Watt v Queensland Police Service
[2023] QCAT 102
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
- Watt v Queensland Police Service[2023] QCAT 102
- Add to List
Watt v Queensland Police Service[2023] QCAT 102
Watt v Queensland Police Service[2023] QCAT 102
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | Watt v Queensland Police Service [2023] QCAT 102 |
PARTIES: | CHRISTOPHER PAUL WATT (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR068-21 |
MATTER TYPE: | General Administrative Review |
DELIVERED ON: | 2 March 2023 |
HEARING DATE: | 23 November 2022 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Bertelsen |
ORDERS: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | FIREARMS AND LICENSING – suspension notice – fit and proper person – misleading renewal application – revocation notice – public interest. Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 20, s 21, s 24 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10B Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Keen v Queensland Police Service -Weapons Licensing (2019) QCAT 235 Els v Queensland Police Service-Weapons Licensing (No2) (2022) QCAT 335 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Mr Barker Solicitor of McGinness & Associates for Christopher Paul Watt |
Respondent: | Sgt A Bauer, Queensland Police Service |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]By review application filed 20 January 2021 the Applicant Christopher Paul Watt seeks review of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) decision of 2 December 2020 to revoke his firearms licence. He seeks reinstatement and renewal of his weapons licence. Mr Watt’s weapons licence was revoked for the reason the QPS was satisfied he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, that it was not in the public interest.
- [2]For the purposes of this application the Tribunal stands in the stead of the original decision maker and having regard to the material before it then makes a decision it considers to be the correct and preferable decision. There is no onus of proof nor is there any presumption that the QPS decision was correct. The Tribunal’s decision may confirm, vary or entirely replace the QPS decision. The standard of proof to be applied is the civil standard, that is, the balance of probabilities.
- [3]Pursuant to section 20 Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (QCAT Act) the Tribunal must hear and decide the review by way of fresh hearing on the merits in order to produce the correct and preferable decision. The QPS as decision maker for the reviewable decision must use its best endeavours to help the Tribunal so that it can make its decision on the review. When considering who is a fit and proper person regard must be had to the public interest so that it can make its decision on review, (section 10B (1)(d) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)).
- [4]Mr Watt at the date of hearing was a sixty-year-old semi-retired man residing at 130 Gilliland Crescent Blackbutt North and working at the Tarong pipeline as a maintenance worker for some twenty-three years. He has been married since 1995 and is the father of two daughters. There is no history of domestic violence, of any offence relating to the misuse of drugs, of any misuse of firearms or of the manner in which firearms are kept or stored such as to pose a risk to public safety. No history of dishonesty of any kind. No drink driving or serious driving offences and a minimal criminal history (property offences) nearly forty years ago. He grew up in the bush with a familiarity of firearms from a young age.
- [5]Here the licence suspension and revocation are premised on a common assault charge in September 2020, traffic history indicating ten demerit points in a twelve- month period and non-disclosure of a firearms prohibition order made in 1989 following a suicide attempt after threatening a then girlfriend with a rifle and at which time he was diagnosed with an organic personality syndrome as a result of a major head injury some four closer to five years before in 1984 and finally failure to disclose material particulars in his application for a weapons licence.
Motor vehicle accident 1984
- [6]On 17 May 1984 at age twenty-one Mr Watt was involved in a head on motor vehicle collision in western New South Wales suffering a fractured skull. He spent nine months in Hay District Hospital and Wagga Base Hospital. It took some two years to rehabilitate and restart work. Years later he was awarded damages. He considered himself fully recovered never having any psychiatric issues referable to that accident.
Assault by others 1989
- [7]In 1989 Mr Watt was assaulted by four men at an entertainment venue. At the time he was associating with a female named Sonya when her ex- boyfriend and his mates bashed Mr Watt. He suffered injuries to his head and face the latter requiring distressing dental work. He felt there was some dishonesty on the part of the person Sonya, that he had been stitched up. He was in shock, pain and distress and said to the person Sonya “I ought to shoot you for what you had done to me”. The threat was idle to the extent that Mr Watt did not have a weapon at hand at the time any weapons he owned being many hours drive away at Cunnamulla. It was made in the heat of the moment. The threat whilst politically incorrect or socially unacceptable these days was an expression in common enough use in years gone by and apt to be used by Mr Watts generation. Mr Watt said he and Sonya kissed and made up after the incident but the relationship ended shortly after.
