Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2018
  4. Stanway v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing - [2018] QCAT 219

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Stanway v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2018] QCAT 219

Stanway v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2018] QCAT 219

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stanway v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2018] QCAT 219

PARTIES:

ADAM STANWAY

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR022-18

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 July 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

The application to review a decision filed on 5 January 2018 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – GENERALLY – absence of jurisdiction – application dismissed on basis it is lacking in substance

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 47

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 2, s 142

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld), r 146, r 169

Day v Hunter [1964] VR 845

REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Senior Constable R Paz Landim

APPEARANCES:

 

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    On or about 26 June 2017, Mr Stanway applied to the Queensland Police Service for an exemption pursuant to s 2(1)(m) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Weapons Act’). He sought an exemption on behalf of the Brisbane City Council for the possession and use of a suppressor/silencer. It is not in dispute that Mr Stanway has no authority to act on behalf of the Brisbane City Council.
  2. [2]
    On 26 September 2017, an authorised officer of the Queensland Police Service wrote to Mr Stanway in the following terms:

To enable Authorised Officer to make a determination on the application you are required to provide:

  • a signature on the original application/document;
  • 100 points of identification for this application as required; and
  • supporting evidence that you have authority to act on behalf of the Brisbane City Council in relation to this application.

Your submission is required by the 24th of October 2017.

This request is made under the provisions of section 146(2) of the Weapons Regulation 2016, failure to provide the requested information by the 24th of October 2017 will result in a determination being made on the information available.

  1. [3]
    Regulation 146 of the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) (‘the Weapons Regulation’) provides:

Commissioner may request additional information about application for commissioner’s exemption under div 2

  1. (1)
    The commissioner may ask the applicant for a commissioner’s exemption under division 2 to give the commissioner additional information about the application.
  2. (2)
    The request must—
  1. (a)
    be in writing; and
  1. (b)
    state the date (not less than 28 days after the request) by which the additional information is to be given.
  1. (3)
    Subsection (4) applies if—
  1. (a)
    the commissioner makes a request of the applicant under subsection (2); and
  1. (b)
    the applicant does not give the commissioner the additional information by the date stated in the request.
  1. (4)
    The commissioner may give the applicant written notice that the application is taken to have been withdrawn because the applicant did not give the commissioner the additional information by the stated date.
  1. [4]
    I am satisfied that the letter dated 26 September 2017 complies with the requirements of r 146(2) of the Weapons Regulation. The additional information requested was reasonable for the Queensland Police Service to seek in relation to an exemption application. The authorised officer stated 24 October 2017 as the date by which the additional information was to be given, which was 28 days after the request was made.
  2. [5]
    Mr Stanway has raised the issue that he received the letter on 29 September 2017, and that the specified date of 24 October 2017 was less than 28 days after he received letter. However, r 146(2)(b) requires only that the request state a date ‘not less than 28 days after the request’. There is no requirement that the 28 day period be from when the request was received.
  3. [6]
    Mr Stanway responded to the requestion 30 September 2017 as follows:

Signature

1. I contend the document I submitted was already signed by me, because my name was typewritten on every page. However, I gather you are seeking a handwritten signature (although your notice requiring additional information does not state this directly). Please find an image attached of the first page hand signed by me.

Identification

2. I’ve already sent you a certified copy of my driver licence by email on 26 September 2017. The image attached also includes a credit card. Does this fulfil your 100 points expectation?

Authority to act

3. As I’ve previously indicated, I have no authority to act on behalf of the BCC. I am not purporting to act on their behalf. I have given you all the information I can give you in relation to my (lack of) ‘authority to act on behalf of the Brisbane City Council’. S 146 of the Weapons Regulation allows you to seek additional information about the application. S 146 affords you no power to require a third party, in this case Brisbane City Council, to generate some new document. I cannot give you a document that doesn’t exist. You may as well ask for a copy of yesterday’s Hansard of the proceedings of the Parliament of the Moon.

  1. [7]
    On 4 January 2018, an authorised officer wrote to Mr Stanway in the following terms:

I acknowledge your email dated 30 September 2017. I have considered your responses and have made the following determination –

  • That you are not an employee of or are a recognised authority acting for the Brisbane City Council.
  • You have not provided 100 points of Identity in the prescribed manner (100 points of proof of identification must be produced in person at a Police Station as required by an Authorised Officer).
  • Application (original) for Exemption submitted to Weapons Licencing has not been signed as required by the Authorised Officer.

As the Authorised Officer I advise you that this application is taken as to be withdrawn as per the provisions of the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) s.146(4).

Any refund due to you will be forwarded in due course less a $20.00 administrative fee as provided by the Weapons Act 1990. However, the Authorised Officer at Weapons Licensing will require you to provide proof of payment prior to any refund being made available to you.

