Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2021
  4. Brown v Queensland Police Service - [2021] QCAT 293

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

Brown v Queensland Police Service[2021] QCAT 293

Brown v Queensland Police Service[2021] QCAT 293

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Brown v Queensland Police Service [2021] QCAT 293

PARTIES:

STEPHEN JOHN BROWN

(applicant)

v 

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR425-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2021

HEARING DATE:

22 June 2021

HEARD AT:

Caloundra 

DECISION OF:

Member Dr Collier

ORDERS:

  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The decision of the Respondent is set aside.
  3. The matter is remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration according to law and in accordance with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – FIT AND PROPER PERSON – where applicant for a Queensland weapons licence was the holder of a NT firearms licence – expiration of a firearms licence when holder is no longer a ‘permanent resident’ of a State – relevant test to assess whether an applicant is a fit and proper person – extensive criminal history – whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – REVOCATION, CANCELLATION, SUSPENSION OR SURRENDER – where applicant for a Queensland weapons licence was the holder of a NT firearms licence – expiration of a firearms licence when holder is no longer a ‘permanent resident’ of a State

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) – fit and proper person

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 33A

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 28(3), Chapter 2 Part 1 Division 3 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10(2)(e), s 10B, s 10B(1), s 10B(1)(ca), s 10B(1)(d), s 10B(2), s 12(k), s 32, s 33,  s 10(2A), s 10(2B)

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 19, s 77

Firearms Act 1997 (NT), s 14(2), Schedule 2, Schedule 3

Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld)

AD v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch [2021] QCAT 9

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

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 170 CLR 321

Bignell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2019] QCAT 211

CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43

Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576

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

Powell v Queensland Police Service [2019] QCAT, 26 July 2019, unreported

Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board 20 SASR 70

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

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

D Ayscough, Sergeant

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background and facts

  1. [1]
    The Applicant is a 78-year-old retired gentleman who resides by himself on his property at Glen Echo, which is inland between the Sunshine Coast and Hervey Bay in Queensland. His property abuts Crown land and at least one other privately-owned property.
  1. [2]
    The Applicant previously resided in the Northern Territory (NT). His daughter continues to reside in the NT, and the Applicant visits her on a periodic basis.
  2. [3]
    The Applicant owns three firearms: in Class A (one firearm), and in Class B (two firearms). In the NT he used these firearms for the purpose of destroying feral and other designated animals. The Applicant was licensed by the NT Government to own these weapons in accordance with the Firearms Act 1997 (NT).[1]
  3. [4]
    The Applicant was most recently issued a firearms licence by the NT Government covering Class A and Class B firearms on 15 May 2019, with an expiry date of 15 May 2029.
  4. [5]
    The Applicant testified that he has held a NT firearms licence continuously since 1968.
  5. [6]
    Upon moving to Queensland, the Applicant applied for a weapons licence[2] for Class A and Class B weapons[3] in accordance with the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) on 24 February 2020. The Applicant’s reasons in seeking a licence were based on him being: the owner of a rural property; a recreational shooter; and a Crown land permit holder.
  6. [7]
    By notice dated 11 September 2020, an authorised officer under the Weapons Act refused the Applicant a weapons licence on three grounds, as follows:[4]
    1. “It is not considered in the public interest that you hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons”;
    2. “It is considered by the Authorized Officer that you are presently not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons act 1990” (sic); and
    3. “You stated in or in connection with your application a false or misleading material particular”.
  7. [8]
    As a result of the decision of the authorised officer, the Applicant surrendered his weapons, so they no longer remain in his possession, in accordance with instructions he was given by the Queensland Police Service (QPS). 
  8. [9]
    The reasons for the refusal of the QPS to issue the Applicant a weapons licence are examined later.
  9. [10]
    The Applicant has an extensive criminal history. This history, along with a review of his application, is examined later in this decision.
  10. [11]
    The Applicant now seeks to have this Tribunal set aside the decision of the QPS refusing to issue him a weapons licence.
  11. [12]
    Before examining the substance of the application here, there are provisions in the NT Firearms Act and the Queensland Weapons Act that must be examined in order to determine whether the Applicant is entitled to rely on his NT firearms licence to allow him to possess weapons in Queensland. This issue is considered next.