1989 suicide attempt after relationship breakup
- [8]After the relationship with the person Sonya ended Mr Watt attempted suicide. He was admitted to Princess Alexandra hospital. He was there for some three weeks in the psychiatric section. A Dr Gregory Apel was of the opinion that Mr Watt suffered from an organic personality syndrome following the motor vehicle accident some four (closer to five) years before and the threatening of his girlfriend with a rifle. Such manifested as episodes of loss of control of his temper with grossly impaired judgement. On 5 December 1989 Dr Apel requested a firearms prohibition order. Whilst it appears that a firearms prohibition order was made there was no evidence that Mr Watt was ever notified of or served with any prohibition order at the time or since. Mr Watt stated he had no knowledge of any firearms prohibition order until reading about it in weapons licensing material seeking to revoke his firearms licence some ten to twelve months ago. Nor did he have any need to see a psychiatrist or psychologist since. He was able to manage himself, work and maintain his relationship with his wife, whom he married in 1995, without issue.
- [9]On balance the Tribunal accepts Mr Watts evidence that he never threatened the person Sonya with a rifle. Dr Appel’s request was clearly flawed and runs contra to Mr Watt’s conduct generally in the period 1989 through 2020. In 2001 Mr Watt let his firearms licence lapse. He had no need for it. He had just built a house in Toowoomba.
Common assault incident 28 April 2020
- [10]The complainant in the assault charge and Mr Watt resided in the same unit complex at Nobbys Gold Coast. There had been an ongoing issue about the complainant illegally parking his vehicles in unallocated parking spaces over an eighteen- month period. Mr Watt, other owners and renters raised the issue with management, police and the local council but nothing was done. He said his daughter was forced to park down the bottom of the hill and walk a considerable distance in the dark when she visited. On the day an initial verbal argument took place about one hundred metres from the unit complex. According to the QPS Court Brief:
Mr Watt and his wife then walked off up to the unit complex. The complainant entered his vehicle and drove to where Mr Watt was standing at the entrance gate to the complex and exited his vehicle. Mr Watt at the time was standing on the footpath as the complainant exited his vehicle a few metres away. Mr Watt turned to the complainant and another verbal altercation took place for about twenty seconds before Mr Watt headbutts the complainant in the face. The complainant and Mr Watt then got into a physical altercation for a short time before separating and going their own way.
- [11]Further on in the Brief:
CCTV footage shows the complainant pulling up beside Mr Watt and approaching Mr Watt to within about a metre. A verbal argument can be seen to occur and then Mr Watt is seen to headbutt the complainant in the face.
- [12]On that description alone little wonder that Mr Watt believed he was about to be assaulted and reacted in the manner that he did. Mr Watt said he was genuinely concerned about his own safety and that of his wife when confronted by a man thirty years younger and having a go at him. He said the complainant taunted him getting out (of his vehicle) and walking towards him. His reaction whilst not forgivable was perhaps understandable. That said Mr Watt technically committed the assault. He was remorseful and apologetic.
- [13]It would seem Magistrate McKenzie on the 12 October 2020 was on the same page. She acknowledged Mr Watt “who comes before the Court today with a minimal criminal history and not relevant. You assisted and cooperated with Police at the time”. Her Honour stated “I accept that apology and also take into account the various work stressors and health issues that you were also undertaking at the time which adds to the stress.”
- [14]Mr Watt was convicted (no conviction recorded) and fined two hundred- and fifty dollars with two hundred- and fifty-dollars compensation to be paid. When imposing that fine Her Honour was required to consider any disregard for public safety. Mr Watt was not disqualified at that time from holding a firearms licence.
- [15]After this incident Mr Watt and family relocated at considerable expense so as to avoid any further contact with the complainant and put the matter behind them.
Dr Asher Imam Consultant Psychiatrist report 12 August 2021 and evidence.
- [16]According to his report Mr Watt presented for assessment of capacity to continue to hold a firearms licence. Mr Watt attended Dr Imam in person for about forty-five to fifty minutes. Dr Imam spoke to Mrs Watt. Mr Watts past was traversed in some detail. Referring to the events of 1989 he considered Mr Watt may have suffered symptoms of adjustment disorder but there were never any issues with mental illness. Mr Watt had been able to manage his life since that time. There were no indicators of depression or anxiety. In evidence Dr Imam said for organic personality disorder to reoccur there must be symptoms throughout Mr Watts life. There had not been. Rather there was job stability and relationship stability.
- [17]Regarding the 2020 incident Dr Imam said Mr Watts reactions could not be judged by one incident but must be judged in a holistic manner. In particular, he said this incident was not related to any mental health problem. In his report he recorded that since his discharge in 1989 Mr Watt had never seen any psychiatrist nor been on any medication. He had started a new life with his current wife 26 years ago and has two daughters. Mrs Watt described Mr Watt as a supportive and happy man. She has never witnessed any signs of aggression or agitation or violence or suicidal tendencies. He has been able to maintain his business. Mr Watt indicated he enjoyed sports (recreational) shooting but would also utilise a licence for pest/vermin control. Dr Imam confirmed his report conclusion that Mr Watt did not have any mental health issues and he believed Mr Watt had the capacity to hold a firearms licence again.
