Applicant PQ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing
[2022] QCAT 339
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
- Applicant PQ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2022] QCAT 339
- Add to List
Applicant PQ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2022] QCAT 339
Applicant PQ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2022] QCAT 339
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Applicant PQ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 339 |
PARTIES: | APPLICANT PQ (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR289-22 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 September 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Cranwell |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where application filed to review decision suspending applicant’s firearms licence – where applicant seeking stay of suspension – whether arguable case Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 22, s 66 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 28 Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd & Anor [2002] QCA 347 |
REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | D Ayscough |
APPEARANCES: | This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]On 25 February 2022, the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) decided to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence.
- [2]On 13 April 2022, the applicant lodged an application to review with the Tribunal. On the same day, he also lodged an application to stay the decision under review.
- [3]The reasons provided by the applicant for the stay application were as follows:
1. The decision is made by the use of fals (sic) and not true, self made up manufactured storys (sic) of Questioning Person and self made up Lies under oath in Court from investigating QLD – Police Officers.
2. Decision MAKER used fals (sic) Records for decision.
3. I am in the possession of 100% evidence of Lies used to manufacture Domestic Violence a. (sic) therefore discrimination to be a unfit and not safety person for the public for the decision.
4. In rehearing Police Prosecution was not interest on DVO to me.
5. See attached sheeds (sic) for information to the decision maker.
Revocation of firearms licences
- [4]Section 29 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’) give an authorised officer the power to revoke a firearms licence. It relevantly provides:
(1) An authorised officer may, by a revocation notice given to a licensee, revoke the licensee’s licence if the authorised officer is satisfied of any of the following things—
…
(d) the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence; …
Grounds for granting a stay
- [5]The Tribunal’s power to grant a stay of a reviewable decision is to be found in s 22 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). The Tribunal may grant a stay if it considers the order is desirable after having regard to the factors set out in sub-section (4):
- (a)the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of the order or the order not being made;
- (b)any submissions made to the tribunal by the decision-maker for the reviewable decision;
- (c)the public interest.
- (a)
- [6]The Tribunal, in considering stay applications, also takes into account the tests applied by the courts in respect of stay applications. The tests for the granting of a stay were set out by Jerrard JA in Elphick v MMI General Insurance Ltd & Anor as follows:[1]
To succeed on an application for a stay the applicants must show good reason for the stay to be granted and that it is an appropriate case in which to grant a stay. Those authoritative decisions in this court establish that an applicant should demonstrate:
- A good arguable case on appeal.
- That the applicant will be disadvantaged if a stay is not ordered.
- That competing disadvantage to the respondent should the stay be granted, does not outweigh the disadvantage suffered by the applicant if the stay not be granted.
Information concerning the applicant
- [7]The decision under review contains the following information:
- You reside at this address with your ex-wife.
- I note you have been the respondent in 4 domestic violence prosecution orders since 2004 and up to and including 2019.
- I note you have been the aggrieved in 12 domestic violence protection orders since 2004 and up to and including 2020.
- It is clear that issues persist in the relationship between you and your ex-wife.
- I note the repeat calls for service and domestic violence order applications and cross applications.
- I note you were admitted to Redcliffe Hospital in January 2019 after suffering a stroke. You failed to report this change in your mental and physical fitness in accordance with your licence conditions.
- You have failed to provide a recommendation from your treating practitioner that you are mentally and physically fit to hold a firearms licence.
Consideration
Good arguable case
- [8]The stay application in this matter falls to be determined at a stage in the proceedings where neither party has filed any evidence. The Tribunal’s consideration has been limited to the information contained in the decision under review, and reasons provided by the applicant in the stay application.
- [9]The applicant has provided evidence from himself and his ex-wife denying that he has ever engaged in domestic violence.
- [10]I emphasise that it is not the Tribunal’s role to determine the merits of the review in deciding a stay application. The applicant will have an opportunity to present further evidence and material which may be relevant to the review application before a final hearing. However, based on the material before the Tribunal to date, I am unable to conclude that he has a good arguable case. In particular, I note that there is an evidentiary conflict between the domestic violence history maintained by the QPS on the one hand, and the denials of the applicant and his ex-wife for the purposes of the present proceedings on the other. Further, the applicant has not provided any further information in relation to his mental and physical fitness following his stroke.
Person whose interests may be affected by making the order
- [11]The applicant is a person whose interests are affected by making the order. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that he relies on a firearms licence for his livelihood.
Public interest
- [12]The principles of the Act include a statement in s 3(1)(a) that ‘weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety’.
- [13]I consider that the public interest would require a stay of the revocation decision to be refused in circumstances where the domestic violence history raises concerns about returning firearms to the household.
Disposition
- [14]In order to issue a stay, I must be satisfied that it is desirable to do so. In the circumstances of this matter, the public interest in paramount. I consider that the risk to public safety outweighs any impact on the applicant.
- [15]It follows that I am not satisfied that it is desirable to issue a stay. The application to stay a decision is therefore dismissed.
- [16]Given the domestic violence history, I order that the publication of the applicant and his ex-wife’s names be prohibited other than to the parties to the proceeding pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
Footnotes
[1] [2002] QCA 347, [8] (footnotes omitted).