Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2019
  4. Powell v Queensland Police Service - [2019] QCAT 418

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

Powell v Queensland Police Service[2019] QCAT 418

Powell v Queensland Police Service[2019] QCAT 418

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Powell v Queensland Police Service [2019] QCAT 418

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY IAN CHARLES POWELL

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR048-19

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review

DELIVERED ON:

26 July 2019

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2019

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Dr Collier

ORDERS:

The decisions of the Respondent are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – where decision made to suspend and revoke weapons licences on basis licensee no longer a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence – Applicant’s loss of physical capacity – Applicant’s visual infirmity – failure to notify authority of physical incapacity within time required – failure to notify authority of physical incapacity in the manner required

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – REVOCATION, CANCELLATION, SUSPENSION OR SURRENDER – whether the licensee remained a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence – relevant test to assess whether a licensee is a fit and proper person – whether applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – what evidence may be considered – evidence that may be considered under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) – evidence that may be considered under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233(1)(b)

Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth), r 4F

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 28, s 28(3), s 66, s 67(1), Chapter 2 Part 1 Division 3

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10B, s 10B(1), s 10B(1)(a), s 15(4)(a)(i), 15(4)(a)(iv), 18(8), s 28(1)(b), s 29, s 29(1), s 29(1)(b), s 29(1)(d), s 34, 49A(2), s 142, s 153, s 133, s 24, Schedule 2

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld), r 18(b)

AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321

Blissett v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales; Webb Protection Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2006] NSWADT 114 

CEO of Customs v Powell [2007] QCA 106

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell [2010] QDC 218

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell [2015] QDC 97

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell MAG-00125423/06(0)

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police v Mercer (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 55

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9

Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 589

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16 

Cormack v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Unit [2015] QCATA 115

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1991) 1 VR 63

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) [1995] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127

KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police [2016] QCAT 49

MKN v Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2015] QCAT 358

Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Australian Customs Service [2016] QCA 313

Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2006] QDC 184

Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2011] QDC 272

Smith v Commissioner of Police [2011] WASAT 31

Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70

Stretton v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCATA 37

Sweet v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 185

TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unity & Anor (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505

VRN v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2019] QCAT 77

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

D Ayscough, Sergeant

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The Applicant in this matter raised a number of preliminary issues on which the Tribunal had to rule before the hearing proper could proceed. These are identified below and the ruling on each given.
  2. [2]
    On 12 December 2018 the Respondent suspended the Applicant’s three weapons licences.[1] The reason for the suspension was that, in the opinion of the Respondent, the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence on the basis of his visual impairment and had failed properly to notify the Respondent concerning his infirmity.
  3. [3]
    On 25 January 2019 the Respondent revoked the Applicant’s three firearms licences for the same reasons that they had been earlier suspended.
  4. [4]
    The Applicant now seeks to have this Tribunal set aside the decisions of the Applicant suspending and revoking his weapons licences.
  5. [5]
    A person aggrieved by a decision of an authorised officer may seek to have this Tribunal review any of the following decisions made under the Weapons Act 2009 (Qld):[2]

(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;

(b) a decision refusing to accept the nomination of a person by an applicant for a shooting club permit;

(c) a decision refusing to accept a representative notice under section 92;

(d) a decision imposing or amending a condition applying to a licence, permit, approval or other authority under this Act;

(e) a decision revoking or suspending a licence, permit, approval or other authority under this Act.

  1. [6]
    Following the hearing the Applicant filed a submission on 17 April 2019 to which the Respondent was invited to respond. The Respondent was given until 17 May 2019 to respond to the Applicant’s further submissions but offered no response.

Preliminary issues

  1. [7]
    The Applicant in this matter raised the following preliminary issues for consideration by the Tribunal before the substantive matter could proceed, dealing with:
    1. Whether the hearing should be held as a closed hearing;
    2. Disclosure of the Applicant’s medical records;
    3. Whether the identity of the Applicant should be obscured in the written decision, that is, whether the Tribunal should issue a non-publication order;
    4. Whether the Tribunal should order a Compulsory Conference rather than proceed without such a conference directly to the hearing; and
    5. The availability of Queensland Police Service (QPS) witnesses.
  2. [8]
    Because the hearing may involve the disclosure of the Applicant’s medical history, the Applicant requested that the hearing be closed to the public. On the basis that the disclosure of parties’ medical records alone is not a valid reason to conduct the hearing in camera, this application was refused. The Applicant was informed that he could make an application for non-disclosure during the hearing if he believed that any specific medical details should be withheld from public view. No such application was made during the hearing.
  3. [9]
    The Applicant objected to the disclosure during the hearing of his medical records on the grounds that they are privileged or otherwise that they give rise to self-incrimination. I advised the Applicant at the beginning of the hearing that he may object to answering any questions put to him by the Respondent during the course of the hearing and I would rule on his obligation to answer. During the hearing the Applicant objected to answering some questions dealing with his health and on each occasion I excused him from answering. In doing this on each occasion I formed the view that not having the Applicant answer would not unreasonably affect the quality of the evidence before me nor would it prevent a fair decision being made.
  4. [10]
    The Applicant in this matter requested that his identity not be disclosed in the written decision in order that his health details not be seen by possible future employers.[3] While I was of the view during the hearing that there was no evident reason at that time why this request should not be granted, I have since concluded that the Applicant’s name should be disclosed in this written decision for the following reasons. First, the Applicant has had numerous previous appearances before this Tribunal and various Courts dealing with weapons-related matters where his name has not been suppressed. Second, there is nothing in this decision of the Tribunal that could be seen as compromising by disclosure the Applicant’s personal medical history. Third, the Applicant previously has disclosed information concerning his medical conditions on public forums such as internet chat rooms. For these reasons the Applicant’s request that his identity not be disclosed in these written reasons was refused.
  5. [11]
    It is usual for parties involved in an administrative review matter to attend a Compulsory Conference before proceeding to a hearing, however there is no obligation on the Tribunal to take this route.[4] The Applicant requested that the Tribunal consider adjourning the hearing and remitting the matter to a Compulsory Conference. At an earlier directions hearing the Tribunal determined that this matter was suitable to proceed directly to a hearing and there was no reason for me to disturb that decision. This Application by the Applicant was refused.
  6. [12]
    The Applicant was advised by email on 26 March 2019 that the hearing of his application by the Tribunal would occur on 16 April 2019. On 8 April 2019 the Applicant made an Application for Miscellaneous Matters before the Tribunal seeking an Order of the Tribunal requiring the presence of two QPS officers during the hearing scheduled on 16 April 2019 for the purposes of examination concerning procedures used within the QPS dealing with the issue of weapons licences.[5]
  7. [13]
    On Friday 12 April 2019 the Tribunal issued a Notice to Appear at the hearing on Tuesday 16 April 2019 to each of the QPS officers sought by the Applicant. Neither officer appeared at the hearing.
  8. [14]
    While Notices compelling the presence of the QPS witnesses was issued, the short time between the Notices and the hearing precluded the witnesses from being available to attend the hearing. After discussion with the Applicant I formed the view that the evidence of these witnesses would not be essential to allow me to make a correct and preferable decision in this matter.  Further, I was satisfied that the absence of these witnesses was justifiable in the circumstances, and that their absence would not unreasonably prejudice the case to be put by the Applicant. For these reasons the hearing was conducted without the presence as witnesses of the QPS officers sought by the Applicant.
  9. [15]
    The Applicant filed on 17 May 2019 (that is, after the hearing date) an Application for Miscellaneous Matters seeking the following Directions from the Tribunal (emphasis in original):
    1. Inspector Andrew Smith and Inspector Adam Guild of the Queensland Police Service (“QPS”) appear before the Tribunal and explain why they both failed to appear before the Tribunal for a Review Hearing for CAR048-19 (“Review Hearing”) when the Tribunal issued attendance notices pursuant to s 97(1) of the CAT Act on 12 April 2019 for both to appear at the Review Hearing (“Attendance Notices”) and both were served Attendance Notices by the Applicant.
    2. The Respondent and/or Inspector Andrew SMITH and Inspector Adam GUILD produce to the Tribunal and the Applicant any documents or things under their control dated between 7 April 2019 to 17 April 2019, including but not limited to, file notes, diary entries, sms messages, call logs, recordings, transcripts, briefing papers, emails, letters, memorandums and facsimiles containing any communications between and/or amongst the Respondent (including civilian staff) and Inspector Andrew SMITH and Inspector Adam GUILD regarding the following:
    1. Any Attendance Notices;
    2. Any attempts by the Applicant to serve Inspector Andrew SMITH and Inspector Adam GUILD with the Attendance Notices;
    3. The work roster/time sheets for Inspector Andrew SMITH and Inspector Adam GUILD between 7 April 2019 and 17 April 2019;
    4. Any other document or thing deemed appropriate by the Tribunal
    1. The Tribunal, preferably on its own initiative, direct that Inspector Andrew SMITH and Inspector Adam GUILD appear before the Tribunal and give evidence under oath or affirmation to the Applicant for consideration by the Tribunal for GAR048-19.
  10. [16]
    In its decision on 12 June 2019 this Application was refused by the Tribunal because the relevant officers were unavailable to attend the hearing for legitimate reasons and because the information sought by the Applicant was irrelevant to the substantive issue to be decided by the Tribunal and was akin to a fishing expedition.
  11. [17]
    The Applicant filed on 6 June 2019 an Urgent Application for Miscellaneous Matters seeking the following Directions from the Tribunal:
    1. The Suspension and Revocation of the Applicant’s Firearms Licence 11938824, Concealable Firearms Licence 30031568 and Collectors Licence (Weapons) 42002385 (“Licences”) is rescinded and the Licences are reinstated until the reviewable decision subject to GAR048-19 is finally decided either on review or on appeal;
    2. The Licences be renewed by the Respondent by Monday 10 June 2019;
    3. All property belonging to the Applicant seized by the Queensland Police Service (“QPS”) on 30 December 2018 be returned to the Applicant by the QPS upon the Applicant giving a receipt for said property to the QPS.
  12. [18]
    This Application was considered by the Tribunal as a request by the Applicant for a stay of the original decision of the decision maker pending the final outcome of Application GAR048-19. In its decision on 12 June 2019 this Application also was refused by the Tribunal for the following reasons: (1) the Applicant’s position is not unreasonably compromised if the original decision remains on foot; (2) the public interest is served by refusing to allow the Applicant to handle weapons given his diminished and deteriorating sight; (3) until the Applicant’s fitness and propriety has been considered by the Tribunal public safety is enhanced by maintaining the original decision; (4) the balance of convenience favours maintaining the original decision; and (5) to stay the original decision the Tribunal would have to decide, on an interlocutory application, the substantive issue, that is, whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