Other issues
- [18]The QPS material included drivers licence loss for two months based primarily around speeding fines at a time when Mr Watt was travelling long distances for work some sixty thousand kilometres a year a portion of which was on country roads. The issue went no further.
- [19]It was asserted the firearms licence applied for in 2017 was approved without full disclosure of the firearms prohibition order. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Watt was not aware at the time of making his application that there was a firearms prohibition order dating back to 1989. There were no copies of any firearms applications by Mr Watt produced to the Tribunal. Apparently however Mr Watt did not disclose particulars of his 1984 accident which occurred over thirty years prior and from which he had made full recovery. In the intervening years he had held a firearms licence. It was asserted as an oversight on his part but not as deceit in terms of an application.
- [20]On 9 June 2021 Mr Watt was examined by Dr Crabbe who indicated Mr Watt was not suffering from any lingering head or chest injuries.
Summary
- [21]On 17 May 1984 Mr Watt was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. Full rehabilitation took a couple of years. In due course he was compensated.
- [22]In 1989 he was physically attacked. The incident revolved around his relationship with the person Sonya and his misgivings about the honesty of that relationship. That led to a rash threat that he ought to shoot the person Sonya for what she had done to him. But it was a threat that could not have been carried out at the time. It was said in frustration, pain, and anger. Even in today’s Australian vernacular how often does one hear when responsibility for a particular failure is levelled at a particular person ‘He/she ought to be shot’. The Tribunal does not place any weight of consequence on the statement.
- [23]That same year at a low point in life Mr Watt attempted suicide. Whilst hospitalised he was diagnosed by his treating psychiatrist with organic personality syndrome which was never notified to him. But after that time Mr Watt never had any need for a psychiatrist or psychologist. Rather he embarked on a stable work life and successful marriage producing two daughters. He gave up his firearms licence in 2001 when he had no need for it and reapplied in 2017. Not being aware of the firearms prohibition order he did not refer to it in his application. There was nothing dishonest about that.
- [24]Nor is it reasonable to construe not referring to an accident which occurred over thirty years before and from which Mr Watt had fully recovered as necessarily deceitful. An oversight at its highest.
- [25]The organic personality syndrome diagnosis runs contra to Mr Watts life after 1989. There was work and lifestyle stability in the ensuing years. Mrs Watt described her husband as a supportive and happy man. Mr Watt held a firearms licence without incident allowing it to lapse in 2001. Dr Crabbe says Mr Watt is not suffering from any lingering head or chest injuries. Dr Imam considered Mr Watt may have suffered symptoms of adjustment disorder in 1989 but there were never any issues with mental illness. That calls into question the efficacy of the diagnosis of organic personality syndrome in 1989 by Dr Apel based as it was around Mr Watt’s 1984 accident (from which in the meantime he had fully recovered) and the threatening of another person with a rifle (which the Tribunal has already concluded never occurred). The Tribunal concludes that the diagnosis of organic personality syndrome is so flawed that the ensuing firearms prohibition order should never have been issued and becomes irrelevant for the determination of this application.
- [26]The circumstances of the common assault incident of 28 April 2020 have already been traversed in some detail here. The legislative framework is clear. By section 3 of the Weapons Act 1990 (the Act) weapons possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety. By section 10(2)(e) of the Act a licence may be issued to an individual only if a person is a fit and proper person[1] to hold a licence. By section 10B (2)(ii) a person is not a fit and proper person if convicted of an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence within five years immediately before applying for issue or renewal of a firearms licence. However, there is an exception, and it is applicable here. In Mr Watt’s case there was no conviction recorded. Where that is so, section 12(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) applies namely “a conviction without recording the conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose”. That being so no offence such as that for which Mr Watt received a fine is deemed to have occurred. That approach was confirmed by the Tribunal in Keen v Queensland Police Service[2] and Els v Queensland Police Service.[3] Apart from that it was an isolated incident readily construed as an aberration rather than as part of any personality disorder reoccurring through life.
- [27]Ultimately in the view of the Tribunal that leaves no ground on which a firearms licence could be refused.
- [28]Finally, as his own witness Mr Watt was open, forthright, no nonsense, straight forward. There was a simplicity of engagement and exchange, nothing sophisticated or devious in his demeanour or conduct. He was an entirely credible witness.
Orders
- The Queensland Police Service suspension notice of 26 August 2020 is set aside.
- The Queensland Police Service revocation notice of 2 December 2020 is set aside.
- The Applicant Mr Watt’s firearms licence is reinstated to be renewed as necessary.