Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2022
  4. Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing - [2022] QCAT 384

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

Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2022] QCAT 384

Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2022] QCAT 384

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 384

PARTIES:

lillian May Riley

(applicant)

v

Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR658-21

GAR057-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 November 2020

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

The decision of the Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing of 1 February 2022 is confirmed.

 

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – REVOCATION, CANCELLATIONS OR SURRENDER – where the applicant held licence for a concealed weapon for target shooting – where approved club advised police that they could no longer support the applicant’s membership – licence revoked – applicant’s membership not formally terminated – at time of hearing applicant had not renewed membership – whether authorised person should explore basis of associations alleged termination

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 94 ALR 11

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Ors (1995) 131 ALR 657

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWDTAP 9

CTA v Queensland Police Service (2018) QCAT 440

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

Queensland Building & Construction Commission v Whalley [2018] QCATA 38

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Self represented

Respondent:

A/Senior Sergeant D Ayscough

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The Applicant, Lillian May Riley (Ms Riley), held, inter alia, a firearm licence for a category H weapon which, in her case, were 2 pistols which she used for target shooting.
  2. [2]
    Under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (“the Act”) a person must have a genuine reason for possession of the weapon. In this case Ms Riley used the weapons for target shooting which was a genuine reason within the meaning of the Act.[1]
  3. [3]
    When Ms Riley applied for a licence, she was required to provide proof that she was a current member of an approved shooting club.[2]
  4. [4]
    Ms Riley held a license for some years and was a member of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (Qld.) Inc. (SSAA). The Mackay association was Q17 SSAA Mackay Branch Inc. (SSAA Mackay)
  5. [5]
    On 21 July 2021, the president of SSAA Mackay, Anthony Watson, wrote to the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (QPS) to advise them that the Branch could no longer support Category H firearm owners Lillian Riley and her son as members of the Mackay Branch.[3] The reasons provided were that Ms Riley “refuses to follow direction or instructions from Range Officers, has caused unsafe procedures and incidents to occur on the firing line/range”. The letter went on to describe Ms Riley’s complaint of an assault upon her by a Range Officer which, subsequently, was found to be false and fictitious. Mr Watson further stated that Range Officers no longer felt safe to conduct range duties should Ms Riley be in attendance.
  6. [6]
    It should be noted that the letter did not state that Ms Riley’s membership had been terminated.
  7. [7]
    Following receipt of that information the QPS wrote to Ms Riley advising that her licence had been suspended. She was required to surrender her licence and any firearms held by authority of the licence. She was advised that should she wish to retain her licence that she provide sufficient proof of a genuine reason for the possession such as proof of a current membership to an approved pistol shooting club. I note from the Suspension Notice that QPS were only concerned with the Category H weapons that came under the licence No 30037923. The 2 pistols were surrendered to QPS.
  8. [8]
    On 8 February 2022 a Revocation Notice dated 1 February 2022 was served on Ms Riley advising her that she was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence due to it not being in the public interest. It further advised that she no longer had a reason for possession of a weapon and that she had contravened a condition of her licence in that she failed to remain a member of an approved club.[4] This notice referred to licence 26536996 as well as 30037923. The former licence number referred to Category A and B weapons which were later seized. It appears that the basis for her Category A and B licence was for sports and target shooting and she was unable to provide the necessary proof for possession of those licences.
  9. [9]
    Under s. 29 of the Act an authorised officer may give a revocation notice if satisfied, inter alia, that the licensee has contravened a condition, participation condition or special condition of the licence or the licensee no longer has a reason mentioned in s. 11 of the Act to possess the weapon.
  10. [10]
    The QPS in its revocation notice relies upon 3 grounds for the revocation. They are:
    1. (a)
      The licensee is no longer fit and proper person to hold a licence due to it not being in the public interest;
    2. (b)
      The licensee no longer has a reason mentioned in s. 11 of the Act to possess the weapon;
    3. (c)
      The licensee has contravened a condition of the licence, namely, she has failed to remain a financial member of an approved club.