The facts

  1. [19]
    The Applicant is an enthusiastic gun owner, collector and shooter. He owns some twenty-five weapons that are presently in the possession of the QPS, the Applicant having surrendered his weapons based on Suspension Notices and Revocation Notices issued to him by the QPS concerning each of his weapons licences.
  2. [20]
    In its letter dated 12 December 2018 covering its Suspension Notices dated 12 December 2018 served on the Applicant the QPS gave as the substantive reasons for suspending the Applicant’s licences as:

…

I note that concerns have been raised in relation to the state of your physical health as the result of information received that you suffer from a visual impairment of a severity that may impact your ability to safely handle firearms.

…

I considered that it is the public interest for your licences to be suspended until a medical clearance is received from your treating Doctor. On receipt of this advice I will then make a determination whether or not to revoke or reinstate your licences.

  1. [21]
    In its letter covering this Suspension Notice the QPS advised the Applicant that he must, within 21 days, obtain a medical practitioner’s report that provided, among other things, the practitioner’s opinion in relation to his fitness and propriety to possess/use firearms and the reason for coming to that conclusion.
  2. [22]
    In relation to the decisions made by the Respondent to revoke the Applicant’s licences, reliance was placed by the decision maker on the documentary evidence of medical practitioners’ reports prepared by the Applicant’s treating GP and ophthalmologist.
  3. [23]
    The report earlier in time was that of the ophthalmologist, dated 3 October 2018, which stated, inter alia:

[The Applicant] reports significantly blurred vision for all activities and feels as though it is getting worse over the past year.

…

iTrace assessment confirms lens function is reduced and lens opacities are present. The right and left lenses are significantly opacified which is limiting his visual function.

  1. [24]
    The Applicant’s GP report, dated 7 January 2019, said, inter alia:

[The Applicant] has quite severe bilateral cataracts which have rendered his visual acuity very poor.

…

With his severe loss of visual acuity it is imperative that he not be allowed to load or discharge a firearm under any circumstances…

I can see no medical reason, that I am aware of, why he cannot continue to possess a firearm if he agrees not to load or discharge them.

  1. [25]
    In its Information Notice revoking the Applicant’s firearms licences the Respondent gave the substantive reasons for the revocation as:

…

I considered when determining if a person is a fit and proper person to retain a licence, in the public interest, an authorised officer has to have regard to all information available and based on that, I am of the opinion that you are not a fit and proper person to retain a firearms licence.

I note that you suffer from bilateral cataracts which result in a loss of visual acuity and extreme sensitivity to sunlight. I note advice that you have reported significantly blurred vision for all activities with ongoing deterioration and loss of vision. I note the onset of this condition commenced 30 November 2017. I further note receipt of a recent medical recommendation that you are not permitted to load or discharge a firearm under any circumstances.

…

I note as per Section 24 of the Weapons Act 1990 it is a condition of a licence that the licensee must, within 14 days of the happening of an event mentioned in subsection (2), advise an officer in charge of police of the change and the particulars of the change. I note Section 24 subsection (2) identifies a change in the licensee’s physical fitness as a change that requires notification. I note this requirement to provide notification was not fulfilled.

  1. [26]
    The Applicant’s Queensland driver’s licence was suspended on 25 January 2019 for medical reasons, presumably as a result of his visual impairment.
  2. [27]
    The Applicant was aware of his deteriorating sight at least from December 2017 as evident in his statement filed 6 December 2018 in matter APL210-18 which is also before this Tribunal. In this email the Applicant acknowledged not only that he was aware of his bilateral cataracts, but that they required surgery. He said:[6]

I was diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes in December 2017, and have been on the waiting list with Queensland Health ever since for the surgical removal of these cataracts… Cataract removal is the only treatment that will restore my vision.

  1. [28]
    The report of the ophthalmologist accompanying the Applicant’s email noted above was dated 29 November 2018. Among other things, this report said, in respect of the Applicant’s cataracts:[7]

Date of onset: 30 November 2017; and

‘Px referred to RBH last year (2.17)’ [which I take to mean that the Applicant was referred to the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital concerning his cataracts in December 2017, allowing that the specialist may have erred in his dates (intending 2.17 to read 12.17)].

  1. [29]
    The Applicant does not appear to have provided formal notice of his loss of visual acuity at any time to the Respondent or any responsible authority. Informal notice to the Respondent of his sight problems is dealt with later.
  2. [30]
    The Applicant conceded that he did not participate in shooting from February 2018 as a result of his recovering from cancer surgery and his sight problems.[8]
  3. [31]
    The Applicant did not report any physical disability when he made his applications for the renewal of his weapons licences in May 2018.

The Respondent’s position

  1. [32]
    The Respondent suspended and then revoked the Applicant’s three licences on the basis that he is not a fit and proper person to hold the licences because of his existing physical infirmity, being his lack of visual acuity and extreme sensitivity to sunlight, and his failure to inform the QPS of this physical condition.
  2. [33]
    The suspension of the Applicant’s licences by the Respondent appears to have been effected according to s 28(1)(b) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld),[9] which permits an authorised officer to suspend a licence if the authorised officer is satisfied that the officer:

(b) considers, on reasonable grounds, that the licensee may no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Note — Section 10B states matters for consideration.

  1. [34]
    The revocation of the Applicant’s licences by the Respondent appears to have been effected according to s 29(1)(d) of the Weapons Act, which permits an authorised officer to revoke a licence if the authorised officer is satisfied that:

(d) the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Note — Section 10B states matters for consideration.

