QXH v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing
[2018] QCAT 288
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- QXH v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2018] QCAT 288
- Add to List
QXH v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2018] QCAT 288
QXH v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2018] QCAT 288
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | QXH v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2018] QCAT 288 |
PARTIES: | QXH (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR162-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 24 August 2018 |
HEARING DATE: | 1 December 2017; 21 March 2018 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Browne |
ORDERS: | IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT:
THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT:
4:00pm on 7 September 2018
4:00pm on 21 September 2018
|
CATCHWORDS: | FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENCES AND RELATED MATTERS LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – REVOCATION, CANCELLATION SUSPENSION OR SURRENDER – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – WEAPONS – CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE – where applicant’s firearms licence revoked – where applicant filed an application to review – where decision-maker filed material in the review proceeding – where decision-maker identified information filed in the review proceeding as ‘criminal intelligence’ – whether information has been correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ for the purposes of s 142A of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, 20, s 21, s 28, s 66, s 90 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B, s 29, s 142A AVS Group Australian v Commissioner of Police [2012] NSWADT 1 DT & Anor v Department of Justice and Attorney-General Industry Licensing Unit & Anor [2015] QCAT 228 Stretton v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCATA 37 |
APPEARANCES: |
|
This matter was heard and determined in the absence of the public, the applicant, or the applicant’s lawyer or representative pursuant to s 142A of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) and s 17 and s 90 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). | |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [2]QXH wants to review a decision made by Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘the QPS’) to revoke his weapons licence.[1] Before QXH’s application can proceed to a final hearing, the Tribunal must determine a preliminary issue. That is, whether certain information filed by the QPS in the review proceeding has been correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’.[2]
- [3]If the information is correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ then the Tribunal must ensure that it does not disclose the content of the criminal intelligence. The Tribunal is required to receive evidence and hear argument in the absence of the public, QXH or QXH’s lawyer or representative. If the Tribunal considers that the information has been incorrectly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’, the commissioner of the police service may withdraw the information from consideration by the Tribunal.
- [4]QXH raises a number of contentions about the admissibility of ‘criminal intelligence’ information in the review proceeding. QXH says that the ‘case to introduce criminal intelligence has been extinguished’.[3] QXH says that the only avenue to introduce ‘criminal intelligence’ is to have the words ‘criminal intelligence’ recorded as a specific reason on the original revocation notice.[4] QXH says that s 29 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘Weapons Act’) requires the commissioner or deputy commissioner to approve the revocation decision if the authorised officer is acting on the basis of ‘criminal intelligence’ information.[5] QXH says that there is no indication (or endorsement) on the QPS revocation notice that the commissioner or deputy commissioner has approved ‘criminal intelligence’ as a specific reason for the revocation.[6] The contentions raised by QXH require me to determine a further preliminary issue about the admissibility of the ‘criminal intelligence’. That is, whether the information, if found by me to be correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ for the purposes of s 142A of the Weapons Act, is admissible in the review proceeding.
What is the tribunal’s power on review?
- [5]Under the Weapons Act, an authorised officer may revoke a licensee’s licence if satisfied, amongst other things, that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.[7] This requires the exercise of a broad discretion having regard to a number of considerations as provided in s 10B. Section 29(3) requires the commissioner or deputy commissioner acting personally, to approve the revocation of a licence if the authorised officer is acting on the basis of ‘criminal intelligence or other information’ of the kind mentioned in s 10B(1)(ca).
- [6]Relevantly, section 10B of the Weapons Act provides the matters for consideration in determining whether a person is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The considerations include, for example, the mental and physical fitness of the person; whether a domestic violence order has been made; whether the person has stated in their application to the QPS any false or misleading information; whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access; and the public interest.[8] Section 10B(1) provides:
10B Fit and proper person – licensees
- (1)In deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, an authorised officer must consider, among other things—
- (a)the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
- (b)whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and
- (c)whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and
(ca) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates—
- (i)the person is a risk to public safety; or
- (ii)that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and
- (d)the public interest.
