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

Gaerlan v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy[2019] QCAT 348

Gaerlan v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy[2019] QCAT 348



Gaerlan v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy [2019] QCAT 348










General administrative review matters


16 October 2019


29 April 2019




Member Pennell


The decision by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy dated 31 July 2018 to refuse to issue the applicant an authority pursuant to the Explosives Act 1999 (Qld) is confirmed.


FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – EXPLOSIVES – LICENCES AND PERMITS – where licensee convicted of drug offences – drugs offences are relevant offences pursuant to the Explosives Act 1999 (Qld) – relevant offences involved convictions for trafficking and possessing methylamphetamines – licensee served a term of imprisonment – licensee continued to re-offend after release from custody – licensee’s re-offending involved further relevant offences – licensee has a diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) relating to his service in the military – PTSD connected to applicant experiencing traumatic military conflicts – whether licensee is an appropriate person to hold an authority to possess explosives 

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5, Part 2, Schedule 1

Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 15(3), s 15(10), s 17(1),      s 111, Schedule 2

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 93

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 20(1), s 20(2), s 24(1), s 157

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58

RPG v Public Safety Business Agency [2016] QCAT 331

R v Gaerlan [2014] QCA 145






M Land, Deputy Chief Inspector of Explosives



  1. [1]
    In 2002, the applicant enlisted into the Australian Army.  After completing his basic training, he was posted to the Lavarack Army Barracks in Townsville. During 2005 and 2006 he was deployed for active service in Iraq and East Timor. 
  2. [2]
    In early 2008, the applicant voluntarily discharged from the army.  He left the military because of matrimonial difficulties that he and his partner were encountering at that time.[1]  It would seem that around this same time the applicant became employed in the mining sector as an assistant shot firer.  Because of the nature of, and the legislative requirements relating to his employment, he applied for an authority[2] pursuant to the Explosives Act 1999 (Qld) (‘the Act’).  That authority was issued by the respondent on 1 February 2008.[3]      
  3. [3]
    At some point during 2010, the applicant became involved in trafficking methylamphetamines.[4]  His involvement in that offence and other criminal behaviour is discussed in greater detail later in these reasons.
  4. [4]
    On 7 February 2018, the applicant again applied for an authority pursuant to the Act.[5]  At the time of making his application, the applicant was scheduled to appear in the Supreme Court for breaching a suspended sentence imposed upon him for trafficking in methylamphetamines. 
  5. [5]
    Upon receipt of the applicant’s application, the respondent conducted a national criminal history check which revealed the applicant’s criminal history.[6]  In assessing the application and criminal history, the respondent took into consideration that the applicant had been convicted of offences in November 2012 and August 2017.  Also taken into consideration was the applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) which was outlined in his appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal (‘the QCA’). 
  6. [6]
    To further assess the applicant’s suitability to hold an authority under the Act, the respondent requested that the applicant provide a report from his treating psychiatrist or psychologist, if he had been treated for PTSD in the last three years.[7]  The information provided to the respondent was that the applicant had been treated for PTSD, depression and anxiety.[8]
  7. [7]
    In undertaking the assessment of the applicant, the respondent considered three specific issues.  The first was the applicant’s extensive criminal history which contained several relevant offences.[9]  The second consideration related to the applicant’s mental health and the limited evidence available at that time to specify the type of ongoing treatment for the applicant to assist him to manage that condition.  The third consideration was a combination of the first two considerations in that the respondent considered that the applicant’s recent criminal history and the concerns about his mental health posed a risk to the safety of the public.  Ultimately, the respondent’s decision was to reject the applicant’s submissions and refuse to issue him with an authority.[10] 
  8. [8]
    It would be remiss of me not to identify an error in respondent’s initial assessment process.  When consideration was given to the applicant’s criminal history, emphasis was placed on his recorded convictions, of which the respondent suggested included offences involving violence or threatened violence.[11]  This inference was that there is more than one offence of that category.   
  9. [9]
    On my observation of the applicant’s criminal history, there is only one offence which could fall within the category just described. That offence is described in his criminal history as ‘assault or obstruct a police officer’.[12]  Upon analysis of the offence recorded and of the evidence given in the tribunal hearing, it would seem that the offence committed is more akin to an obstruct police.  The applicant told the tribunal that he was charged for running away from the police when they were attempting to arrest him.  This was not challenged by the respondent.  Overall, I am satisfied that the applicant had not engaged in criminal behaviour which involved offences of violence or that he had threatened violence.
  10. [10]
    Although I have just identified an error in the respondent’s reasoning, it should be noted that this matter is an administrative review of the respondent’s decision.  There is no presumption that the original decision is correct, and unlike a judicial review, the tribunal’s function in an administrative review is to review the decision, not the process by which it was arrived at, nor the reasons for making it.[13]
  11. [11]
    Notwithstanding the comments just made, the error just identified in the respondent’s assessment does not diminish the overall strength of the respondent’s position, and the error itself does not persuade me to set aside the respondent’s decision.