  1. [35]
    The note to each of these provisions refers to s 10B of the Weapons Act as setting out the relevant factors that must be taken into consideration when making a decision that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Insofar as it is relevant here to the reasons given by the Respondent to suspend and revoke the Applicant’s weapons licences, s 10B(1) says:

(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

…

  1. [36]
    It is self-evident that a person with ‘severe loss of visual acuity and extreme sensitivity to sunlight’ should not be permitted to handle weapons capable of being fired in conjunction with handling ammunition on the basis that this person does not possess the essential physical capabilities necessary to do so safely. This conclusion is supported by the opinions expressed by the Applicant’s medical practitioners.
  2. [37]
    The Respondent asserted that the onset of the Applicant’s loss of visual acuity commenced on 30 November 2017.[10]
  3. [38]
    The Respondent also referred in its Revocation Notice to Weapons Act s 24(2) that requires a licensee to advise an officer in charge of police within 14 days of any change on the licensee’s physical fitness, and said ‘I note this requirement to provide notification was not fulfilled’.
  4. [39]
    If there were no other considerations in this matter the decisions of the Respondent to suspend and revoke the Applicant’s licences would appear unimpeachable. However the Applicant raised several factors that he believes should alter the decision to suspend and revoke his licences. These are dealt with next.

The Applicant’s position

  1. [40]
    The Applicant has provided a considerable volume of written material in response to the suspension and revocation of his licences, and provided testimony at the hearing. It is useful to identify the key arguments made by the Applicant relevant to the decision of the Respondent to suspend and revoke his licences and which are relevant to the Tribunal’s decision in this matter. These may be summarised as follows:
    1. His impairment is temporary;
    2. The QPS, as decision maker, has misinterpreted the GP’s report dated 7 January 2019 dealing with the Applicant by interpreting it as concluding that ‘… you are not permitted to load or discharge a firearm under any circumstances’;
    3. His GP expressed the view that the Applicant can safely possess firearms while his visual impairment persists provided the Applicant does not load or discharge the firearms;
    4. He provided an electronic copy of his ophthalmologist’s report disclosing that he had bilateral cataracts on 22 October 2018 as part of an Application to adjourn another matter in which he and the Weapons Licencing Branch of the QPS were involved.[11] This, he asserts, made the Respondent aware of this medical condition by 22 October 2019. He filed an optometrists report with the Respondent on the same matter on 5 December 2018;[12]
    5. He has not discharged a firearm since 1 April 2018 as a result of his recovery from cancer surgery and his visual impairment;[13]
    6. He is prepared to offer the Tribunal and the Respondent an undertaking that he will render all firearms temporarily inoperable during the period of his visual impairment;
    7. Under the terms of his collector’s licence all his firearms must be rendered either temporarily or permanently inoperable (depending on their classification) so that he is incapable of firing them, which means that his possession of them cannot constitute a danger to the public;
    8. The Applicant will provide the Tribunal and the Respondent with an undertaking that he will not load or fire any firearm until his visual impairment is corrected through surgery;
    9. The Applicant will provide the Tribunal and the Respondent with an undertaking that he will not possess or handle any ammunition until his visual impairment is corrected through surgery; and
    10. The Applicant is concerned that while his firearms are in the possession of the QPS they may be damaged or, otherwise, that they may not be properly maintained.
  2. [41]
    Section 3 of the Weapons Act makes it sufficiently clear that, when assessing applications for weapons licences, public and personal safety and preventing the misuse of weapons are paramount considerations, while weapon possession and use are subordinate; it says:

(1) The principles underlying this Act are as follows—

(a) weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;

(b) 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.

(2) The object of this Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.

  1. [42]
    The Applicant seeks to have the decision to revoke and suspend his licences set aside by the Tribunal on the basis that he is capable of taking steps and providing undertakings to the Tribunal effective during the period of his incapacity that mean that his incapacity does not increase the risk to personal or public safety any more than if he were not subject to his physical incapacity.
  2. [43]
    For this argument to succeed the steps and undertakings proposed by the Applicant would have to satisfy three tests:
    1. they have to be allowable under the Weapons Act and the QCAT Act;
    2. satisfy the Tribunal that the proposed conditions are effective and enforceable; and
    3. that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be issued a weapons licence.
  3. [44]
    An authorised officer may impose a condition on a licence.[14] There appears to be no restriction concerning a condition that an authorised office may impose on a licence. Consequently, because this Tribunal sits in the position of the authorised officer, there appears to be no restriction on any condition that this Tribunal could impose on a licence.
  4. [45]
    The Applicant has offered to abide by three conditions during the period of his incapacity, being:
    1. that he will render all his firearms temporarily inoperable (some already being either temporarily or permanently inoperable); and
    2. that he will not load or fire any firearm; and
    3. that he will not possess or handle any ammunition.
  5. [46]
    There is no apparent reason why these three conditions could not be placed upon any licence. Whether they are sufficient in themselves to ensure the safety of the public and the individual is considered below.
  6. [47]
    A breach of any such condition imposed on a firearms licence would render the Applicant liable to serious penalties under the Weapons Act.[15]
  7. [48]
    On its face there appears no reason why conditions such as these could not be imposed on any licence issued to the Applicant and remain enforceable as much as any of the other conditions applied to firearms licences.
  8. [49]
    But, before turning to consideration of whether the conditions proposed by the Applicant meet the tests posited above and whether the original decision should be set aside, I will consider other evidence before the Tribunal that is relevant to whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

Other evidence to consider

  1. [50]
    The substantive matter here involves the Tribunal reviewing a decision made by another entity under an enabling Act.[16] It is a case where the Tribunal exercises its review jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 2, Part 1, Division 3 of the QCAT Act. In this case the enabling Act is the Weapons Act, and the entity making the original decision was an authorised officer.[17]
  2. [51]
    In making its decision on review the Tribunal stands in the place of the original decision-maker to undertake a fresh hearing on the merits and is required to make a decision that is correct and preferable.[18] Clearly the Tribunal must have access to any information that could have been or was considered by the original decision-maker, plus any other material that becomes available and may be lawfully considered.
  3. [52]
    As noted earlier in regard to factors an authorised officer must take into account regarding the suspension and revocation of a licence, Weapons Act s 10B(1) says:

(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

…

(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.

  1. [53]
    The language of the legislature here is mandatory: ‘In deciding or considering … 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 …’ (emphasis added). The decision-maker is required to consider the things then listed, ‘among other things’. They are not simply permitted to consider the matters listed, they must do so, and are given wide purview to consider ‘other things’.
  2. [54]
    The things that must be considered include ‘criminal intelligence or other information’ providing they indicate a relevant risk to public safety or the public interest. Criminal intelligence is defined in Schedule 2 of the Weapons Act as:

criminal intelligence, in relation to a person, means any information about the person’s connection with or involvement in criminal activity.

  1. [55]
    The language and intent of the legislature as shown here encourages the use of all available information sources by a decision maker when making a decision concerning whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
  2. [56]
    In addition, this Tribunal is given great latitude by the legislature in relation to the evidence it may consider when making a decision. In regard to evidence, s 28(3) of the QCAT Act says:

(3) In conducting a proceeding, the tribunal—

…

(b) is not bound by the rules of evidence, or any practices or procedures applying to courts of record, other than to the extent the tribunal adopts the rules, practices or procedures; and

(c) may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate; and

…

(e) must ensure, so far as is practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to the tribunal to enable it to decide the proceeding with all the relevant facts.

