Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. MDW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing - [2024] QCAT 275

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

MDW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2024] QCAT 275

MDW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2024] QCAT 275

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

MDW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 275

PARTIES:

mDW

(applicant)

v

queensland police service – weapons licensing

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR060-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

3 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

  1. The publication of the names of the applicant and his family is prohibited.
  2. The decision of the respondent made 27 November 2020 to revoke the applicant’s firearm’s licence number 26611861 under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) is set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND RELATED MATTERS – REVOCATION OF LICENCE – FIT AND PROPER PERSON – PUBLIC INTEREST – where weapon not stored in secure storage facility – where applicant’s son suffering from depression gained access to the weapon and loaded and fired it – where a protection order made against the applicant’s son – where the applicant charged with an offence against section 60(1) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), but not convicted – where applicant demonstrated adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of weapons – where applicant has a reason to possess weapons – whether applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence – public interest

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 37, s 101, s 111

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24, s 66

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10B, s 11, s 19, s 29, s 60, s 142

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 305

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

Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWATAP 9

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR 63

Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16

GKR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 335

SAPPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Ms Carey

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. [1]
    On 20 January 2021 the applicant made application to the Tribunal (application) to review a decision of the respondent to revoke his firearms licence number 26611861 (applicant’s firearms licence) made 27 November 2020 (revocation decision).

Non-publication order

  1. [2]
    The Tribunal, under section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), may make a non-publication order. It may do so on the application of a party to the proceeding or on its own initiative.[1]
  2. [3]
    I am satisfied a non-publication order is appropriate and necessary given the nature of some of the written and oral evidence and given the possibility naming the applicant may result in identification of his family causing distress or embarrassment.
  3. [4]
    Also, the evidence shows the applicant’s son suffers from depression. Publication of his name may aggravate his medical condition.
  4. [5]
    It would not be in the public interest to identify the applicant or his family by name. I order that the publication of their names is prohibited.

Background

  1. [6]
    The applicant was the holder of the applicant’s firearms licence.
  2. [7]
    On 1 April 2020 an incident involving the applicant and his son occurred on the applicant’s rural property. The Queensland Police attended.
  3. [8]
    On 2 April 2020 the Queensland Police issued a police protection notice to the applicant’s son under section 101 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (‘DFVP Act’), naming the applicant as the aggrieved.
  4. [9]
    On 5 October 2020 the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba made a protection order against the applicant’s son under section 37 of the DFVP Act, again naming the applicant as the aggrieved.
  5. [10]
    On 16 October 2020, in the Magistrates Court at Pittsworth, the applicant was charged with failing to secure a weapon in secure storage facilities when not in physical possession of the weapon contrary to section 60(1) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘Weapons Act’). No conviction was recorded, and he was fined $300.00.
  6. [11]
    On 27 November 2020 the applicant’s firearms licence was revoked.

Reasons for the decision to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence

  1. [12]
    The reasons for the decision to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence are set out in part C of the information notice accompanying the revocation notice (information notice). The notice refers to sections 10B(1)(ca) and 29(1)(d) of the Weapons Act and decisions in the following cases:
    1. Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith[2];
    2. Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor & Ors[3]; and
    3. Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa[4].
  2. [13]
    The notice then sets out the author’s understanding of the applicable law, and continues:

I note you plead Guilty and were convicted on 16/10/2020 in the Pittsworth Magistrates Court for the charge of Secure storage of weapons - licensee. I note you received a penalty of no conviction recorded and a fine of $300.

I note the circumstances of this offence as follows:

At approximately 7.30pm on Wednesday the 1st of April 2020 Queensland Police Officers were called to a domestic violence incident at your place of residence – [the applicant’s rural property]. Police officers were advised your Son was suffering from mental illness and was trying also to harm himself and threatening suicide.

During this incident your Son has gone to your bedroom and obtained a .410 shotgun registered to your Firearms Licence; and which you were storing underneath your bed. Your Son has then obtained a live cartridge for this shotgun and threatened to kill himself. He went outside and discharged a shot from the shotgun; but no person was injured.

You have then managed to take possession of the shotgun back from your Son and stored it behind a couch until the arrival of the Queensland Police Service.

After Police arrived, they have spoken to you about the shotgun; to which you have advised that you have a safe in your residence were your four other weapons are stored. Regarding the shotgun, you stated that you were storing it underneath your bed for easier access to shoot vermin as you lived at a rural location.

When determining if a person is a fit and proper person to retain a licence, in the public interest, an Authorised Officer must have regard to all information available.

Taking into consideration 29(1)(c) and (d) of the Act; by your plea of guilty you have admitted to a contravention of your licence conditions and that you have allowed your registered firearm to get into the hands of your mentally ill Son; who threatened to shoot himself and actually fired the shotgun.

Taking into consideration that you were aware of your responsibilities as a weapons license holder to secure the weapons appropriately as outlined in Section 60 of the Act and Section 94 of the Weapons Regulation 2016; the seriousness of the charge, and your proven disregard for firearms licensing legislation, I have determined that it is not in the public interest for you to continue to hold a firearms licence.