- [7]The principles underlying the Weapons Act are set out under s 3 and provide that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety, and public and individual safety is improved by imposing strict controls on the possession of weapons and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons. The object of the Weapons Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.[9]
- [8]The Weapons Act confers jurisdiction on QCAT to review certain decisions such as a decision to revoke a licence where an aggrieved person has applied for a review of the decision.[10] The Weapons Act contains modifying provisions for a review of a relevant decision concerning ‘criminal intelligence’ information.[11] For example, s 142A requires the tribunal to prevent the disclosure of information categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ and to hear argument in the absence of the applicant.[12]
- [9]The tribunal must decide the review proceeding in accordance with the QCAT Act and the enabling Act (i.e. the Weapons Act) and has all of the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision.[13]
- [10]The tribunal on review conducts a fresh hearing on the merits to produce the correct and preferable decision.[14] In the review proceeding, the decision-maker has a duty to assist the tribunal. This duty includes providing to the tribunal ‘any document or thing’ in the decision-maker’s possession or control that may be relevant to the review of the decision.[15]
- [11]An interpretation of the relevant sections of the Weapons Act such as s 29 and s 142A that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is preferred.[16] Section 29 of the Weapons Act confers on the decision-maker and the tribunal on review a broad discretionary power to revoke a licensee’s licence if satisfied as to any of the matters set out in s 29(1). In considering whether a person is, or is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, the decision-maker or the tribunal on review must have regard to a number of matters set out under s 10B(1).
- [12]On a plain reading of section 142A, information categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ in a review proceeding is not restricted to only those decisions where the decision-maker ‘is acting on the basis of criminal intelligence’ under s 29(3). Section 142A does, however, require the tribunal on review to deal with ‘criminal intelligence’ in a certain way such as to prevent its disclosure and to ensure its protection.
- [13]In Stretton v Queensland Police Service,[17] the Appeal Tribunal considered the application of s 142A in a review proceeding. In Stretton’s case, Mr Stretton sought a review of a decision to revoke his licences because he was found to not be a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold those licences under s 29. At the review hearing the respondent (the QPS), in relying upon the grounds in s 142A(3)(d) and s 142A(3)(e) of the Weapons Act, sought to rely on ‘criminal intelligence’. The learned Member closed the hearing to receive that information. The learned Member ultimately found that she was in receipt of criminal intelligence on the basis that the information, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice the investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of the Weapons Act.[18] The Appeal Tribunal in disposing of the Appeal was satisfied that the evidence given in the closed hearing was criminal intelligence and found that the applicant was not entitled to notice of that evidence, and, to that extent, he was not denied procedural fairness in respect of it because the legislation compelled that to be so.[19] The Appeal Tribunal found that in reviewing the decision to revoke the applicant’s licence, it was required to consider all material placed before it and assess the evidence tendered as ‘criminal intelligence’ although it is not bound to act on it. The Appeal Tribunal said:[20]
The Tribunal on review was required, in effect, to decide whether to revoke Mr Stretton’s licences. In doing so, it is required to consider all material placed before it. In the event the Tribunal has criminal intelligence put before it, it must assess that information (that is, to assess the cogency and veracity of the evidence that is tendered as “criminal intelligence” information) and is not bound to act on it.
- [14]Stretton’s case is relevant to the preliminary issues that arise in this matter because in Stretton’s case the QPS sought to rely on ‘criminal intelligence’ information at the review hearing. It is clear from reading Stretton’s case that the QPS did not give the applicant (Mr Stretton) notice of the application to adduce ‘criminal intelligence’. In Stretton’s case, the Appeal Tribunal found that there was no express requirement in the Weapons Act that a person be given notice that an application under s 142A is going to be made.[21]
Is information correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ admissible in the review proceeding?