  1. [57]
    Based on this survey of the law, I am satisfied that I am entitled to take into account all information provided by either party or derived from any other source in deciding this Application. It is a matter for the Tribunal to determine the weight to be given to any particular information before it.
  2. [58]
    The Respondent submitted copies of the driving record of the Applicant as evidence relevant to whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. The Applicant accrued 28 penalty points against Queensland road laws in the period between 14 October 1991 and 31 October 2017. The inference the Respondent draws from this record is that the Applicant consistently fails to obey the law and this contributes to a conclusion that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
  3. [59]
    The Respondent also submitted in evidence a copy of the record of the Applicant in relation to criminal charges arising under Queensland law. Between 20 July 1990 and 17 June 2009 the Applicant had been charged on 8 occasions, six of these relating to weapons offences, and two relating to dealings with police. Of the six charges relating to firearms, three resulted in penalty, with the remaining three being withdrawn. One of the three penalties, that dating from 1992, included a conviction, while the two later penalties resulted in fines with no conviction recorded.
  4. [60]
    I have been provided with criminal intelligence concerning the conduct of the Applicant on the following relevant matters:
    1. The offering for sale by him of firearms on certain websites in which he claims to hold a FFL; and
    2. Photographs of the Applicant wearing a Queensland Police badge, to which he appears to have no entitlement;
  5. [61]
    A FFL is an abbreviation of ‘Federal Firearms License’, which is issued by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, known as the ATF. The advertisement of the Applicant’s advertisement of a weapon for sale did not disclose the Applicant’s FFL number. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate whether the Applicant holds a FFL and, so, this evidence provides little value.
  6. [62]
    I am entitled to, and do, draw an adverse inference against the Applicant in regard to publishing photographs of himself wearing a badge of the QPS without authority to do so.
  7. [63]
    The Respondent has made the following decisions concerning the Applicant:
    1. 13 April 2007 - his weapons licences were revoked;
    2. 17 May 2010 - an application for a permit to acquire (PTA) a .22 calibre air gun was refused;
    3. 20 April 2015 - an application for a PTA was refused;
    4. 16 March 2016 - an application for a PTA for an antique knife was refused; and
    5. 20 January 2017 - an application for a PTA for a firearm was refused.
  8. [64]
    The Applicant was granted a Collectors Licence by the Respondent on 19 April 2017 in a consent decision with the Respondent before the Magistrates Court.
  9. [65]
    The Applicant was diagnosed by a psychologist in 2009 with Adjustment Disorder, with Anxiety, Chronic by a psychologist but was still assessed by the psychologist as being a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.[19]
  10. [66]
    The Applicant suffered serious back injuries as a result of a motor car accident and largely ceased participating in firearms shooting throughout 2007 until mid-2008.
  11. [67]
    The Applicant’s membership of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (‘SSAA’) was revoked on 9 March 2018. While the Applicant claims he was unfairly dealt with by the SSAA, this claim seems to form part of an established pattern of conduct where the Applicant is convinced of his innocence while those around him conspire to do him harm.
  12. [68]
    On 5 February 2017 the Applicant was located by Translink Senior Network Officers (‘SNOs’) in relation to fare evasion. The Applicant refused to provide his name to the SNOs citing database privacy concerns. He provided his name to police who were summoned to assist.
  13. [69]
    There are several occasions apparent from the evidence where the Applicant has claimed bad faith in others, including:
    1. In his 13-page statement supporting his earlier Application to stay the Respondent’s decision dated 4 February 2019 in which he claims, inter alia:
    1. That the Respondent refused the Respondent a Permit to Acquire (PTA) in retaliation for the Respondent’s participation in the ‘Wedgetail Pistol’ cases.[20]
    1. In statements supporting his Application for Miscellaneous Matters dated 4 March 2019 the Applicant claims, inter alia (emphasis in original):
    1. The Applicant advised the Respondent on 21 November 2018 that he will be making a complaint to the Crime and Corruption Commission (“CCC”) due to the alleged conduct of Senior Constable Rochelle PAZ LANDIM representing the Respondent at the Tribunal. The Respondent has retaliated against the Applicant due to this proposed complaint;[21]
    2. The Applicant advised Inspector Adam GUILD, Manager of the Respondent, on 11 December 2018, one (1) day before the Suspension, that he will be making a complaint to the CCC, opposition QPS Minister and the media due to the Respondent continually alleging the Applicant possessed firearms he never possessed. The Respondent has retaliated against the Applicant due to these proposed complaints;[22]
    3. As the Applicant is a witness in Tribunal matters GAR341-17, GAR234-18, and GAR255-18 at a minimum, if PAZ LANDIM’s comments at the conference are true PAZ LANDIM has caused injury and detriment to a witness in matters currently before the Tribunal, and, in the Applicant’s opinion, PAZ LANDIM has contravened s 119B of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld).[23]
  14. [70]
    The Applicant uses partial facts for the purpose of demonstrating his compliance with legal obligations that, when analysed, appear to be dissembling. For example, for the period during which he held his weapons licences the Applicant had a continuing obligation under the Weapons Act to inform the Respondent of a change in his circumstances, such as his physical fitness, within 14 days of the date of the change of circumstance.[24] The Regulations require that this be done ‘at a police station or police establishment’.[25] The Applicant asserted that he discharged his obligation to inform the Respondent by supplying the Respondent with an ophthalmologists report on 22 October 2018 and an optometrists report on 5 December 2018 that were submitted electronically as part of an Application for an adjournment on a matter then before the Tribunal (not being this matter).
  15. [71]
    Such ‘advice’ by the Applicant to the Respondent about his visual impairment, if it can be said to be advice, is indirect at best, and required the Respondent to infer that the Applicant intended this to constitute the notification required by the law. This ‘advice’ simply does not satisfy the test that the Applicant must inform the Respondent concerning his visual impairment.
  16. [72]
    To suggest, as the Applicant does, that providing medical reports concerning his loss of visual acuity in this way, electronically, as part of an application for an adjournment of an Application he has before the Tribunal, is dissembling, and an attempt post-hoc to establish the veracity of his claim to have informed the Respondent as required by law.
  17. [73]
    The Applicant’s visual impairment began on 31 November 2017. The Applicant said that he had not fired a firearm since 1 April 2018, ‘originally due to rehabilitation from cancer surgery… and later due to the [sight] impairment’.[26] Whichever date may apply, the Applicant knew well before either October 2018 or December 2018 that his eyesight was poor and deteriorating and failed to inform the Respondent within the required 14 days.
  18. [74]
    Even if the reports sent to the Respondent by the Applicant in October 2018 and December 2018 were sufficient ‘advice’, and they were not, neither was advice within the time required by the Weapons Act nor in the manner contemplated by the Weapons Regulation. The Applicant failed, and failed by many months, his obligation under the Weapons Act to advise the Respondent of his changed circumstances.

Cases involving the Applicant

  1. [75]
    In 2004 the Applicant was convicted of a federal offence. This concerned dealing with the illegal importation of a prohibited item, namely a breech bolt, contrary to Section 233(1)(b) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). This offence was proven before the Queensland Magistrates Court in December 2004, overturned on appeal to the District Court in 2006,[27] with the conviction restored upon appeal by the Respondent to the Queensland Court of Appeal.[28] This resulted in the Applicant being fined $1,500 and ordered to pay $6,000 costs.
  2. [76]
    On 16 July 2009 the Applicant appeared before the Magistrates’ Court where he was acquitted for illegally importing a firearm part under Regulation 4F of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth), being a ‘lower receiver’ of the kind included in a Colt Armalite rifle. This acquittal was overturned by the District Court on appeal and remitted to the Magistrates’ Court, meaning that the Applicant was convicted of the offence.[29] The Applicant was ordered to pay costs in the appeal. The Applicant was subsequently convicted in the Magistrates’ Court.[30] The Applicant further appealed this conviction to the District Court and his appeal was dismissed.[31] The Applicant was convicted and fined $6,000.[32] The Applicant further appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeal which set aside the District Court’s judgment.[33]
  3. [77]
    The decision of the Court of Appeal in resolving this series of cases appears to rely essentially on the fact that the District Court was not entitled to overturn the original Magistrate’s decision if there was sufficient evidence to support that decision, notwithstanding that the District Court appeal was an appeal by way of rehearing.
  4. [78]
    Notwithstanding that the Applicant was finally acquitted in this series of cases, this Tribunal is entitled to take into account the fact that the Applicant was charged and the issues raised during the trials and appeals in making a determination of whether a person is fit and proper to be issued a weapons licence. A fortiori when the final decision of acquittal is of a somewhat technical nature, as in the case involving the Applicant mentioned here. This approach is supported by comments from the three learned members who sat on Commissioner of Police v Mercer (GD), an appeal matter, where they said:[34]

We make the following short observations. It is quite possible that material considered in a criminal proceeding will be relevant to the exercise of a licensing discretion even though the particular offences charged have not been proven. The Tribunal is entitled, and duty bound, to take into account any relevant material going to the question of what is the correct and preferable decision in connection with the particular administrative discretion. The mere fact that a court has dismissed charges is of no great moment. It is the reasons why the charges were dismissed that matter. If an offence has failed on a technical point, as has been strongly asserted by Mr McLaughlin in this case in relation to at least one of the charges, the statements of prosecution witnesses may retain high probative value for the purposes of the exercise of the licensing discretion.