Material

Applicant’s material

  1. [14]
    The applicant filed the following material:
    1. a letter from Dr D Joubert of Withcott Medical Centre to Dr H Cronje dated 3 January 2020. The letter thanks Dr Cronje for seeing the applicant’s son, then 18 years of age, for an opinion on a possible diagnosis of bipolar disorder;
    2. a reference from Mr N Jordaan, the owner of NJ’s Industrial and Field Repairs, dated 28 January 2021. The reference expresses the view the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence;
    3. a reference from Mr J Rogers (undated). The reference describes the applicant as a supportive and caring family man, a reasonable person, a fit and proper person of good character and a proud member of the community;
    4. a statutory declaration by the applicant’s partner, Ms CVD (applicant’s partner), made 8 October 2021. The statutory declaration refers to her encounters with snakes on the rural property occupied by the applicant and her on 30 September 2021 and 2, 3 and 8 October 2021; and
    5. a certificate from the Queensland Rifle Association Inc. dated 11 January 2022. The certificate certifies that the applicant has completed a course in firearms safety demonstrating a knowledge of firearms legislation, firearms and community safety and the use of categories A and B weapons, and firearms safety.

Respondent’s material

  1. [15]
    The material filed by the respondent in the Tribunal includes the following:
    1. a list of the material dated 13 May 2021. The list contains the respondent’s submissions on the relevant sections of the Weapons Act and the relevant decided cases;
    2. a letter from the respondent to the applicant dated 19 April 2021. The letter refers to an application by the applicant to renew his firearms licence and continues:

I note you made application on 27/02/2021 to renew licence number 26611861. Your license was revoked in December 2020 and therefore at this time, there is no current or valid license seek renewal.

  1. a memorandum an Authorised Officer, Weapons Licensing to the Officer in Charge, Pittsworth Police Station dated 9 December 2020. The memorandum records there are five weapons registered in the name of the applicant held at the Toowoomba Police Station;
  2. the revocation notice;
  3. the information notice;
  4. a Queensland Police Service court brief. The brief records that on 16 October 2020, in that the Pittsworth Magistrates Court, the applicant was charged with an offence against section 60(1) of the Weapons Act (secure storage of weapons). No conviction was recorded. The applicant was fined $300.00;
  5. Police protection notice dated 2 April 2020. The applicant’s son is named as respondent and the applicant as the aggrieved;
  6. a statement under section 111(2) of the DFVP Act. The statement outlines the grounds for a protection order. It is in the following terms:

The respondent is the biological son of the aggrieved. The respondent has only been living with the aggrieved for a short time after living with his mother for most of his life. The respondent was at home with the aggrieved and another person. The respondent has been speaking with his girlfriend on the phone when he became angry and agitated. The respondent suffers from clinical depression and anxiety. The respondent has began (sic.) arguing with the aggrieved (his father) telling his father he wasnt (sic.) really his father and stating he didnt (sic.) believe his father gave a shit about him. The respondent has then gone outside to where his vehicle was parked stating he was going to kill himself. The respondent has then got into the vehicle and driven it approximately 10 metres into a tree causing damage to his vehicle in the front bonnet area. The respondent has then got out of the vehicle and continued to argue with his father. He went inside the house and started to look for something. He then found a .410 shotgun underneath his fathers (sic.) bed. He also found a live ammunition round. He told his father he was going to shoot himself and left the house. The respondent then let off a live round into a rural paddock. The respondent has then gone back into the house and agreed to give the aggrieved back the gun which was registered to the aggrieved (sic.). The respondent and the aggrieved have continued to argue and the respondent told the aggrieved to go outside with him. When outside tile (sic.) respondent has punched the aggrieved twice in the jaw with a closed fist. The aggrieved did not fight back but was trying to fend off the respondent and calm him. The aggrieved did not recieve (sic.) any significant injury and did not wish to make a complaint of assault. They continued to argue until the arrival of police. On arrival Police spoke with the respondent who stated that he wanted to kill himself and that he didnt (sic.) want to be near his father. The respondent was clearly agitated and distressed. He was conveyed to the Toowoomba General Hospital by QAS and admitted under an EEA due to his mental state of mind at the time in that he was a danger to himself and others around him. The aggrieved was also spoken to by police. He stated that he and the respondent had never been involved previously in a physical fight however because of his mental state and their poor relationship there was a possibility that violence may occur in the future. Police also believe that an order is necessary due to the serious nature of this incident and the fact the respondent has a mental illness where he at times puts himself and others at risk. The respondent is currently under medication and attempting to resolve this matter however this incident still occurred with that ongoing treatment.

  1. a protection order made 5 August 2020. The order requires the applicant’s son to be of good behaviour towards the applicant and not to commit domestic violence against him;
  2. a statement by Sergeant Timothy Hoffmann dated 27 July 2020. He states that on 1 April 2020, following receipt of a report of an incident on a rural property, he went to the property. The applicant, the applicant’s partner and the applicant’s son were present.