Legislative pathway

  1. [12]
    When undertaking an evaluation of an application for an authority,[14] a consideration for the chief inspector[15] is the appropriateness of the applicant.  As part of that evaluation, the chief inspector has the discretion to consider, amongst other things, the applicant’s mental and physical health, and whether he has been convicted[16] of a relevant offence.[17] 
  2. [13]
    If the chief inspector makes a decision to refuse to issue the applicant with an authority because he is considered not to be an appropriate person, the chief inspector is required to provide to the applicant an information notice stating the decision and the reasons for that decision.[18]  The applicant is then at liberty to apply to the tribunal for a review of that decision.[19] 
  3. [14]
    The review before the tribunal must be undertaken by way of a fresh hearing on the merits of the application[20] and the tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision maker.  The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision[21] and the tribunal’s decision must be based on the material which is before the tribunal at the time of the review hearing.[22] 
  4. [15]
    In reaching the correct and preferable decision, the tribunal has the discretion to either confirm or amend the decision, or set aside the decision and substitute its own decision, or set aside the decision and return the matter for consideration to the original decision maker with directions the tribunal considers appropriate.[23] 

The applicant’s criminal history

  1. [16]
    At some point during 2010, the applicant became involved in trafficking methylamphetamines.[24]  On 21 October 2010, he was fulfilling his role as a drug courier and travelling along the Bruce Highway near Gin Gin.  He was on a drug run from Sydney to Townsville.  He was intercepted by the police and 890 grams of methylamphetamines was found in his possession.  The estimated street value of the drugs ranged from $140,000 to $395,100. For his role as the courier, the applicant was paid $3,000 to undertake the drug run. 
  2. [17]
    On 1 November 2012, the applicant was convicted upon his own plead of guilty in the Supreme Court at Townsville to a number of drug-related offences, including the very serious charge of trafficking in methylamphetamines. The other charges involved possessing a large quantity of methylamphetamine and possession of utensils which had been used in connection with the commission of drug offences.  He received a head sentence of six years imprisonment for the trafficking offence and his parole eligibility date was set for 1 November 2014.  The sentences imposed by the court for the other offences were to be served concurrently.
  3. [18]
    In sentencing the applicant, the court took into account that prior to his offending he had a useful and productive life and that he had cooperated with the administration of justice by virtue of his admissions.  The court also heard of the applicant’s military service and his tours of duty in both Iraq and East Timor. Counsel representing him made a reference to the stressful experiences that the applicant had encountered when dealing with violent conflicts where there were very often severe injuries and deaths.[25]  
  4. [19]
    On the same day that he was sentenced in the Supreme Court, he also appeared in the Magistrates Court at Townsville in relation to other minor drug related charges.  The Magistrates Court imposed a small fine for those offences and convictions were recorded.
  5. [20]
    The applicant subsequently appealed the sentence imposed upon him by the Supreme Court.[26]  The QCA granted him leave to appeal and granted him leave to adduce further evidence by way of the affidavit of Mr Roberts Zemaitis (‘Mr Zemaitis’).[27]
  6. [21]