Weapons laws

  1. [13]
    In examining the statutory provisions, I will turn, first, to the validity of the Applicant’s NT firearms licence.
  2. [14]
    On its face, the Applicant’s firearms licence appears valid and in force and, unless there is an intervening fact or event, would remain so until 2029.
  3. [15]
    However, there has been an intervening event: the Applicant has ceased to be a resident of the NT and is now a resident of Queensland. In this regard, the relevant provision in the Firearms Act is as follows:

14 Period of licence

…

  1. (2)
    Subject to this Act, a licence expires 3 months after the holder ceases to reside permanently in the Territory.
  1. [16]
    The evidence before the Tribunal was that the Applicant now resides permanently in Queensland. While he travels to the NT for about three months each year, this is largely for the purpose of visiting his daughter, and shooting with friends, but he is no longer a resident of the NT.
  2. [17]
    There is no provision in the Firearms Act to suggest other than the normal meaning of the expression “permanently resident” should apply when interpreting this provision. A person can be permanently resident only in one State or Territory, and is a visitor in any other State or Territory. In this case, the Applicant has become, and during all times relevant to this application, was a permanent resident of Queensland.
  3. [18]
    By the natural operation of s 14(2) of the Firearms Act, the Applicant’s NT firearms licence expired three months after he ceased being a permanent resident of the NT. The Firearms Act does not require the taking of any action by any person for s 14(2) to be effective in causing the expiry of a firearms licence. Taking the date of the Applicant’s application for a Queensland weapons licence as the latest date on which he became a resident of Queensland, the Applicant’s NT firearms licence issued on 15 May 2019 must have expired not later than three months after 24 February 2020, namely, 24 May 2020. Therefore, from 25 May 2020, the Applicant was no longer the holder of a NT firearms licence.
  4. [19]
    In the event that the Applicant’s licence remained valid notwithstanding s 14(2) of the Firearms Act, I will briefly review whether the Applicant would be entitled to rely on his NT firearms licence as sufficient for him to own, possess and use a weapon in Queensland.
  1. [20]
    Under the heading: “Temporary recognition of interstate licences for particular purposes”, s 32 of the Weapons Act says:

This section applies if a person who holds a licence, permit or authority issued under the law of another State[5] entitling the person to possession of a weapon visits Queensland—

  1. (a)
    to participate in a shooting competition conducted by an approved shooting club or approved by the commissioner; or
  2. (b)
    for another purpose specified under a regulation for this section.[6]

(2) The person’s licence is taken to authorise possession and use of the weapon in accordance with this Act—

  1. (a)
    for the purpose of participating in the competition; or
  2. (b)
    for the other purpose specified under the regulation—if the person complies with any conditions specified in the regulation for the purpose.
  1. [21]
    However, the terms of s 32 of the Weapons Act make it sufficiently clear that it applies on a temporary basis to a person visiting Queensland. Once a person resides in Queensland, as the Applicant now does, s 32 does not apply. Therefore, the Applicant in this case cannot rely on the combined effect of his NT firearms licence and s 32 to participate in specified weapons activities in Queensland.
  2. [22]
    Relevant statutory provisions relating to the recognition in Queensland of interstate weapons licences for limited periods is described in s 33 of the Weapons Act, as follows:
    1. (1)
      This section applies if a resident of another State who is the holder of a licence under the law of the other State authorising possession of a category A, B, C, D or H weapon or a category M crossbow gives written notice to the commissioner of the person’s intention to reside permanently in Queensland.
    2. (2)
      The person’s licence is taken to be the corresponding licence under this Act in force for the period mentioned in subsection (3) or until the day the person’s application for a licence under this Act is approved or rejected, whichever is the earlier.
    3. (3)
      The period is—

(a) for a licence authorising possession of a category A or B weapon or a category M crossbow—3 months …