- [15]In this matter, the QPS determined that QXH was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. In the information notice given to QXH, the QPS referred to the ‘public interest’ and provided reasons for the revocation decision. Such reasons include the following:
- (a)QXH appeared before the Magistrates Court on 16 September 2016 and pleaded guilty to an offence of one count of unlawful possession of Category H Weapon. QXH was fined $1,200. No conviction was recorded against QXH;
- (b)The circumstances, giving rise to the offence, were that police located QXH in possession of a Category H Glock Model 35, .40 calibre semi-automatic pistol with the serial numbers removed. QXH was also found in possession of 2 boxes of .40 calibre ammunition;
- (c)QXH indicated to police that he had been unlawfully provided the pistol with the intent of taking it on a fishing trip in far north Queensland; and
- (d)QXH’s licence is based on a Sports Target Shooting genuine reason and has not been issued on the basis of an occupational requirement.
- (a)
- [16]QXH is correct in pointing out that there is no indication or endorsement on the QPS revocation notice that the commissioner or deputy commissioner has approved ‘criminal intelligence’ as a specific reason for the revocation. There is clearly no mention of ‘criminal intelligence’ information in the QPS revocation notice. QXH is also correct in submitting that if the authorised officer is acting on the basis of ‘criminal intelligence’ in revoking a licence because the person is not a fit and proper person, s 29(3) requires the commissioner or deputy commission, acting personally, to approve the revocation. An authorised officer also has the power, however, under s 29 to revoke the licensee’s licence if, as provided under s 29(1)(d), the authorised officer is satisfied the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
- [17]In this matter, it is clear from reading the revocation notice and the information notice given to QXH that the authorised officer was not acting on the basis of criminal intelligence for the purposes of s 29(3). The authorised officer was exercising the power under s 29(1)(d) of the Weapons Act. As stated in the revocation notice, the authorised officer was satisfied that QXH is ‘no longer a fit and proper person to hold your licence due to it not being in the public interest’.[22] The decision to revoke QXH’s licence is the reviewable decision. As set out above, the tribunal on review, in conducting a merits review, must produce the correct and preferable decision. The tribunal may consider relevant information that was available to the decision-maker when the decision was made and any further information relevant to the review proceeding. In conducting the review, information categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ is afforded protection by virtue of s 142A.
- [18]QXH’s submission that the ‘criminal intelligence’ is only admissible if it was recorded as a specific reason on the revocation notice requires me to interpret s 29 and s 142A of the Weapons Act in a way that would be contrary to the purpose of the Act, such as public safety and the prevention of the misuse of weapons. This is because it would confine the tribunal on review to consider ‘criminal intelligence’ information only if it was available to the decision-maker ‘acting on’ the information under s 29(3) at the time the reviewable decision was made. The information identified as ‘criminal intelligence’ may have, for example, been obtained by the decision-maker after the reviewable decision was made. The tribunal on review may consider all relevant information in the review proceeding. To confine the tribunal on review to only consider information that was available to the decision-maker at the time the reviewable decision was made would, in the absence of any modifying or express legislative provision that indicates otherwise, fetter the tribunal’s statutory power to receive relevant material in the review proceeding necessary to arrive at the correct and preferable decision.[23]
- [19]QXH’s submission that the case to introduce ‘criminal intelligence’ is extinguished must fail. Section 142A clearly contemplates the receipt of information categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ by the tribunal in a review proceeding. Such information may form the basis for the revocation decision because the commissioner or deputy commissioner is acting on ‘criminal intelligence or other information’ as provided under s 29(3). The ‘criminal intelligence’ or other information may, on the other hand, form part of the evidence relied upon by the QPS in the review proceeding. For example, it may form part of the section 21 material because it is ‘a document or thing’ in the decision-maker’s possession or control that may be relevant to the tribunal’s review of the decision or it may be evidence relied upon by the QPS in the review hearing as demonstrated in Stretton’s case.
- [20]The QPS in meeting its statutory duty under s 21 of the QCAT to assist the tribunal so that it can make its decision may apply to the tribunal to rely on ‘criminal intelligence’. Section 142A clearly contemplates the tribunal on review considering ‘criminal intelligence’ information in deciding the review where such information must not be disclosed and is afforded protection. The answer to the question that arises in QXH’s written submissions is that relevant information found to be correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ for the purposes of s 142A of the Weapons Act is admissible in the review proceeding.