    In commenting on the circumstances of the applicant’s appeal, the QCA noted that the sentencing judge did not have the benefit of the evidence from Mr Zemaitis relating to the applicant’s stress disorder at the time of the offending, or how it contributed to the offending.  Those were significantly relevant matters which revealed a link between the applicant’s psychological state and the offending.  The evidence of Mr Zemaitis revealed the impact that applicant’s PTSD had upon him at the time of his criminal behaviour.[28]
  7. [22]
    It was accepted by the QCA that, but for the evidence of Mr Zemaitis, the original sentence of six years that was imposed would have been an appropriate one.  However, allowing for the applicant’s psychological condition and its contribution to his offending, the QCA considered that an appropriate sentence for the applicant relating to his involvement in trafficking was five years imprisonment, to be suspended after he had served 596 days in custody.[29]  The operational period for the suspended sentence was five years.  Regarding the possession of methylamphetamines, the QCA also set aside the original sentence, and placed the applicant on probation for three years.[30]
  8. [23]
    Notwithstanding that even after serving a significant term of imprisonment for drug related offences, the applicant continued to commit criminal offences after his release from custody.  Those offences included further drug offences.  His criminal offending recommenced in November 2015 when he was found in possession of dangerous drugs and utensils. A month later, he was again found in possession of dangerous drugs and utensils.[31]  He was charged with possessing a knife in a public place.  Four days after that, he was again found in possession a knife in a public place.[32]
  9. [24]
    The applicant’s criminal offending continued into 2016 where he committed further offences.[33]  Those offences were drug related, including the possession of a quantity of plastic clip seal bags.  He was also charged with obstructing police when he fled in an attempt to evade capture. 
  10. [25]
    A little over two months later, the applicant again came to the attention of police.[34]  On this occasion he was charged with possessing drug utensils and possession of property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence.  Within a few weeks of those offences, he was again charged, this time for an offence pursuant to the Act.[35]  The applicant told the tribunal that he was intercepted by police when he was driving a motor vehicle belonging to someone else and the police found a small box of fireworks in the vehicle’s glove box.
  11. [26]
    Some 11 months passed before the applicant again re-offended.[36]  On this occasion he was found in possession of a motor vehicle which did not lawfully belong to him.  He said that he had purchased a motor vehicle for $4,500, only to discover when apprehended by the police in possession of that vehicle that not only was it stolen, but it had also been fitted with false number plates.  He was also charged with a number of fraud related offences relating to those number plates and that vehicle.
  12. [27]
    In regard to all those offences just discussed, on 25 August 2017 the applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court at Townsville in relation to a total of 24 offences.  They included offences involving the possession of dangerous drugs and drug utensils, possession of a knife in a public place, fraud, breaching his bail conditions and contravening a requirement or a direction by police. 
  13. [28]
    Because he committed those offences, he breached the suspended sentence and the probation imposed by the QCA.  When brought before the Supreme Court in Townsville,[37] the court partly invoked his original sentence and re-sentenced him to three years imprisonment with immediate parole release on that same day.  In regard to the breach of his probation, he was not further punished.  I previously indicated in these reasons that by the time that he appeared in court on this occasion, he had already submitted his application to be issued with an authority.  