  1. [23]
    In this case, notice to the commissioner of the Applicant’s intention to reside permanently in Queensland was constituted by the Applicant’s application for a weapons licence dated 24 February 2020. The Applicant, in reliance on his NT firearms licence, remained licensed in Queensland for the lesser period of three months, or until the QPS rejected the application. In this case the period of three months would apply because the QPS decision was made on 11 September 2020, so the Applicant remained licensed until 24 May 2020. After that date the Applicant was not licensed, and would remain unlicensed unless and until the QPS approved his application, which it did not. Therefore, the Applicant has not held a valid weapons licence since 24 May 2020.
  2. [24]
    For completeness, I make reference to s 10(2A) and s 10(2B) of the Weapons Act, which both deal with the issue of a Queensland weapons licence to persons who are not Queensland residents.
  3. [25]
    Weapons Act s 10(2A) permits the QPS to issue a licence to, inter alia, a resident of an adjoining State (the NT being an adjoining State for this purpose) provided the applicant has a genuine reason for possessing a weapon and is not disqualified from obtaining a weapons licence in the adjoining State. Except for the fact that the Applicant in this case is a resident of Queensland, and subject to the other tests prescribed in the Act, he would have been eligible for a licence under this provision of the Weapons Act. Because he is a resident of Queensland, the Applicant is not entitled to a weapons licence under this provision.
  4. [26]
    Weapons Act s 10(2B) permits the QPS to issue a weapons licence to a person who resides outside Queensland subject to the applicant being entitled in their home State to possess and use a firearm of the type proposed to be used in Queensland, is a visitor to Queensland, and applies for a temporary licence.[7] This provision appears of little use to the Applicant in this case because he is not a visitor to Queensland, and has not applied for a temporary licence.

Administrative law

  1. [27]
    Having concluded that the Applicant is not entitled to rely on any existing statutory provision entitling him to be issued a weapons licence in Queensland based on his NT firearms licence, I now turn to consider whether the Applicant should be granted a weapons licence on the merits as he seeks in his application.
  2. [28]
    A person aggrieved by a decision of an authorised officer may seek to have this Tribunal review a decision of the following type made under the Weapons Act:[8]

(1) …

  1. (a)
    a decision refusing an application for a licence, permit, approval or other authority under this Act;

…

  1. [29]
    The substantive matter here involves the Tribunal reviewing a decision made by another entity under an enabling Act. This is a case where the Tribunal exercises its review jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 2, Part 1, Division 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). In this case the enabling Act is the Weapons Act, and the entity making the original decision was an authorised officer.[9]
  2. [30]
    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.[10]
  3. [31]
    The 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—

…

  1. (a)
    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
  2. (b)
    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. [32]
    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.

The Respondent’s position

  1. [33]
    The Respondent set out the reasons for its decision to refuse the Applicant a weapons licence in its letter to the Applicant dated 11 September 2020. There were three reasons, as noted in paragraph [7], above:
    1. “It is not considered in the public interest that you hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons”;
    2. “It is considered by the Authorised Officer that you are presently not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons act 1990” (sic); and
    3. “You stated in or in connection with your application a false or misleading material particular”.
  2. [34]
    Before considering each of these reasons, it is necessary to set out some details about the Applicant’s criminal and police history. The Information Notice accompanying the decision of the Respondent refusing the Applicant a weapons licence describes the Applicant’s offences as follows:[11]
    1. Between 1978-1982 you were convicted of 20+ counts of weapons related offences.
    2. In 1986 you were convicted of 2 counts of drug related offences and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment which was later revised to 15 years with a minimum term of 9 years.
    3. Between 1971-1979 you have extensive traffic history
    4. In 2010 you were convicted in Queensland of possessing controlled drugs and fined $400.
  3. [35]
    Reference to pages 18 to 23 of the material submitted by the Respondent with its original decision disclosed that, between 1971 and 1984, the Applicant was convicted on 37 matters, and was charged, but found not guilty, on a further nine matters.
  4. [36]
    Of the 37 matters in this period where a conviction was recorded, these included:
    1. August 1978: Possess Unlicensed Pistol;
    2. February 1980: No Shooters Licence (three charges);
    3. February 1980: Unregistered Firearm (11 charges);
    4. February 1982: No Shooters Licence, Class A, B, C;
    5. February 1982: Unregistered Firearms (10 counts);
    6. June 1982: Unregistered Firearms (10 counts);
    7. June 1982: No Shooters Licence, Class A, C;
    8. July 1983: Possess Prohibited Drug, LSD.
  5. [37]
    Between 1971 and 1985 the Applicant was charged but found not guilty on a further five charges relating to dealing in illegal drugs.
  6. [38]
    In 1986 the Applicant was convicted of importing prohibited drugs and conspiracy to conceal a prohibited non-citizen which led to his imprisonment for 15 years with a minimum term of nine years, mentioned above.
  7. [39]
    Since 1986 the Applicant appears to have been charged once, in November 2010, leading to a conviction for possession of a controlled drug.
  8. [40]
    A weapons licence may be issued to an individual only if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.[12] 
  9. [41]
    The Weapons Act provides that, in deciding or considering, for the issue of a licence, whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, an authorised officer must consider, among other things:[13]
    1. (a)
      the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
    2. (b)
      whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and
    3. (c)
      whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and