What is ‘criminal intelligence’ for the purposes of the Weapons Act?
- [21]There is a definition of criminal intelligence under s 142A(3) and Schedule 2 of the Weapons Act. Relevantly s 142A defines criminal intelligence to mean:
criminal intelligence other information of the kind mentioned in section 10B (1) (ca) or 10C (1) that could, if disclosed, reasonably be expected—
- (a)to prejudice the investigation of a contravention or possible contravention of this Act; or
- (b)to enable the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of this Act, to be ascertained; or
- (c)to endanger a person’s life or physical safety; or
- (d)to prejudice the effectiveness of a lawful method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of this Act; or
- (e)to prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful method or procedure for protecting public safety.
- [22]Relevantly, schedule 2 defines ‘criminal intelligence’ in relation to a person, ‘means any information about the person’s connection with or involvement in criminal activity’.[24]
- [23]The QPS submit that in determining whether the information is ‘criminal intelligence’ pursuant to s 142A of the Weapons Act, the Tribunal should consider the material as a whole on the basis of the analysis that has been applied to it, rather than as individual parcels of information which might otherwise not be classified as such.[25]
- [24]The QPS refers the Tribunal to the approach taken in DT & Anor v Department of Justice and Attorney-General - Industry Licensing Unit & Anor.[26] In DT’s case the Tribunal in adopting a broad approach to the construction of the expression ‘criminal intelligence report and other criminal information’, cited the New South Wales decision of AVS Group Australian v Commissioner of Police.[27] In DT’s case the Tribunal said that a broad approach is necessary to promote the objects of the Act.[28]
- [25]The QPS also refer to Stretton’s case and the Appeal Tribunal’s finding in that case that material classified as ‘criminal intelligence’ satisfied the necessary criteria under the Weapons Act. The QPS refer to the Appeal Tribunal’s finding that s 142A(3)(d) merely requires that prejudice be caused to an investigation of a contravention of the Act. In Stretton’s case, the Appeal Tribunal said at [68]:
Section 142A(3)(d) does not necessarily require that the prejudice be to an investigation of a contravention by the applicant. The statute merely requires that prejudice be caused to an investigation of a contravention of the Weapons Act. It is not concerned by whom.
- [26]I adopt the approach taken by the Tribunal in DT’s case in considering whether the information has been correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’. I find that a broad approach should be taken to the construction of the expression ‘criminal intelligence’ in considering all of the information before me for the purposes of s 142A of the Weapons Act. I also adopt the approach taken by the Appeal Tribunal in Stretton’s case to the interpretation of s 142A(3)(d) of the Weapons Act. I find that s 142A(3)(d) merely requires that prejudice be caused to an investigation of a contravention of the Weapons Act.[29]
Has the information filed in the review proceeding been correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’?
- [27]The application to hear argument about whether the information has been correctly categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’ proceeded to a closed hearing before me on 1 December 2017.[30] After the closed hearing, the QPS filed a further application seeking directions for a further closed hearing and to rely on additional information such as affidavits, statements and other information that the QPS said should be categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’.[31] The application proceeded to a further closed hearing before me on 21 March 2018.
- [28]The information identified by the QPS as ‘criminal intelligence’ comprises the following:[32]
- (a)Affidavit of Shane Holmes sworn 23 October 2017;[33]
- (b)[Redacted];
- (c)Sworn oral evidence of Clayton Bradford given at the closed hearing on 21 March 2018;
- (d)Affidavit of Clayton Bradford sworn 19 August 2017 being pages numbered 85, 86 and 100;[34]
- (e)Affidavit of Clayton Bradford sworn 23 February 2018[35] with attachments as follows:
- attachment marked “CCB031” (Affidavit of [redacted]) and pages numbered 116 to 118, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB032” (Statement of [redacted]) and pages numbered 119 to 129, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB033” (Statement of [redacted]) and pages numbered 130 to 132, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB034 (Affidavit of [redacted]) and pages numbered 133 to 139, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB035” (Statement of [redacted]) and pages numbered 140 to 141, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB036” (Statement of [redacted]) and pages numbered 142 to 143, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB037” (Statement of [redacted]) and pages numbered 144 to 147, inclusive;
- attachment marked “CCB038” ( [redacted]) and pages numbered 149 to 154, inclusive; and
- attachment marked “CCB039” ([redacted]) and pages numbered 155 to 167, inclusive.