  1. [79]
    The original Magistrate’s decision was based on the Applicant’s claim to have been mistaken in respect of his entitlement to import the offending item. The District Court, having heard all the relevant evidence formed a different view and was critical of the conduct of the Applicant. Comments by the learned District Court Judge in that matter include:

[38] At this point I will make a number of observations. Firstly, [the Applicant] enquired which agency made the determinations under the Regulations prior to ordering the receiver part, but after he had advertised for it. Secondly, the query about whether he could act on advice from Customs Officers being correct was made after the part was ordered. Thirdly, [the Applicant] had just made a specific and detailed enquiry about two other parts, and had received specific and direct advice about their status.

[39] Considered in context, [the Applicant’s] assertion that he believed he could import the item without permit is incongruent. He went to considerable trouble to obtain written assurance that he could act on past advice to be correct, without being explicit about what advice he had received. Much of [the Applicant’s] affidavit is self-serving rationalisation, but ultimately it is also revealing of his underlying reasoning.

  1. [80]
    These comments by the District Court reveal that the learned Judge in that matter was of the view that the Applicant dissembled and was intentionally vague in his dealings with the relevant authorities in a manner that served his purposes.
  2. [81]
    In a recent decision of this Tribunal dealing with the same Applicant the Applicant sought the production of: [35]

… records since 24 September 2018 containing any reference to the applicant or an affidavit he had provided in another QCAT proceeding; records indicating whether a Sergeant Bradford is no longer employed by Queensland Police Service and, if so, any effect this would have on any matters before QCAT involving the applicant; and any other document or thing the Tribunal believes ought to be produced

  1. [82]
    In respect of this Application the Tribunal went on to observe:[36]

It is apparent from the applicant’s submissions attached to the application for miscellaneous matters that he seeks the records in an effort to demonstrate that the respondent had improper motives – such as retaliation and ulterior purposes – for suspending and then cancelling his licences.

  1. [83]
    I am entitled to, and do, conclude that the conduct of the Applicant before other courts and tribunals is a relevant fact that I may take into account in deciding if the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

Conduct of the Applicant

  1. [84]
    Before this Tribunal the Applicant accused the Respondent and other parties of bad faith while, himself, conducting his application unreasonably by, for example, filing applications on short notice to parties and requiring a decision by this Tribunal to his applications within unacceptably short times. Given the fact that the Applicant had known of the instant hearing for some time I am entitled to conclude, and do conclude, that his conduct was motivated by attempts to raise issues later, if it so suits him, of alleged failure by the Respondent and this Tribunal to act reasonably in response to his applications.
  2. [85]
    On 28 November 2005 the Applicant made a formal complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission (‘CMC’), as it then was, making two allegations: first, that an officer of the Weapons Licensing Branch gave instructions to a weapons dealer to create a fraudulent record; and, second, that the Weapons Licensing Branch had made deliberate errors in order to obtain a search warrant and also alleging that convictions recorded against him were those of another person. The CMC did not investigate the second allegation and remitted the first allegation to the QPS for investigation. The internal QPS investigation found that the conduct of the Weapons Licensing Branch was lawful and reasonable in the circumstances.[37]
  3. [86]
    While it does not involve a case, I note that on 16 March 2016 Inspector Smith of the Weapons Licensing Branch wrote to the Applicant rescinding a weapons licence for a knife issued in error. In his concluding remarks in this letter Inspector Smith said:

Finally, I note you have made telephone contact with this office seeking various determinations in the past. To remove any ambiguity or misinterpretation I would recommend, should you have any concerns or questions that you communicate to Weapons Licencing in writing.

My reason/s for this are due to the various allegations of impropriety and challenges over statement made by officers from this office, it is not appropriate that any staff member or police officer provide verbal advice to you.

  1. [87]
    The sentiments expressed by Inspector Smith in this extract are consistent with the views of the District Court that I summarised above in paragraph [80] concerning the conduct of the Applicant.
  2. [88]
    In its letter to the Tribunal in this matter dated 12 April 2019, the Respondent asserted that the Applicant failed to comply with Direction 3 of the Tribunals’ Orders dated 19 March 2019 requiring service on the Respondent of material on which he intended to rely at the hearing by 4:00 pm 8 April 2019 as required. The Respondent said:

It is submitted the applicant filed, in person, a voluminous quantity of documentation in the Registry on the morning of 8 April 2019.

The applicant failed to comply with Direction 3 by purposely withholding this documentation from the respondent. The documentation was delivered to the front counter of the Brisbane City Station after close of business on 10 April 2019 and was, therefore, only received by the respondent on 11 April 2019.

  1. [89]
    I accept that the conduct of the Applicant described by the Respondent did occur. The issue of relevance here is not whether the Respondent was disadvantaged by the conduct of the Applicant, rather that conduct of this sort appears to be deliberate on the part of the Applicant. As the Respondent went on to say later in its letter, the Applicant ‘is exceptionally familiar with the Tribunal’s practices and procedures’, and that he has the capacity, and does, understand his obligations arising from the Tribunal’s orders and directions.
  2. [90]
    In a letter to the Respondent the Applicant suggested that conduct involving the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (‘SSAA’) and the Respondent amounting to bad faith caused him to be deprived of his SSAA membership and range privileges.[38]
  3. [91]
    On 17 August 2016 the Applicant filed an 8-page complaint with the Queensland Police alleging deprivation of his liberty by officers of his then employer, the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. There is no evidence available to me concerning the outcome of this complaint, but the tenor of the complaint suggests that the Applicant has difficulty in his routine dealings with people, including those who exercise a degree of authority over him.
  4. [92]
    I am entitled to, and do, conclude that the conduct of the Applicant as described in this evidence is a relevant fact that I may take into account in deciding if the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

Who is a fit and proper person?