(ca) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates—

(i) the person is a risk to public safety; or

(ii) that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and

(d) the public interest.

  1. [42]
    Based on these considerations, the essence of the QPS reasons to refuse the Applicant a weapons licence may be distilled to the issue of whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person. In this regard, I am satisfied that the QPS concluded that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person because:
    1. He has an extensive criminal history, including serious convictions relating to illegal drugs; and
    2. He failed to provide full and truthful details in his application dated 24 February 2020 to the QPS.
  2. [43]
    The Weapons Act goes on to define when a person is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. A person is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence if, in Queensland or elsewhere within the relevant period:[14]

(a) the person has been convicted of, or discharged from custody on sentence after the person has been convicted of, any of the following offences—

  1. (i)
    an offence relating to the misuse of drugs;
  2. (ii)
    an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence;
  3. (iii)
    an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon; or

…

(5) In this section— relevant period means—

(a)  for the issue or renewal of a licence—the 5 year period immediately before the day the person applies for the issue or renewal of the licence; or

(b)  for the suspension or revocation of a licence—the 5 year period immediately before the date of the suspension notice under section 28, or a revocation notice under section 29, is given for that suspension or revocation.

  1. [44]
    As evident from the earlier analysis, all the Applicant’s convictions, of whatever type, are not within the relevant period for the purposes of the Weapons Act. Therefore, the Applicant is not proscribed by the Act from holding a licence. Nonetheless, the decision maker is entitled to take into account all relevant matters, including spent convictions.
  2. [45]
    In his comments on his application for a weapons licence in response to question (b) in Section 6 of the form: “Have you in Queensland or elsewhere EVER been charged with any offence …” the Applicant answered: “Yes”, and he further stated:

Pre 1985 (nothing since)

  1. [46]
    The Respondent took exception to this comment, noting that the Applicant had a conviction in 2010 for possession of controlled drugs. The Respondent asserted that the Applicant had been false and misleading in a relevant particular, or that the Applicant intended to diminish the significance of the 2010 conviction.