The applicant’s mental health

  1. [29]
    So far as a mental health assessment, a Personality Assessment Inventory (‘PAI’) assessment undertaken of the applicant suggested that he had been assessed as fitting the criteria of PTSD and major depression order.[38]
  2. [30]
    The applicant was first diagnosed with PTSD after he had been sentenced by the Supreme Court for trafficking in methylamphetamines.  This diagnosis took place during his prison sentence and after consultation with Mr Zemaitis. 
  3. [31]
    In his appeal to the QCA, the applicant relied upon an assessment made by Mr Zemaitis who opined that when the applicant engaged in his criminal behaviour of trafficking in methylamphetamines he was suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder chronic (‘PTSDC’), and that he continued to suffer from this condition at the time of his appeal.  The QCA accepted that the applicant’s condition was a consequence of him being exposed to extremely traumatic experiences during his overseas military service.[39]  It was the opinion of Mr Zemaitis that the applicant’s trip to Sydney for the drug run reflected a lack of clear thinking and was symptomatic of a deterioration of his cognitive functions at the time resulting from his efforts to cope with the severe impact of the symptoms of his PTSD and also associated depression. 
  4. [32]
    The applicant also undertook treatment for his PTSD with Dr Riccardo Caniato.[40]  He continued his treatment for his PTSD, although this was disrupted by the suicide of his partner.[41]  He stopped taking his medication, he ceased work and started using the drug ICE on a regular basis.  For a period of 18 months following his partner’s death, he spiralled into a depressed state and isolated himself. This culminated in him being charged with further offences, including drug offences.[42]  The applicant now says that in the past two years he has rebuilt his life whilst dealing with the effects of his PTSD.   
  5. [33]
    There are a number of ways in which PTSD is manageable, for example with counselling and positive behavioural therapy.  In the 12 months that the applicant had undertaken counselling, there was a care plan developed and his presentations at the counselling sessions gave no indication of any substance misuse or reoffending with drugs.  It seemed that he engaged well with treatment.  The assessment was that the applicant has been consistently at a low risk of self-harm himself, harm to others and harm by others.[43]
  6. [34]
    The applicant’s mental health was also assessed by Mr Davey.[44]  His assessment was that the applicant had shown that he requires ongoing psychological and psychiatric intervention to assist with his PTSD condition and that the applicant has shown motivation for that intervention to occur. In essence, the applicant has been proactive in addressing his PTSD and it would seem that he has been stable with his condition and there is a positive prognosis for his future.  Overall, it was Mr Davey’s ultimate conclusion that he saw no risk of the applicant holding the shot firers licence.
  7. [35]
    It is acknowledged that the comments about the applicant’s eligibility to hold a shot firers licence is a significant issue to be considered.  However, I am of the view that notwithstanding the assessment and comments made about the issuing of an authority would not be impeded by his PTSD, the question which I am required to determine is whether the applicant is an appropriate person having regard to all the circumstances. The applicant’s PTSD is not the only consideration with respect to being an appropriate person, his criminal history, the nature and circumstances of his criminal behaviour and his propensity to commit further offences are all considerations that have to be undertaken.
  8. [36]
    It is noted that the applicant has not reoffended since 12 May 2017 and not appeared in any court since 28 March 2018.  It would seem that he is leading an offence free life at present.  Generally, no credit should be given to the applicant for living an offence free lifestyle since his last conviction because that is what is ordinarily expected from law-abiding members of our community.[45]

The applicant’s case

  1. [37]
    The applicant understood that the respondent made the decision to deny him an authority because of his criminal history and the assessment of his mental health.  The applicant accepted that his criminal history understandably prompted a closer scrutiny of him as a person suitable to hold an authority. 
  2. [38]
    However, he argued that his involvement in trafficking in methylamphetamines was in close proximity to what were major and uncommon events in his life.  That is, he had served in multiple theatres of war; and there was the very graphic suicide of his partner.  He pointed out that the circumstances of those events were very unlikely to occur again.  I do note that the death of his partner occurred on 24 July 2015 which was before the applicant re-engaged himself in criminal activity after his release from custody.
  3. [39]
    The applicant also contends that I should place very little weight upon his conviction for possessing a drug utensil as this was not a ‘relevant offence’ within the meaning of the Act.[46]  That suggestion is rejected.  Trafficking in a dangerous drug relates to the misuse of drugs, and so too is the possession of a utensil, a pipe of other thing which has been used in connection with a drug offence.  My view is that there is a direct correlation between the possession of those drug utensils and the misuse of drugs.  The applicant pleaded guilty to possessing utensils which had been used in connection with the use of drugs.  This was not just an innocent possession of utensils and it is nonsensical to argue otherwise.    
  4. [40]
    Listed below are the relevant offences the applicant pleaded guilty to in the Magistrates Court at Townsville.[47]  

Offence date

Offence recorded on criminal history


Possess dangerous drug                                                                 Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used


Possess Dangerous Drug                                                                   Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used


Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used

Possessing anything used in the commission of a crime defined in Part 2[48]                     


Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used                     Possession of property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence

  1. [41]
    The applicant also submitted that his criminal offending did not contain any suggestion or element of violence and nor was he threatening towards anyone. I have already indicated that I accept that his behaviour did not involve actual violence towards others or any threats of violence.
  2. [42]
    The applicant went on to say that he has learnt that in order to maintain a quality life, he cannot ignore seeking professional help. He said that the wisdom that he gained from his mistakes served to help him avoid repeating these mistakes again.  I note that although he claims that, he did not explain what that wisdom was and nor did he display any insight into how he will recognise any triggers; or that he would be able to deploy preventative strategies. 
  3. [43]
    In acknowledging his criminal offending, the applicant said that he was not a danger to the public and that his criminal behaviour had only been a detrimental to himself and not others.  I do not accept this. Perhaps this is a naïve approach by the applicant and one which lacks any substantial level of personal insight.  The trafficking of methylamphetamines to other members of the community is frequently denounced by the courts. The drug involved is an insidious drug which wreaks havoc on the lives of individuals and families.  Not only do the courts view the type of behaviour engaged in by the applicant very seriously, but it is behaviour which ordinarily carries a significant penalty.  This is reflected in the penalty imposed by the QCA.[49]        