  1. [93]
    Who is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence is not defined in the Weapons Act, although s 10B of that Act defines certain characteristics of a person which, if satisfied, make a person not a fit and proper person.
  2. [94]
    Tests that a decision maker may apply when making a decision as to who is a fit and proper person include those set out in the case of MKN v Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General[39] (references in original):
  • The ‘public interest’ is ‘a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct and of the functioning government and government instrumentalities.... The interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual or individuals’.[40]
  • The ‘public interest’ is ‘an inherently broad concept giving the appellant the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual’.[41]
  • An applicant’s personal interests ‘in retaining his licence cannot outweigh the public interest in having full confidence in the professionalism of people involved in the security industry’.[42]
  • The ‘public interest’ allows…for issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system’.[43]
  1. [95]
    The later case of KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police[44] cites with approval the tests in MKN v Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General in assessing whether a person is fit and proper and adds further factors for consideration from the case of TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unit & Anor (No 2)[45] for consideration by a decision maker including (references in original):
  • Whether a person is fit and proper is ‘one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration’…[46]
  • The concept of ‘fit and proper’ must be looked at in the context of the activities that the person is or will be engaged. ‘…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 public will have confidence that it will not occur’. Although not an exhaustive list, character (indication of ‘likely future conduct’) or reputation (indication of public perception as to ‘likely future conduct’) may be ‘sufficient’ to find a person is not ‘fit and proper’ to undertake certain activities…[47]
  • The expression ‘fit and proper’ must be given the ‘widest scope;’ and determined upon its own circumstances…[48]
  • The applicant must show not only that he is ‘possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him’ as the holder of a particular licence but must also show he has ‘sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public…’…[49]
  • ‘Fitness and propriety are flexible concepts’. It involves an assessment of the person’s ‘knowledge, honesty and ability in the context of the role they are seeking to undertake…’…[50]
  • The discretion vested in determining whether a person is ‘fit and proper’ must be exercised to ‘give wide scope for judgement and allow broad bases for rejection’.[51]
  1. [96]
    The overarching consideration in making a decision in this case concerning whether an applicant should be issued a weapons licence is individual and public safety and to prevent the misuse of weapons.[52]
  2. [97]
    The relevant test is whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence; the test is not whether the Applicant ‘is not’ a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.[53]
  3. [98]
    In making a decision, this Tribunal, which stands in the position of the original decision maker, does not impose the burden of onus of proof on any party.[54] The decision to be made is solely that of a correct and preferable decision.
  4. [99]
    In making a decision as to the fitness and propriety of an applicant to hold a weapons licence of any class, the test at general law is the correct test. The ten dot points listed in paragraphs [94] and [95] above, which summarise the law expressed in cases that are variously persuasive or binding on this Tribunal provide the most useful guidance.
  5. [100]
    Framing the tests referred to above for the purposes of deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence may be expressed in ten guiding rules as follows:
    1. The ‘public interest’ is ‘a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct.... The interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual or individuals’;
    2. The ‘public interest’ is ‘an inherently broad concept giving the appellant the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual’;
    3. An applicant’s personal interests ‘in retaining his licence cannot outweigh the public interest in having full confidence in the professionalism of people involved in the security industry’.
    4. The ‘public interest’ allows…for issues going beyond the character of the applicant to be taken into account. These may include concerns in relation to public protection, public safety and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system’;
    5. Whether a person is fit and proper is ‘one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration’…;
    6. The concept of ‘fit and proper’ must be looked at in the context of the activities that the person is or will be engaged. ‘…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 public will have confidence that it will not occur’. Although not an exhaustive list, character (indication of ‘likely future conduct’) or reputation (indication of public perception as to ‘likely future conduct’) may be ‘sufficient’ to find a person is not ‘fit and proper’ to undertake certain activities…;
    7. The expression ‘fit and proper’ must be given the ‘widest scope;’ and determined upon its own circumstances…;
    8. The applicant must show not only that he is ‘possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him’ as the holder of a particular licence but must also show he has ‘sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public…’;
    9. ‘Fitness and propriety are flexible concepts’. It involves an assessment of the person’s ‘knowledge, honesty and ability in the context of the role they are seeking to undertake…’; and
    10. The discretion vested in determining whether a person is ‘fit and proper’ must be exercised to ‘give wide scope for judgement and allow broad bases for rejection’.
  6. [101]
    Stating the test in this manner does not suggest that either an applicant or a decision maker has to prove any one of the ten guiding rules listed, nor all of them, nor any combination of them. The guiding rules are a tool to assist the decision maker in coming to a reasoned conclusion as to whether or not an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold the licence or licences involved.
  7. [102]
    In forming a view as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person, a decision maker should consider all the relevant factors known about the applicant: those going to his credit as well as those speaking against him.
  8. [103]
    It may be that, taking account of the principles and objects of the Weapons Act,[55] any one event may be sufficient to speak against the issue of a weapons licence. A conviction for armed robbery would almost certainly be such an event. But where this does not apply, a decision maker is obliged to weigh the available evidence and form a view.

Analysis

  1. [104]
    I concluded above in paragraph [48] that if the Applicant were to be issued weapons licences they could be made subject to conditions that were certain, provided the conditions were enforceable,[56] and the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
  2. [105]
    I then described facts, matters and circumstances surrounding the Applicant that are relevant when making a decision as to the fitness and propriety of the Applicant to hold a weapons licence.
  3. [106]
    I then identified some guiding rules that are useful in making my decision concerning what constitutes the fitness and propriety of a person to hold a weapons licence.
  4. [107]
    The overarching consideration in making a decision concerning whether the Applicant should be issued a weapons licence is individual and public safety and to prevent the misuse of weapons.
  5. [108]
    It can be seen in the evidence and other material that the Applicant is viewed by officials, particularly the Weapons Licencing Branch of the QPS, as a person who consumes an unreasonable amount of resources and whose demands impose considerable inconvenience on officials.
  6. [109]
    But the mere consumption of resources and imposition of inconvenience on officials by a person does not constitute sufficient grounds alone to declare a person not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence must be tested first against the statutory test in s 10B of the Weapons Act.
  7. [110]
    The Applicant is a person who comes within the scope of s 10B of the Weapons Act. Section 10B(1)(a) requires a decision maker to consider the physical fitness of a person when making a decision as to the fitness and propriety of that person to hold a weapons licence. The Respondent believes that the visual infirmity of the Applicant, along with his alleged failure to make proper disclosure of his infirmity, constitute sufficient grounds on which to revoke the Applicant’s licences. The Applicant, on the other hand, says that conditions can be imposed on the licences to assuage the concerns of the Respondent in this regard.
  8. [111]
    The next test relevant to the Applicant is s 10B(1)(ca), which has two limbs, and requires that the decision maker consider whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates the person is a risk to public safety; or that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest.
  9. [112]
    There is evidence arising from criminal intelligence and other information disclosed above concerning the conduct of the Applicant that is relevant to the decision as to the fitness and propriety of the Applicant but, taken alone, it is not persuasive that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, although it reflects some unmeritorious aspects of his character that I may take into account in making a final decision as to whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person.
  10. [113]
    As to the second limb of the test in s 10B(1)(ca), it does not seem to add any new test that is not covered by s 10B(1)(d), being the public interest, nor to the general law test of fitness and propriety, so are addressed together in the following paragraphs.
  11. [114]
    The public interest test under s 10B of the Weapons Act, s 10B(1)(ca) and s 10B(1)(d), require that an authorised officer must, in deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, consider whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person.
  12. [115]
    In making a decision as to the fitness and propriety of an applicant to hold a weapons licence of any class, the test at general law is the correct test when taking account of the public interest. The ten points listed in paragraph [100] above provide useful guiding rules in this regard.
  13. [116]
    In forming a view as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person, a decision maker should consider all the relevant factors known about the applicant; those going to his credit as well as those speaking against him.
  14. [117]
    I now turn to making a decision as to whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

Positive Considerations

  1. [118]
    Considerations that speak in the Applicant’s favour include:
    1. He has been a weapons licence holder since 28 March 1992, substantially on a continuing basis, until all his licences were suspended 12 December 2018 and revoked on 15 January 2019;
    2. He is a qualified Range Officer;
    3. He has no charges nor convictions for violent offences;
    4. His existing visual infirmity should be resolved once surgery has been successfully completed;
    5. He has not discharged a firearm since 1 April 2018 (or February 2018, in some evidence) as a result of his various illnesses and infirmities, thus demonstrating his responsible approach to gun ownership; and
    6. He has offered to provide undertakings capable of protecting the public in accordance with s 3 of the Weapons Act as enforceable conditions on his weapons licences.

Negative Considerations

  1. [119]
    Considerations that speak against the Applicant being issued a weapons licence include:
    1. His present visual impairment;
    2. Failing to notify the Respondent within the 14 days of his visual loss as required by the Weapons Act,[57] or to notify the Respondent properly or at all;
    3. There have been two previous occasions when his weapons licences were revoked by the QPS;
    4. His membership of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia was terminated by the Association and the Applicant has offered no adequate explanation for this;[58]
    5. The Applicant displaying himself wearing the insignia of the QPS on a public forum without any authority to do so;
    6. One conviction in 2004 for illegally importing a weapon;
    7. One charge in 2009 for illegally importing a part of a weapon in (a charge on which he was ultimately acquitted, largely on a legal technical point);
    8. The Applicant’s regular and consistent behaviour of dissembling and lack of candour when dealing with authorities;
    9. His ‘self-serving rationalisations’ when dealing with Courts and Tribunals;
    10. His persistent belief in his rightness while attributing ill-motives or corrupt conduct to others;
    11. His difficulty in dealing rationally with persons in authority; and
    12. Numerous road traffic offences over a long period of time, including some relatively recent penalties.