Contravention of licence condition

  1. [11]
    Addressing the last two matters first. Ms Riley in her application submitted that she was never advised that her membership of the SSAA Mackay had been terminated.
  2. [12]
    There was a letter from SSAA Mackay Secretary Michael Pommer, dated 24 November 2020[5] advising that complaints were being investigated and that it was requested that they not attend the SSAA (Qld) Brightly Shooting Complex until they were investigated.
  3. [13]
    The President of the State Association of the SSAA, Ms Hellen Gill also wrote to Ms Riley on 27 November 2020[6] that the suspension was revoked and advising her that, in the interim, Ms Riley could shoot at the Sarina Branch of SSAA (Qld) range and that they were happy to approach that club on her behalf. The invitation was not taken up.
  4. [14]
    Much of Ms Riley’s evidence concerned how she was treated by people at the SSAA Mackay. She made many complaints not only to the management but also the police and the Humans Rights Commission. She made herself very unpopular and was alleged to have been confrontational to, and abusive of members. Mr Anthony Watson described several incidents:
    1. (a)
      In 2017 she lodged a complaint regarding a fellow member making threatening gestures to her. On investigation it was found that she had been absent from the firing line when it was her turn to shoot. When she returned, she pushed in front of other competitors and commenced shooting at the same target resulting in cross shooting and she then commenced arguing with other competitors. The investigation found that she had failed to listen to instructions, was disruptive and aggressive and failed to have her firearms cleared before removing them from the range. She was suspended for one month.
    2. (b)
      Ms Riley made a complaint about an event that occurred on Friday 21 August 2020 in respect of 3 shooters. It was investigated and all parties and witnesses were interviewed. The results of the investigation were that the 3 shooters were cleared, and the cause of the incident was found to be due to Ms Riley and her son Darren being confrontational and abusive. 
    3. (c)
      The third complaint involved the alleged verbal assault upon Ms Riley by a member. This became the subject of a police investigation in which the police determined the complaint to be vexatious.[7]
    4. (d)
      There was also an incident, at about this time, of a failure by Ms Riley to comply with the Covid -19 requirements of signing in. Ms Riley objected to providing her address, even though such information was required by the Covid-19 Industry Plan.[8]
    5. (e)
      The final incident referred to by Mr. Watson occurred on 20 November 2020 when Ms Riley with her son Darren attended the range. Mr Riley was equipped with a hidden camera. The hidden camera was discovered, and both were asked to leave the range as photographing members on the range without their permission was against standing orders.
  5. [15]
    Although Ms Riley disputes these matters it is difficult for the tribunal or the authorised officer to determine the truth of these matters. Ms Riley’s suspension/termination from SSAA Mackay is a matter which will have to be determined in another forum. The fact is that the matters Mr. Watson described led him to write the letter to the QPS. In the circumstance the QPS had no alternative than to suspend and then revoke the licences. In my opinion, in all the circumstances, the authorised officer is not required to explore the legitimacy of the suspension/termination.
  6. [16]
    Ms Riley disputes that she received any letter of notification of the cancellation of her membership. SSAA Mackay did not suspend Ms Riley’s membership in accordance with the SSAA Mackay constitution. Indeed, the parent body, SSAA wrote to Ms Riley on 27 November 2021 revoking that suspension. Ms Gill who wrote that letter requested Ms Riley and her son not attend SSAA Mackay range. She also advised that they were investigating all allegations.[9] There is no documentary evidence that Ms Riley’s membership had been terminated.
  7. [17]
    Mr. Watson says that letters were forwarded to Ms Riley and Mr Darren Riley. He says the letter to Mr Darren Riley was marked return to sender as Mr Riley refused to accept it. The Mackay Branch also refunded the remainder of the membership fee. When Mr Darren Riley refused to accept the letter of termination which contained the refund it was paid directly to his bank account. The reason the refund for both Ms and Mr Riley was paid to Mr Riley was because he had initially paid for both memberships.
  8. [18]
    I accept Mr Watson's evidence in this regard. It was corroborated by Mr Darren Riley who recalled receiving refunds but was uncertain what they related to.
  9. [19]
    I accept that Ms Riley may have been unaware that her membership had been terminated before her weapons were confiscated. However, I accept that she and/or her son received the letter and she was aware that the balance of her membership fee was refunded.
  10. [20]
    Ms Riley’s evidence was unsatisfactory in many respects. It is not unremarkable that she became so unpopular at SSAA Mackay. It is apparent from all the material she has filed and from her own oral evidence that she was disruptive and confrontational. 
  11. [21]
    By section 19 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) the Tribunal must decide the review in accordance with the QCAT Act. The tribunal derives its jurisdiction from s. 142(1)(e) of the Act.
  12. [22]
    Of course, the Tribunal has to decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits, there is no presumption that the decision being reviewed is correct and the Tribunal does not have to find an error in the decision-makers’ process of making the decision or the reasons for it.[10]
  13. [23]
    Section 24 of the QCAT Act provides that the Orders that can be made by the Tribunal upon review are:
    1. (a)
      the decision is confirmed; or
    2. (b)
      the decision is set aside and substituted with the Tribunal’s own decision; or
    3. (c)
      the decision is set aside and the matter returned to the Commission to reconsider the decision with directions the Tribunal considers appropriate
  14. [24]
    The observations in Queensland Building & Construction Commission v Whalley[11] are apposite, there the Tribunal said