The Applicant’s position

  1. [47]
    The assertions set out in the following paragraphs were raised by the Applicant in support of his appeal.
  2. [48]
    All his convictions are outside the relevant period prescribed in s 10B(2) of the Weapons Act, and therefore should not be considered, or otherwise should not be given significant weight, when assessing whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person.
  3. [49]
    Despite his earlier convictions, he was issued with a firearms licence by the NT Government on 15 May 2019 for a period of 10 years. I note that the requirements for firearms licensing in the NT are similar to those applying to weapons licensing in Queensland, in particular the requirement that an applicant satisfy a fit and proper person test. The NT Government, which should have been aware of the Applicant’s criminal history, was satisfied that the Applicant met the relevant tests sufficient for him to be issued with a firearms licence covering weapons of the same type sought by the Applicant in Queensland.
  4. [50]
    The Applicant testified that he has held a firearms licence continuously since 1968. While this was not contested by the Respondent at the hearing, the seven convictions listed in paragraph [36] involving firearms suggest that this assertion may not be entirely true.
  5. [51]
    The Applicant testified that, in 2003, the NT Government issued him a handgun licence. While the need for this licence was not disclosed, the Applicant appears to suggest that, notwithstanding his criminal history, the NT Government did not see that his possessing a restricted weapon should be proscribed.
  6. [52]
    The Applicant testified that he has never been involved in any criminal activity involving violence with a weapon. This assertion was not contested by the Respondent.
  7. [53]
    There is no suggestion that, despite his age, at 78 years, the Applicant presently suffers any physical or mental infirmity that would affect his competence to handle weapons.
  8. [54]
    In answer to the Respondent’s concern that he failed to disclose his conviction in 2010 by asserting in his application that all charges against him pre-dated 1985, the Applicant testified that it was an oversight on his part, with no intention to mislead or deceive.

Who is a fit and proper person?

  1. [55]
    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. [56]
    The decision in KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police[15] provides guidance in assessing whether a person is a fit and proper person, and cites further factors for consideration from the case of TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unit & Anor (No 2)[16] 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’…[17]

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…[18]

The expression ‘fit and proper’ must be given the ‘widest scope;’ and determined upon its own circumstances…[19]

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…’…[20]

‘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…’…[21]

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’.[22]

  1. [57]
    It may be that, taking account of the principles and objects of the Weapons Act,[23] 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.
  2. [58]
    A person who has used or discharged a weapon carelessly or with reckless indifference resulting in injury has been found not a fit and proper person.[24],[25]
  1. [59]
    A person with a physical infirmity, such as diminished vision, has been found not a fit and proper person.[26] 
  2. [60]
    A person with evident mental infirmity who has used or discharged a weapon causing injury has been found not a fit and proper person.[27]

Analysis

  1. [61]
    The overarching consideration when making a decision concerning whether an applicant should be issued a weapons licence is individual, taking account of public safety and the need to prevent the misuse of weapons.[28]
  2. [62]
    The public interest test, under s 10B of the Weapons Act, s 10B(1)(ca) and  s 10B(1)(d), requires 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.
  3. [63]
    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.
  4. [64]
    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. [65]
    Considerations that speak in the Applicant’s favour include:
  1. He has been a weapons licence holder since 1968, substantially on a continuing basis, until all his NT firearms licence expired on or about 25 May 2020;
  2. He does not appear to have handled or discharged weapons in a reckless or careless manner;
  3. He does not appear to suffer any physical or mental impairment that suggests it is in the public interest to refuse a licence, or to revoke a licence;[29] and
  4. He has no charges nor convictions for violent offences involving weapons.

Negative Considerations

  1. [66]
    Two factors speak against the Applicant being issued a weapons licence, namely: his extensive criminal history; and his failure to provide full and truthful details on his weapons licence application.
  2. [67]
    The Applicant has an extensive criminal history that includes serious offences. On the other hand, apart from his conviction in 2010 for possession of a controlled drug, all his convictions pre-date 1985, are spent convictions, and none involved the use of violence with firearms.
  3. [68]
    In regard to his 2010 conviction for possession of a controlled drug, the Applicant testified that this involved the possession by him of a small quantity of marijuana for personal use. The penalty of $400 imposed by the Court suggests that the offence was a minor one.
  4. [69]
    The Applicant’s carelessness in complying with weapons licensing obligations is also evident in his criminal history but, again, no convictions have been recorded in this regard after 1982.
  5. [70]
    The Applicant has made at least two untrue statements in relation to his application for a weapons licence and before the Tribunal. The comment on his application to the QPS that all his charges pre-date 1985; and his testimony before the Tribunal that he has held a firearms licence continuously since 1968.
  6. [71]
    The Applicant’s failure to disclose his 2010 charge and conviction for possession of a controlled drug could be viewed as an oversight, even carelessness. The Applicant testified that there was no benefit to him in failing to disclose a charge and conviction because such an erroneous statement can be readily checked by the QPS. I am inclined to draw no adverse inference from the Applicant’s failure to disclose his 2010 charge and conviction.
  7. [72]
    On numerous occasions prior to 1983 the Applicant was convicted of possessing unlicensed firearms. His testimony before this Tribunal that he held a firearms licence continuously since 1968 is, therefore, either untrue, or represents a failure to make a full and complete disclosure of all relevant facts and matters. However, again, I have not drawn an adverse inference from the Applicant’s conduct. I am satisfied that his intention was not to mislead or deceive, rather, the Applicant was content to provide a general picture of events as he recalled them, even if some relevant, albeit dated, facts and matters were omitted from his testimony.