Other considerations

  1. [120]
    A number of other considerations have been raised during the hearing and in evidence, principally by the Respondent, that may be considered by this Tribunal in making a decision, including:
    1. The Applicant will be unable to fulfil his participation obligations to undertake shooting practice in respect of his concealable weapons licence as long as his visual impairment persists; [59]
    2. The Applicant is not reliant on his weapons for a living and so suffers no financial loss from not having them in his possession;
    3. The Applicant has a sound understanding of the law relating to firearms, in particular his obligations under the Weapons Act in Queensland. He cannot credibly plead ignorance of any of his obligations under the law concerning weapons; and
    4. Doubts as to whether a licence condition restricting the Applicant from firing weapons or possessing ammunition are enforceable.

Conclusions as to the Applicant’s fitness and propriety

  1. [121]
    The fact that there are numerically more negative than positive considerations mentioned above is not relevant. What is relevant in making a decision as to the Applicant’s fitness and propriety involves a balance of these considerations.
  2. [122]
    I am entitled to take into account the whole of the Applicant’s character and conduct in making a decision whether to confirm or set aside the decision maker’s original decision.
  3. [123]
    The fact that the Applicant suffered a serious health issue, being his visual impairment, yet failed to notify the QPS within the time specified by law is an issue of concern. The Applicant has suffered in recent years from, inter alia, back and neck injuries, a heart attack, cancer and, most recently, from visual impairment. The Applicant failed to notify the QPS within the 14 days specified by law, or even within what could be considered a reasonable time of his visual impairment. This fact, alone, gives rise to serious concerns about the Applicant’s readiness or willingness to comply with the law when it may not suit him.
  4. [124]
    Many of the negative considerations noted in the list above (such as many of the driving penalties and Court cases involving the importation of weapons or weapon parts) are becoming dated, but reflect a disposition over a long period of time to ignore, or otherwise carelessly or deliberately to break the law. The fact that some offences are recent, such as some motoring offences and the failure to report his health problems to the QPS, suggests that the Applicant remains unable or unwilling to comply with laws when they are not convenient to him.
  5. [125]
    The Applicant stated in his evidence and submissions that he has not fired a firearm since February 2018. The reasons given for this by the Applicant were said to be due to his recovery from cancer surgery and problems with his sight, without specifying dates concerning each. Based on this evidence I am entitled to conclude that the Applicant’s awareness of his visual impairment was a major contributing factor to his decision to cease shooting after February 2018.
  6. [126]
    While the Applicant stated that his sight deteriorated significantly in late 2018, I am satisfied that he was well aware of the fact that his sight was inadequate to shoot safely from or shortly after February 2018, noting that the original diagnosis of cataracts was made in or around December 2017. Most of the more recent deterioration in his sight the Applicant refers to appears to concern his increasing sensitivity to light.
  7. [127]
    While the Respondent undertakes random checks of licensees, effective operation of the weapons licencing regime relies heavily on voluntary adherence to the laws and conditions by licensees, and by voluntary disclosure of notifiable events such as any compromise to the physical fitness of licensees. At the same time, given that he has a sound understanding of the law concerning firearms laws, the Applicant has failed in some important disclosure obligations placed on him.
  8. [128]
    The Applicant raised two facts that he says suggest that the Respondent holds a positive view on his fitness and propriety to hold weapons licences as a result of the Respondent’s conduct, namely:
    1. That the Respondent suggested to the Applicant that he could use an eight-year-old Permit to Acquire after the Respondent had become aware of the Applicant’s visual impairment;[60] and
    2. the Respondent made an offer to allow the Applicant to retain his permanently inoperable firearms as a compromise.[61]
  9. [129]
    In the first instance I am not satisfied that the Respondent knew of the Applicant’s visual infirmity or, if it did, the extent of the Applicant’s infirmity, because the Respondent had not been properly informed of his infirmity by the Applicant at the relevant time.
  10. [130]
    In the second instance this may have been an attempt by the Respondent to reach a compromise with the Applicant in order to offer a reasonable way ahead without litigation. The Respondent stated during the hearing that this compromise was offered during the period between the suspension of the Applicant’s licences and their revocation. Had the Applicant been permitted to regain possession of his weapons on the basis offered by the Respondent he would have to have been considered by the Respondent a fit and proper person, but he did not accept the compromise offered. The Respondent averred that, prior to the revocation notice being issued, the offer of compromise was withdrawn based on further evidence becoming available to the Respondent. In any event, I am not satisfied that an attempt at a compromise by the Respondent should dictate the outcome of this Tribunal’s assessment of the Applicant’s fitness and propriety.
  11. [131]
    This leaves, therefore, just one question to be answered: is the Applicant a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence?
  12. [132]
    The Applicant said that he is a fit and proper person to hold the weapons licences because enforceable conditions can be placed upon the licences that will protect the public adequately. In particular, the Applicant suggested that conditions could be placed on his licences such as all weapons must be temporarily or permanently disabled and that he be prohibited from handling ammunition.
  13. [133]
    To be sufficient to overcome a conclusion that the Applicant is otherwise not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, which is an all but inevitable conclusion given the present poor state of the Applicant’s sight, such conditions, if applied to the Applicant’s licences, would have to be complied with. This means that they have to be voluntarily complied with by the Applicant and must be otherwise enforceable by the QPS, the body responsible for protecting the public.
  14. [134]
    Further, any such conditions would have to be consistent with the principles underlying the Weapons Act: namely, that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.
  15. [135]
    Given the Applicant’s failure to comply with the law on numerous occasions, including his recent failure to provide advice to the QPS of his visual infirmity within the time required or in the manner specified by the Weapons Act and Weapons Regulation give me insufficient confidence that the Applicant will comply with any conditions placed on his licences or undertakings he may give to the Tribunal.
  16. [136]
    I am fortified in this conclusion because the Applicant is a qualified Range Officer, has held weapons licences for many years, and clearly demonstrates a more than usual knowledge of the laws relating to weapons. The Applicant can have scant excuse for failing to meet his obligations under the laws relating to weapons.
  17. [137]
    In respect of the enforceability of conditions on his weapons licences, monitoring the Applicant’s compliance with such conditions is all but impossible. The QPS cannot do this on a constant or even regular basis. Monitoring the Applicant’s conduct by a gun club, even if this were appropriate, is not practical or reasonable for the reasons given by Deputy President Hennessy in Sweet v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service.[62]
  18. [138]
    The Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. I conclude that placing conditions on any weapons licence he may hold will not change this assessment: he will remain not a fit and proper person. Any conditions that could be applied could not be relied upon to be respected by the Applicant nor enforced by any person.
  19. [139]
    This mode of reasoning is supported by a case recently decided by this Tribunal on appeal, Stretton v Queensland Police Service.[63] That is, the first issue for a decision maker to decide is: is the applicant a fit and proper person?
  20. [140]
    In Stretton’s case the appeal Tribunal made the following observations and quoted the High Court case of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (references omitted):[64]

The Member found that Mr Stretton did not satisfy the “fit and proper” test, and therefore the issue of conditions did not arise. In determining whether Mr Stretton is “fit and proper” it is not necessary to consider whether he would be “fit and proper” if conditions were imposed. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[65] the High Court held in relation to whether conditions should have been considered before rejecting a broadcasting licence:

It was for the tribunal to decide whether it would consider the imposition of conditions before proceeding to a determination of the fitness and propriety issue. As a matter of logic and common sense there is much to be said in favour of the course taken by the tribunal, that is, deciding, first, the fitness and propriety issue and then, in the light of that decision, deciding whether the public interest called for the imposition of conditions, suspension, revocation or some other action. A determination of what would be appropriate and sufficient conditions could not sensibly be made in the circumstances of this case until a finding was made as to the fitness and propriety of the licensees.