A tribunal conducting a merits review proceeding is also conducting a hearing de novo because the tribunal is required to consider all of the material afresh, including the material that was before the decision-maker and, subject to any modifying provisions, any material or new evidence filed by the applicant and the decision-maker.

  1. [25]
    Ms Riley is a life member of the Shooters Union Australia, however, that is not an approved club for the purpose of the Act.
  2. [26]
    Ms Riley has not renewed her membership to the SSAA and therefore, is not eligible to hold a Category H licence, or indeed, a Category A and B licence. I confirm the decision of QPS on this basis.

Is she no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence?

  1. [27]
    There are a number of authorities that provide a guide to what is meant by a “fit and proper”. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[12] Toohey and Gaudron JJ said:

It takes its meaning from its context, from activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

  1. [28]
    The public interest included standards of human conduct tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members.[13] In determining the public interest it is necessary that the interests of the whole community are matters for consideration and the reference to public interest is to amplify the scope and purpose of the legislation.[14] The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety if (the person) were given access to a firearm.[15] “Public interest” is an inherently broad concept giving the authorised officer the ability to have regard to a wide variety of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual.[16]
  2. [29]
    Although, there is some evidence to find that she is not a fit and proper person I am of the opinion, that her lack of interpersonal skills and confrontational personality does not, of itself, make her a risk to public safety were she given access to a firearm. Ms Riley’s interpretation of rules and instructions placed her in conflict with other members of SSAA Mackay. Not unnaturally, this caused frustration and misinterpretation of her actions by those in SSAA Mackay. Although there are allegations of unsafe conduct, for instance her failure to follow directions etc. I do not consider that they are of such a nature as to be a risk to public safety. I am also hesitant to accept at face value all the allegations made against Ms Riley as they have not been fully explored by the authorised person or this Tribunal. Nor should they be, that is a matter for another forum.
  3. [30]
    Although, there are two matters to be reviewed, ultimately, it is the revocation decision that I need consider. On the basis that Ms Riley is no longer a member of SSAA I confirm the decision of the QPS to revoke her weapon licences.

Footnotes

[1]s. 11(a) of the Act

[2]s. 13(2) of the Act

[3]List of Material page 8 GAR 658-21 4 February 2022

[4]List of Material page 9 GAR 057-22 30 March 2022

[5]Exhibit 2

[6]Exhibit 3

[7]List of material GAR057-22 p.67

[8]Applicant’s submissions p.123-124

[9]Exhibit 3

[10]Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 [12]

[11][2018] QCATA 38 [14]

[12](1990) 94 ALR 11 at 56

[13][1991] 1 VR 51 at 63

[14]Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Ors (1995) 131 ALR 657

[15]CTA v Queensland Police Service (2018) QCAT 440

[16]Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWDTAP 9

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • MNC:

    [2022] QCAT 384

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member King-Scott

  • Date:

    09 Nov 2022

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
Animal Liberation v Gasser (1991) 1 VR 51
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 1 VR 51
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 94 ALR 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) 94 ALR 11
Cite 2 - (1990) 94 ALR 11
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v OConnor (1995) 131 ALR 657
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 131 ALR 657
Cite 2 - (1995) 131 ALR 657
Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWDTAP 9
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1999] NSWDTAP 9
Cite 2 - [1999] NSWDTAP 9
CTA v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCAT 440
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 440
Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 440
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCATA 58
Cite 2 - [2010] QCATA 58
Queensland Building & Construction Commission v Whalley [2018] QCATA 38
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QCATA 38
Cite 2 - [2018] QCATA 38

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.