Larsen v Queensland Police Service
[2022] QCAT 261
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Larsen v Queensland Police Service[2022] QCAT 261
- Add to List
Larsen v Queensland Police Service[2022] QCAT 261
Larsen v Queensland Police Service[2022] QCAT 261
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Larsen v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 261 |
PARTIES: | Larsen (applicant) v Queensland POLICE SERVICE – Weapons Licensing (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR056-21 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 7 July 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | 26 April 2022 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Burson |
ORDERS: |
|
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Mr AJ Larsen – self represented |
Respondent: | Sgt D Ayscough, Queensland Police Service |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background and Facts
- [1]The Applicant, Mr Larsen, at the time of hearing resided as a manager on his family’s rural grazing property in South East Queensland.
- [2]Mr Larsen attested that he had been employed and engaged by his father for over ten (10) years. The property is a sheep and cattle property and was for the purposes of commercial profit and food production.
- [3]Mr Larsen sought renewal of his Category C and Category H weapons licence in July 2020.
- [4]Mr Larsen’s application was rejected by way of information notice dated 9 December 2020.
- [5]Mr Larsen sought review of this rejection by way of application to QCAT on 18 January 2021.
Applicant’s Position
- [6]The Applicant provided his written submissions, community notices regarding pest animals, rates notices and the following statements:
- (a)the Applicant’s statutory declaration;
- (b)a statement from his father, owner of the family property;
- (c)a local police sergeant; and
- (d)5 family friends, including school friends.
- (a)
- [7]Mr Larsen attested that he had a genuine need for the use of the category C and H firearms. The genuine need was in relation to feral pest management at the property and the need to euthanise farm animals when required.
- [8]Mr Larsen and his father attested that Mr Larsen is the manager of the property. The Tribunal finds that Mr Larsen is the manager of the family property and as attested to by his father, Mr Larsen’s needs are met by Mr Larsen senior. There is no evidence of wage payment slips
Is there a genuine occupational requirement for the use of the firearms?
- [9]Section 11(c) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’) outlines the occupation need including a requirement for Rural purposes.
- [10]The Tribunal has found that Mr Larsen is the manager of the family property, the requirement that the Tribunal must consider is whether the firearms are required for an occupational need.
- [11]Section 13(5) of the Act states, “If the reason is an occupational requirement, the applicant must state why possession of a weapon is necessary in the conduct of the applicant’s business or employment.”
- [12]Mr Larsen gave evidence that he is under a duty to manage the land. Mr Larsen’s evidence included that there are issues with the management of wild pigs and wild dogs. Mr Larsen attested that the wild pigs carry Japanese Encephalitis.
- [13]Mr Larsen described that the property was destocked between 2012-2020 due to the long drought that affected the property. That these were temporary de-stockings and that the under the biosecurity legislation, Mr Larsen had his continued obligations to ensure that feral pest management was undertaken.
- [14]Each of the witnesses attested that there was a feral pig and wild dog problem at the property.
- [15]Each of the witnesses attested that they had attended the property for hunting purposes or to assist Mr Larsen with pest management.
- [16]Each witness attested to the use of the firearms and that category A and B do not allow the euthanasia of many feral pigs and wild dogs.
- [17]The witnesses attested that the weapons were stored safely on the property.
- [18]Each of the witnesses attested to Mr Larsen’s honesty.
- [19]Sergeant Ayscough directed the Tribunal to the model code for Livestock and Animal Welfare. Sergeant Ayscough provided that Category C and H weapons were not recommended for the euthanasia of animals, nor was it recommended for the control of feral pest animals.
- [20]One witness attested that a 12 year old child had also been shooting on the property, it was identified in closing submissions that an unlicensed person cannot use firearms, whether or not they are supervised.
- [21]Each witness attested to Mr Larsen’s connection with the property and that at the time of their attendance at the property it remained de-stocked.
- [22]Mr Larsen attested to his duties and responsibilities as the manager to ensure that he conducted the management of feral pest animals responsibly and as a good neighbour.
- [23]The Tribunal accepts that Mr Larsen is required to undertake duties as a manager and that this includes the management of feral pests. The Tribunal accepts that he is mostly a responsible gun owner, apart from the one lapse of enabling a 12 year old to shoot on his property without a licence.
- [24]The question for the Tribunal is the use of a category C and category H firearm required for occupational purposes.
- [25]None of the witnesses were able to attest to the occupational need for the use of a category C or category H firearm. Each witness had attended upon the property and identified that there are pest management concerns, the occupational need for category C and H firearms was not identified.
- [26]Each of the witnesses identified that the property was currently de-stocked. On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal finds that the property is not currently in primary production of cattle or sheep. In the circumstances, the property cannot be classed primary production for the purposes of occupation.
- [27]The Tribunal accepts that he is a manager of the property but does not find that the property is one that is carrying on primary production at the current time, such as sales data of stock, receipts for feed or anything that would indicate ongoing business activities. Mr Larsen did attest that he was in the process of renting parts of the property out for agistment purposes.
- [28]Mr Larsen did not produce any independent evidence to the Tribunal of the use of the property for current primary production.
- [29]Sergeant Ayscough directed the Tribunal to animal welfare guidelines for humane destruction. The direction that handguns are incorrect for the use of the human destruction of animals. Further, there was no evidence presented that the use of category C and H weapons are needed or required for pest management.
- [30]The witnesses called by Mr Larsen attend to the property on a social basis and have known Mr Larsen for many years. The witnesses were not able to attest to the occupational requirements for Mr Larsen’s use of the category C and H firearms.
- [31]The use of other methods of pest management control were attested to with the hearing, such as 1080 baits and professional pest management.
- [32]The Tribunal affirms the decision of the Queensland Police Service and upholds rejection of the application for category C and H firearms.