Decision

  1. [141]
    The Tribunal makes the following decisions in this matter:
  1. The Application is dismissed.
  1. The decisions of the Respondent are confirmed.

Footnotes

[1]  Firearms Licences: 11938824 Firearms Licence; 30031568 Concealable Firearms Licence; 42002385 Collectors Licence.

[2] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 142.

[3]  QCAT Act, s 66.

[4]  Nothing in Chapter 2, Division 3 of the QCAT Act dealing with the Tribunal’s Review Jurisdiction requires that a compulsory conference be convened; while the QCAT Act s 67(1) says only that the principal registrar or tribunal may direct the parties to a proceeding to attend a compulsory conference - there is no obligation to do so.

[5]  Inspector Andrew Smith and Inspector Adam Guild.

[6]  Email from Applicant to QCAT dated 5 December 2018, filed 6 December 2018, headed RE: APL210-18, par 5.

[7]  Report by ophthalmologist Dr Lee Lenton dated 29 November 2018 for Centrelink: Ophthalmologist/Optometrist Report for Age Pension or Disability Support Pension – on the basis of blindness.

[8]  For example, in Applicants’ submissions to stay Respondent’s decisions to suspend and revoke Applicant’s weapons licences that accompanied the Applicant’s Application to stay a decision filed on 4 February 2019, p 7.

[9]  (‘Weapons Act’).

[10]  Revocation Notice issued by Respondent on 25 January 2019, Part C.

[11]  Submission to Respondent by Applicant titled MY SUBMISSIONS TO REINSTATE MY WEAPONS LICENSES AND NOT TO PROCEED TO REVOCATION OF MY WEAPONS LICENCES, dated 19 January 2019, par 4.

[12]  Ibid par 5.

[13]  Although the relevant date of ceasing to fire weapons is also described by the Applicant as  being February 2018, FN 7.

[14]  Weapons Act, s 15(4)(a)(i), 15(4)(a)(iv), 18(8), 49A(2).

[15]  Ibid s 34.

[16]  The power of the Tribunal to review the decision is granted under s 142 of the Weapons Act.

[17]  Defined in s 153 of the Weapons Act.

[18]  QCAT Act, s 20.

[19]  Report dated 10 June 2009 by Activate Psychological Services, Chad McCormick, psychologist.

[20]  Applicant’s submissions for Applicant’s Application to stay Respondent’s decisions to suspend and revoke Applicant’s weapons licences dated 4 February 2019, pars 56-58.

[21]  Applicant’s submissions for Applicant’s Application for Miscellaneous Matters dated 4 March 2019, page 3, par 10(d).

[22]  Ibid par 10(e).

[23]  Ibid par 35.

[24]  Weapons Act, s 24.

[25] Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld), r 18(b).

[26]  Submission to Respondent by Applicant titled MY SUBMISSIONS TO REINSTATE MY WEAPONS LICENSES AND NOT TO PROCEED TO REVOCATION OF MY WEAPONS LICENCES, dated 19 January 2019, par 10.

[27] Powell v Chief Executive Officer Of Customs [2006] QDC 184.

[28] CEO of Customs v Powell [2007] QCA 106.

[29] Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell [2010] QDC 218.

[30] Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell MAG-00125423/06(0).

[31] Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2011] QDC 272.

[32] Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell [2015] QDC 97.

[33] Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Australian Customs Service [2016] QCA 313

[34] Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police v Mercer (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 55, par 20.

[35] VRN v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2019] QCAT 77, par 3.

[36]  Ibid par 5.

[37]  Letter from Asst Commr I D Stewart, Ethical Standards Command of the QPS to Whitman Obial lawyers on behalf of the Applicant dated 8 March 2006.

[38]  Letter from Applicant to Respondent dated 26 April 2018, pars 17-20.

[39] MKN v Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2015] QCAT 358; observations further approved by this Tribunal in KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police [2016] QCAT 49.

[40] Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1991) 1 VR 63.

[41] Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9.

[42] Blissett v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales; Webb Protection Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police [2006] NSWADT 114.

[43] Constantin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16.

[44] KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police [2016] QCAT 49.

[45] TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unity & Anor (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505, [12].

[46] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380.

[47]  Ibid.

[48] Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) [1995] HCA 28; (1955) 93 CLR 127, 156-7.

[49] Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70.

[50] AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101.

[51] Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 589, 389.

[52]  Weapons Act, s 3.

[53] Smith v Commissioner of Police [2011] WASAT 31.

[54] Cormack v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Unit [2015] QCATA 115.

[55]  Weapons Act, s 3.

[56]  The enforceability of conditions that could be applied to the Applicant in this case are analysed later in this decision.

[57]  Weapons Act, s 24.

[58]  Letter from Applicant to Respondent dated 26 April 2018, pars 13-20.

[59]  Weapons Act, s 133.

[60]  The argument is detailed in Applicant’s submissions to stay Respondent’s decision to suspend and revoke Applicant’s weapons licences, dated 4 February 2019, par 44.

[61]  Ibid par 45.

[62] Sweet v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 185

[63] Stretton v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCATA 37

[64]  Ibid par 95.

[65] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Powell v Queensland Police Service

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Powell v Queensland Police Service

  • MNC:

    [2019] QCAT 418

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Dr Collier

  • Date:

    26 Jul 2019

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
ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 589
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1994) 49 FCR 589
Cite 2 - (1994) 49 FCR 589
AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] NSWADT 101
Cite 2 - [2012] NSWADT 101
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 170 CLR 321
Cite 2 - (1990) 170 CLR 321
Cite 3 - (1990) 170 CLR 321
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) HCA 33
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) HCA 33
Cite 2 - (1990) HCA 33
Cite 3 - (1990) HCA 33
CEO of Customs v Powell[2008] 1 Qd R 109; [2007] QCA 106
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] QCA 106
Cite 2 - [2007] QCA 106
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell [2010] QDC 218
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QDC 218
Cite 2 - [2010] QDC 218
Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Powell [2015] QDC 97
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QDC 97
Cite 2 - [2015] QDC 97
Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1999] NSWADTAP 9
Cite 2 - [1999] NSWADTAP 9
Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] NSWADTAP 16
Cite 2 - [2013] NSWADTAP 16
Cormack v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Unit [2015] QCATA 115
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCATA 115
Cite 2 - [2015] QCATA 115
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1991) 1 VR 63
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 1 VR 63
Cite 2 - (1991) 1 VR 63
Hughes & Vale Pty. Ltd. v New South Wales (No. 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1955) 93 CLR 127
Cite 2 - (1955) 93 CLR 127
KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit - Queensland Police Service [2016] QCAT 49
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 49
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 49
Cite 3 - [2016] QCAT 49
MKN v Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2015] QCAT 358
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 358
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 358
New South Wales Police v Mercer (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 55
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2005] NSWADTAP 55
Cite 2 - [2005] NSWADTAP 55
Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Australian Customs Service [2016] QCA 313
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCA 313
Cite 2 - [2016] QCA 313
Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2006] QDC 184
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QDC 184
Cite 2 - [2006] QDC 184
Powell v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2011] QDC 272
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QDC 272
Cite 2 - [2011] QDC 272
Smith v Commissioner of Police [2011] WASAT 31
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] WASAT 31
Cite 2 - [2011] WASAT 31
Sobey v Commercial Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1979) 22 SASR 70
Cite 2 - (1979) 22 SASR 70
Stretton v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCATA 37
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCATA 37
Cite 2 - [2018] QCATA 37
Cite 3 - [2018] QCATA 37
Sweet v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 185
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] NSWADT 185
Cite 2 - [2000] NSWADT 185
TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General - Industry Licensing Unit (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 505
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 505
Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No. 2) [1995] HCA 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] HCA 28
Cite 2 - [1995] HCA 28
VRN v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2019] QCAT 77
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 77
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 77
Cite 3 - [2019] QCAT 77
Webb Protection Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2006] NSWADT 114
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] NSWADT 114
Cite 2 - [2006] NSWADT 114

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brown v Queensland Police Service [2021] QCAT 2931 citation
Clarke v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 4152 citations
Powell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCATA 8119 citations
Yan v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 2952 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.