- (f)
- (g)Written submission prepared by Clayton Bradford dated 24 April 2018.[37]
- (a)
- [29]The affidavit of Shane Holmes, Superintendent of Police at the Specialist Services Group sworn 23 October 2017 refers to [redacted]. I accept Mr Holmes’ evidence.
- [30][Redacted].
- [31]At the closed hearing Clayton Bradford, Sergeant, gave sworn evidence about [redacted].
- [32]The two pages of information attached to the affidavit of Clayton Bradford sworn 19 August 2017 (pages numbered 85 and 86) contain [redacted].
- [33]Attached to the affidavit of Clayton Bradford, Sergeant, sworn 23 February 2018 is the following:
- (a)The affidavit of [redacted].
- (b)The statement of [redacted].
- (c)The evidence of [redacted].
- (d)The statement of [redacted].
- (e)The statement of [redacted].
- (f)The statement of [redacted].
- (g)The [redacted].
- (a)
- [34]The further affidavit of Shane Holmes sworn 28 March 2018 contains evidence about the [redacted].
- [35]The QPS submit that in this case all of the information meets the criteria of criminal intelligence or other material as defined in s 142A of the Weapons Act in particular s 142A(3)(a) and (d).[38] [Redacted].
- [36]The QPS also contend that if disclosed, the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice a lawful method or procedure for dealing with contraventions of the Weapons Act. Namely, [redacted].
- [37]The QPS contend that the [redacted].
- [38]Finally, the QPS say that [redacted].
- [39]I have carefully considered all of the information identified by the QPS as ‘criminal intelligence’. I accept the evidence of Mr Bradford together with the attached statements that includes information about [redacted]. I also accept the further evidence of Mr Holmes [redacted].
- [40]I am satisfied that all of the information identified by the QPS is ‘criminal intelligence’ for the purposes of s 142A of the Weapons Act. The information satisfies the criteria under s 142A(3)(a) and (d) in that, if disclosed, the information would prejudice the investigation of a contravention of the Weapons Act, or prejudice the effectiveness of a lawful method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of the Act.[39]
- [41]I am satisfied that [redacted].
- [42]I accept the QPS’ submission that [redacted].
- [43]The information in particular the evidence of [redacted].
- [44]I am satisfied in adopting the approach in DT’s case, that all of the information identified above including Mr Bradford’s affidavit and attachments, the written submission prepared by Mr Bradford that identifies the information to be categorised as ‘criminal intelligence’, the affidavits of Mr Holmes and the information concerning [redacted] are ‘criminal intelligence’. I am satisfied that the disclosure of this information may prejudice the investigation of a contravention of the Weapons Act or a possible contravention of the Act.[40] This is because [redacted].
- [45]I am satisfied that the sworn evidence of Mr Bradford is also afforded protection under s 142A of the Weapons Act. This is because [redacted]. I am not satisfied, however, that the attachments being pages numbered 101 to 111, inclusive of Mr Bradford’s affidavit sworn 23 February 2018 are ‘criminal intelligence’.[41] This is because the QPS has not identified this material (pages numbered 101 to 111, inclusive) in its written submissions as ‘criminal intelligence.’ I am otherwise not satisfied that the information is afforded protection under s 142A because it is information that is relevant to the reviewable decision and QXH’s offending behaviour. Because I have found that that information (pages numbered 101 to 111, inclusive) is not ‘criminal intelligence’ the information may be withdrawn from consideration by the Tribunal under s 142A(2A). If the information is not withdrawn, it will form part of the material filed by the QPS decision-maker under s 21 of the QCAT Act that is disclosable to QXH.