The appropriate person test

  1. [44]
    The Act expressly provides that the chief inspector must consider any application made for an authority and can either issue that authority with or without conditions; or refused to issue that authority.[50] The Act also expressly provides that the chief inspector has the discretion to determine whether an applicant is an appropriate person to be the holder of an authority.[51]
  2. [45]
    The Act expressly references the term ‘appropriate person’.  Although the Act does not describe ‘appropriate’, that term is generally described as ‘proper, fitting and suitable’. Appropriate as prescribed in the Act is analogous to the provisions of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) relating to a ‘fit and proper’ test for a licensee to possess a weapon.[52]
  3. [46]
    The term ‘fit and proper’ relates to whether or not a person of suitable, appropriate, legally eligible to undertake a particular activity.  There has been a substantial amount of discussions in the various jurisdictions of Queensland, as well as in other jurisdictions within the Commonwealth surrounding the expression ‘fit and proper person’.  The High Court in the ‘Bond Media Case’[53] said – 

The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning.  It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities.  The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities.  However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur.

Appropriate person discussion

  1. [47]
    The question for the tribunal is not whether a decision should be made which would allow the applicant to return to the employment of his choice, but whether the applicant’s criminal behaviour and his assessed mental health are determining factors with regard to him being an appropriate person to be issued with authority.  
  2. [48]
    There is a suggestion that although the applicant was receiving treatment from a psychologist for his PTSD, the treatment and consultations were not effective in preventing him from continuing to reoffend.  In effect, the suggestion was that he was not managing his psychological condition properly.  The applicant accepted this and conceded that continually over the past five years he had been receiving consistent and sustained treatment from a psychologist and a psychiatrist and had taken prescribed medication to help manage his mental health conditions.[54]  Yet despite this, he lapsed back into engaging with the use of drugs and associated criminal activity.
  3. [49]
    If a logical examination is undertaken of the entire circumstances of this matter, the applicant, although gainfully employed in the mining sector, was suffering at that time from an undiagnosed PTSD.  That condition did not prevent him from engaging at the appropriate levels within his workplace and nor did it prevent him undertaking his employment in a responsible manner.  Yet, the assessment is that his PTSD contributed towards his offending behaviour in 2010 and caused a lack of clear thinking which was symptomatic of the deterioration of his cognitive functions at that time.
  4. [50]
    I accept that the applicant has taken steps to address the issues surrounding his PTSD and how that impacts upon not only himself, but also his employment and on other people.  I also accept that the applicant has returned to the workforce and it does not seem that the PTSD symptoms cause any detriment to him being employed.
  5. [51]
    Whilst I accept those issues just identified regarding the applicant’s PTSD, I am not of the like mind in regard to his criminal history.  The existence of the PTSD and its relationship to his criminal behaviour might very well be an explanation of what occurred, it could never be an excuse for what took place.  It has never been explained by the applicant why the PTSD (undiagnosed at that stage) did not impact upon him employment in 2010, yet it is said to be the catalyst for his criminal behaviour.
  6. [52]
    Clearly the applicant continued to reoffend after he was released from custody after serving a term of imprisonment for the very a serious offence of trafficking in methylamphetamines.  He undertook the decision to re-offend with the clear knowledge and understanding of an assessment undertaken by a psychologist that he was suffering from PTSD.  Despite getting professional assistance to address those psychological issues, he continued to reoffend over an extraordinary long period of time with some of the offences being detrimental to his assessment as an appropriate person to hold an authority. 
  7. [53]
    In my view, the existence of the applicant’s criminal history is useful in any determination of the question of whether he is an appropriate person to be issued with an authority.  The criminal history is littered with a myriad of offences, with many of them being irrelevant offences.  I am also of the view that not only did the applicant display a willingness to be involved in a criminal enterprise such as trafficking, but he also displayed a propensity to reoffend upon his release from custody.  Although I acknowledge that he had not reoffended since May 2017, his previous contraventions of the law and his propensity towards committing further offences must be regarded as a critical importance.   