  1. [8]
    I am satisfied that the letter dated 4 January 2018 complies with the requirements of r 146(4) of the Weapons Regulation, and that Mr Stanway’s application is taken to have been withdrawn. For the purposes of r 146(3)(b), Mr Stanway did not provide the authorised officer with the additional information sought. It is trite to observe that difference between Mr Stanway’s inability to provide evidence of his authority to act on behalf of the Brisbane City Council and ‘a copy of yesterday’s Hansard of the proceedings of the Parliament of the Moon’ is that the former is relevant to an exemption application made on behalf of the Council whereas the latter is not.
  2. [9]
    I note in passing, however, that Mr Stanway is correct in his submission to the Tribunal that r 169 of the Weapons Regulation does not authorise the deduction of a $20 administrative fee in circumstances where an application is withdrawn (as opposed to where an application is refused).
  3. [10]
    On 5 January 2018, Mr Stanway lodged an application to review a decision with the Tribunal.
  4. [11]
    On 2 February 2018, the Queensland Police Service lodged an application for miscellaneous matters with the Tribunal. The application for miscellaneous matters seeks the dismissal of the application to review a decision.
  5. [12]
    The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is set out in s 17(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’):

The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act.

  1. [13]
    The relevant enabling Act in the present case is the Weapons Act. Section 142 of that Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review the following decisions:

Right to apply for review of decisions

  1. (1)
    This section applies to the following decisions—
  1. (a)
    a decision refusing an application for a licence, permit, approval or other authority under this Act;

(aa)  a decision refusing to renew a licence under this Act;

  1. (b)
    a decision refusing to accept the nomination of a person by an applicant for a shooting club permit;
  1. (c)
    a decision refusing to accept a representative notice under section 92;
  1. (d)
    a decision imposing or amending a condition applying to a licence, permit, approval or other authority under this Act;
  1. (e)
    a decision revoking or suspending a licence, permit, approval or other authority under this Act;
  1. (f)
    a decision, under section 18D(2), revoking a delegation.
  1. (2)
    A person aggrieved by the decision may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to QCAT for a review of the decision.
  1. [14]
    Section 142(1) does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review a decision that an application is taken to have been withdrawn under r 146(4) of the Weapons Regulation.
  2. [15]
    In any event, I am not satisfied that Mr Stanway is a ‘person aggrieved’ for the purposes of s 142(2) of the Weapons Act. Many cases have been decided about who is a person aggrieved for the purposes of various forms of statutory review provisions. The following comments by the Full Court of the Victorian Supreme Court in Day v Hunter are instructive:[1]

[I]t will not be established merely by the applicant swearing that he ‘feels aggrieved’, for if that were the case a stranger to the proceedings, with no real or direct interest therein, could bring himself within the words by so swearing. These words were clearly intended to exclude from the operation of the section the common informer and other busybodies, who have no real or direct interest in the proceedings in which the decision sought to be reviewed was given, and to prevent them from intermeddling officiously therein.

  1. [16]
    I am unable to ascertain any real or direct interest on the part of Mr Stanway as to whether the Brisbane City Council is able to possess and use a suppressor/silencer. As indicated by Mr Stanway, he has no authority to act on behalf of the Council.
  2. [17]
    Section 47 of the QCAT Act relevantly provides:

Dismissing, striking out or deciding if unjustified proceeding or part

  1. (1)
    This section applies if the tribunal considers a proceeding or a part of a proceeding is–
  1. (a)
    frivolous, vexatious or misconceived; or
  1. (b)
    lacking in substance; or
  1. (c)
    otherwise an abuse of process.
  1. (2)
    The tribunal may—
  1. (a)
    if the party who brought the proceeding or part before the tribunal is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding or part be dismissed or struck out …
  1. [18]
    As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear Mr Stanway’s application, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application under s 47 of the QCAT Act on the basis that it is misconceived.
  2. [19]
    Even if I am incorrect in my conclusion that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, I would still consider it appropriate to dismiss the application under s 47 of the QCAT Act on the basis that it is lacking in substance. Mr Stanway has no authority to act on behalf of the Brisbane City Council, and there is no evidence before me that the Council wishes to possess and use a suppressor/silencer. In these circumstances, there would be no utility in determining the application for an exemption.

Footnotes

[1] [1964] VR 845, 847.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Adam Stanway v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Stanway v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCAT 219

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Cranwell

  • Date:

    05 Jul 2018

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Day v W.B. Hunter Pty. Ltd. (1964) VR 845
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1964) VR 845
Cite 2 - (1964) VR 845

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Stanway v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2019] QCATA 10813 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.