Conclusion
- [46]I have found that the evidence and information to be relied upon by the QPS in the review proceeding is ‘criminal intelligence’.[42] I have also found that the ‘criminal intelligence’ is admissible in the review proceeding. QXH does not know of the nature or content of the information identified by the QPS as criminal intelligence because the information is afforded protection under s 142A of the Weapons Act.
- [47]The next step for the Tribunal is to conduct a review hearing in relation to the decision to revoke QXH’s licence. QXH and the QPS should be given an opportunity to file any further material to be relied upon in the review hearing. The QPS should also be given an opportunity to withdraw the information I have found is not afforded protection under s 142A(2A) of the Weapons Act.[43] I will make directions accordingly.
Non-publication orders
- [48]I have found that information including affidavits, statements and other information filed by the QPS in the review proceeding is ‘criminal intelligence’ for the purposes of s 142A of the Weapons Act. It is therefore appropriate that I make an order pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of:
- (a)The contents of those documents to any person other than the respondent decision-maker; and
- (b)Any information that may enable QXH to be identified.
- (a)
- [49]I consider that these orders are appropriate to avoid the publication of confidential information which must not be disclosed. The Tribunal will deliver two sets of reasons. One set to the respondent decision-maker and a redacted set to QXH and for publication.
Footnotes
[1] Decision made on 25 May 2017.
[2] Tribunal Directions dated 1 November 2017, 15 February 2018 and 21 March 2018.
[3] QXH’s written submissions prepared as an ‘affidavit’ and filed on 18 October 2017 in accordance with the Tribunal’s Directions dated 5 October 2017.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Tribunal’s Directions dated 5 October 2017.
[7] Weapons Act, s 29.
[8] Weapons Act, s 10B(ca).
[9] Ibid, s 3(2).
[10] Ibid, s 142.
[11] Ibid, s 142A.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), s 19.
[14] QCAT Act, s 20.
[15] Ibid, s 21.
[16] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 14A.
[17] [2018] QCATA 37.
[18] Ibid, [65].
[19] Ibid, [83].
[20] Ibid, [86].
[21] Stretton’s case, [80].
[22] Form 7 Revocation Notice dated 25 May 2017.
[23] QCAT Act, s 28(3)(e).
[24] Weapons Act, Schedule 2.
[25] Written submissions filed 24 April 2018.
[26] [2015] QCAT 228.
[27] [2012] NSWADT 1.
[28] DT’s case, [36].
[29] Stretton’s case, [68].
[30] Application filed by the QPS on 6 October 2017.
[31] Application filed by the QPS on 2 February 2018.
[32] Written submissions filed 24 April 2018 in compliance with the Tribunal’s Directions dated 21 March 2018.
[33] Exhibit 1.
[34] Tribunal Directions dated 21 March 2018.
[35] Tribunal’s Directions dated 15 February 2018. Exhibit 3 being pages numbered 101 to 111, (inclusive). Pages numbered 112 to 115 (inclusive) were withdrawn by the QPS at the closed hearing on 21 March 2018.
[36] Filed in compliance with the Tribunal’s Directions dated 21 March 2018.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Written submissions identifying the ‘criminal intelligence’ information, prepared by Mr Bradford dated 24 April 2018.
[39] Weapons Act, s 142A(3)(a), s 142A(3)(d).
[40] Ibid, s 142A(3)(a).
[41] Being attachments marked “CCB026”, “CCB027”, “CCB028” and “CCB029” and pages numbered 101 to 111, inclusive to the affidavit of Clayton Bradford sworn 23 February 2018.
[42] Tribunal Directions dated 1 November 2017, 15 February 2018 and 21 March 2018.
[43] Being attachments marked “CCB026”, “CCB027”, “CCB028” and “CCB029” and pages numbered 101 to 111, inclusive to the affidavit of Clayton Bradford sworn 23 February 2018.