  1. [54]
    Having regard to all the circumstances of this matter, including the evidence presented at the hearing and the submissions made by both parties, I am of the view that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant is not an appropriate person to be issued with an authority under the Act and I confirm the respondent’s decision made on 31 July 2018.


[1] Reference was made of this point in the decision of Gotterson JA in R v Gaerlan [2014] QCA 145 at page 4.

[2] Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), Schedule 2 – Dictionary provides that an authority means a licence, permit or another authority issued under this Act.

[3] Authority expired on 7 February 2013.

[4] A dangerous drug as defined in the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), Schedule 1.

[5] The application was received by the respondent on 17 February 2018. See statement of Martin Frederick Land dated 3 April 2019 at paragraph 12.

[6] The applicant’s complete Queensland Criminal History is attached to the statement of Martin Frederick Land dated 3 April 2019 at Annexure ‘MFL-2’.  

[7] Request made on 12 April 2018.

[8] Respondent’s ‘SOR-05’ – letter from Dr Sharma dated 8 February 2018.

[9] Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 15(10) provides that a relevant offence means inter alia an offence relating to the misuse of drugs.

[10] The decision to refuse the applicant’s application was made on 31 July 2018.

[11] Statement of Martin Frederick Land dated 3 April 2019 at paragraph 15.

[12] This is an offence pursuant to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 790(1).

[13] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20; Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58, [9].

[14] An authority means a licence, permit or another authority issued under the Act.  Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), Schedule 2 – Dictionary.

[15] A chief inspector means the inspector designated by the chief executive as the chief inspector for the Act.  Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), Schedule 2 – Dictionary. 

[16] Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4 – Definitions provides that a conviction means a finding of guilt, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty, by a court.

[17] Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 15(3).  A relevant offence is defined within the Act to include a conviction for the misuse of drugs, although the Act does not provide an explanation as to what defines a conviction for the misuse of drugs.  

[18] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 157.

[19] Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 111.

[20] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20(2).

[21] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20(1).

[22] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577, 589.

[23] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 24(1),

[24] A dangerous drug as defined in the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), Schedule 1.

[25] R v Gaerlan [2014] QCA 145 at page 3 per Gotterson JA.

[26] The applicant’s appeal was heard on 19 June 2014.

[27] A psychologist.

[28] R v Gaerlan [2014] QCA 145 at page 4 per Gotterson JA.

[29] The applicant was released from prison on 19 June 2014 to report to the Townsville office of the Probation and Parole by 4:00pm on 20 June 2014.

[30] Subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 93.

[31] On 23 December 2015.

[32] On 27 December 2015.

[33] On 18 March 2016.

[34] On 28 May 2016.

[35] On 16 June 2016.

[36] On 12 May 2017.

[37] On 28 March 2018.

[38] Report of Glen Davey, Psychologist dated 8 March 2019.

[39] R v Gaerlan [2014] QCA 145 at page 4 per Gotterson JA.

[40] A psychiatrist.

[41] This took place in 2015.

[42] Report of Glen Davey dated 8 March 2019 at page 3.

[43] Report of Glen Davey dated 8 March 2019 at page 4.

[44] A psychologist.

[45] Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian v Ram [2014] QCATA 27, [47] per Senior Member Endicott and Member Browne.

[46] Applicant’s written submissions at page 3.

[47] On 25 August 2017.

[48] This refers to Part 2 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).

[49] Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5. Maximum penalty for a person who carries on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug is 25 years.

[50] Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 17(1).

[51] Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 15(3).

[52] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B.

[53] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 380 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

[54] Transcript of proceedings at page 1-24, lines 38 – 47 and page 1-25, lines 1 – 6.


Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Jason Damien Gaerlan v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Gaerlan v Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy

  • MNC:

    [2019] QCAT 348

  • Court:


  • Judge(s):

    Member Pennell

  • Date:

    16 Oct 2019

Appeal Status

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

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.