (presumably the risk of firearms getting into the wrong hands being the most pertinent) are prone to arise in overt ways. She contended that the hideousness of the potential result were the risk to be realised may suffice, even where the links between a person with OMGs are not clear. -- 21 of 22 -- [2026] WASAT 86 Page 22 In this context, the specialist knowledge of Detective Sergeant Tucker regarding the propensity of club members to exert influence over non-members productive of unsafe outcomes can be relied upon to inform decision-making. 92 Once again, we are cognisant of the risks involved in the area of firearm use generally and specifically arising from the involvement of groups such as OMGs. However, in the exercise of our discretion, a realistic assessment of risk is called for. Based upon such an assessment, we do not consider there to be a reasonable basis to find that it is undesirable in the interests of public safety for the applicant to hold a firearm authority, and we decline to do so. Order 93 The Tribunal shall issue an order in the following terms: 1. The review application is granted. 2. The decision of the respondent's delegate to cancel the applicant's firearm authority is set aside. 3. The respondent shall, as soon as practicable, reinstate the applicant's firearm authority. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. MR T Carey, MEMBER 17 JULY 2026 -- 22 of 22 --