Conclusions as to the Applicant’s fitness and propriety

  1. [73]
    I am satisfied on the whole of the evidence that the Applicant is experienced in the handling of weapons and that he has, for over 35 years, not misused weapons, nor handled weapons in a manner that has compromised personal or public safety. 
  2. [74]
    I am also satisfied that, while the Applicant may have been careless in some matters of disclosure in his application and evidence, there was no attempt by him to be misleading or deceptive.
  3. [75]
    I conclude that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be issued a weapons licence in Queensland.

Decision

  1. [76]
    The Tribunal makes the following decisions in this matter:
  1. The appeal is allowed.
  2. The decision of the Respondent is set aside.
  3. The matter is remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration according to law and in accordance with these reasons.

Footnotes

[1]NT Firearms Licence number 16209.

[2]The terms ‘firearm’ and ‘firearms licence’ are used in the NT Firearms Act, while the terms ‘weapon’ and ‘firearm’ and ‘weapons licence’ are used in the Queensland Weapons Act except when referring to concealable firearms.

[3]Classes of firearm are described in the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld). In the NT, firearms Class A and Class B are described in the Firearms Act 1997 (NT), Schedule 2 and Schedule 3, respectively. It appears that, in practical terms, the designation as a Class A or Class B firearm has substantially the same meaning in Queensland and the NT.

[4]Notice of Rejection of Application to Issue or Renew Licence Application No 26622635, dated 11 September 2020.

[5]The word “State” includes the ACT and the NT: Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 33A.

[6]A relevant purpose for s 32 is described in s 19 of the Weapons Regulations 2016 (Qld).

[7]Weapons Act s 12(k) mentions that a regulation can prescribe the terms of the visitor’s licence. For the purposes of s 12(k), Weapons Regulation 2016, r 77 describes the terms of a visitor’s licence. In any event, a temporary licence cannot be valid for more than three months.

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

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

[10]QCAT Act, s 20.

[11]Respondent’s material pp 3-5.

[12]Weapons Act s 10(2)(e).

[13]Ibid s 10B(1).

[14]Ibid s 10B(2).

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

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

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

[18]Ibid

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

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

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

[22]Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, 589.

[23]Ibid

[24]Bignell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2019] QCAT 211.

[25]CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43.

[26]Powell v Queensland Police Service [2019] QCAT, 26 July 2019, unreported.

[27]AD v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch [2021] QCAT 9.

[28]Weapons Act, s 3.

[29]AD v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch [2021] QCAT 9.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Brown v Queensland Police Service

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Brown v Queensland Police Service

  • MNC:

    [2021] QCAT 293

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Dr Collier

  • Date:

    18 Aug 2021

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
AD v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch [2021] QCAT 9
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 9
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 9
Cite 3 - [2021] QCAT 9
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
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 170 CLR 321
Cite 2 - (1990) 170 CLR 321
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) HCA 33
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) HCA 33
Cite 2 - (1990) HCA 33
Bignell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2019] QCAT 211
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 211
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 211
CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCATA 43
Cite 2 - [2017] QCATA 43
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1994) 49 FCR 576
Cite 2 - (1994) 49 FCR 576
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
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 49
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 49
Powell v Queensland Police Service [2019] QCAT 418
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 418
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PQR [2019] QCAT 318
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 318
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 20 SASR 70
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1979) 20 SASR 70
Cite 2 - (1979) 20 SASR 70
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

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Aslan v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 1172 citations
Aslan v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCATA 471 citation
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.