After speaking to the applicant’s son and the Queensland Ambulance Service arriving, Sergeant Hoffmann had a conversation with the applicant. The conversation was recorded on a body worn camera. The camera was activated on Sergeant Hoffmann entering the applicant’s home. A copy of the recording is filed in the Tribunal.

During the interview, the applicant is recorded as saying:

The other thing is I had a 410 because there has been snakes and feral animals around here. I had it out and I believed I had secured all the ammunition in the gun cabinet. But somehow he found a live round. And he came charging in.

When asked where the applicant’s son found the shotgun, the applicant responded:

It was in here. Usually it is underneath ... well its either in the gun cabinet or under my bed. Today it was under our bed.

The applicant showed Sergeant Hoffmann his gun safe. He conceded the shotgun should have been in the gun safe, not under his bed.

The applicant retrieved the shotgun from behind a couch. On opening it, a spent cartridge was ejected; and

  1. an affidavit by Sergeant Hoffmann sworn/affirmed on 26 September 2022. In the affidavit, Sergeant Hoffmann deposes to receiving a report of the incident between the applicant and his son, arriving at the property and his conversation with the applicant, recorded on his body worn camera.

Sergeant Hoffmann expresses the view the applicant was aware his son was suffering from a mental illness and suffered from depression.

Legislation

  1. [16]
    The principles and object of the Weapons Act and how the object is to be achieved for firearms are found in sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Act. The principles are:
    1. weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;
    2. public and individual safety is improved by imposing strict controls on the possession of weapons and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons.
  2. [17]
    The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. It is to be achieved for firearms by:
    1. prohibiting the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and automatic and self-loading shotguns except in special circumstances; and
    2. establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms; and
    3. requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and
    4. providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for:
      1. licences authorising possession of firearms; and
      2. the acquisition and sale of firearms; and
    5. ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.
  3. [18]
    Limitations on the issue of a licence under the Act are found in section 10. A licence may be issued to an individual only if the person:
    1. is:
      1. for a licence other than a minor’s licence - an adult; or
      2. for a minor’s licence - at least 11 years and otherwise within the age group prescribed under a regulation for the licence; and
    2. has, under section 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence; and
    3. has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence; and
    4. is not prevented under the Weapons Act or another Act or by an order of a Magistrates Court or another court from holding the licence; and
    5. is a fit and proper person to hold a licence; and
    6. has a reason mentioned in section 11 to possess the weapon or category of weapon; and
    7. resides only in Queensland.
  4. [19]
    The matters an authorised officer must consider in deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, are found in section 10B(1) of the Act. Relevantly, amongst other things, the authorised officer must consider:
    1. the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
    2. whether a domestic violence order has been made, a police protection notice issued, or release conditions imposed against the person; and
    3. the public interest.
  5. [20]
    A person is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence if, in Queensland or elsewhere, within the relevant period:
    1. 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. an offence relating to the misuse of drugs;
      2. an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence;
      3. an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge, or possession of a weapon; or
    2. a domestic violence order, other than a temporary protection order, has been made against the person.[5]
  6. [21]
    Relevant period is defined. For the revocation of a licence, the term means the 5-year period immediately before the date of the revocation notice under section 29 is given for the revocation.[6] Here, the revocation notice was given to the applicant on 27 November 2020.
  7. [22]
    A person aggrieved by a decision revoking a licence under the Weapons Act may apply, as provided under the QCAT Act, to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.[7] In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.[8] It must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[9]
  8. [23]
    The Tribunal may:
    1. confirm or amend the decision; or
    2. set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
    3. set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.[10]

Hearing

  1. [24]
    The application was heard by the Tribunal on 3 June 2024.
  2. [25]
    The applicant was self-represented, by Microsoft Teams. Ms Carey, an employee of the respondent, appeared on behalf of the respondent, again by Microsoft Teams.

Evidence

Applicant’s evidence

  1. [26]
    The applicant stated in evidence the incident involving his son occurred within seconds. He was cleaning his shotgun. His son drove a motor vehicle into a tree. The applicant telephoned the Queensland Police for assistance.
  2. [27]
    He had been trying to get his son off drugs. He was suffering from depression, the applicant continued.
  3. [28]
    His son fired the shotgun into the windscreen of the motor vehicle.
  4. [29]
    He used the shotgun the night before to shoot feral animals. He did not to clean it that night nor put it back into his gun safe. He was in the process of cleaning the shotgun when the incident occurred and placed the shotgun under his bed.
  5. [30]
    He was cleaning the shotgun in his bedroom, the applicant stated.

Respondent’s evidence

  1. [31]
    Ms Carey referred to the recording made by Sergeant Hoffmann when interviewing the applicant, in particular the passage of the recording deposed to by Sergeant Hoffmann in paragraph 17 of his affidavit sworn/affirmed on 26 September 2022. There, he deposes to the exchange with the applicant set out in paragraph 15[15](j) of these reasons for decision.

Applicant’s further evidence

  1. [32]
    The applicant stated his son threatened to shoot himself. He acted to protect him.
  2. [33]
    The applicant further stated he was aware the shotgun should be stored in his gun safe. He placed the shotgun under his bed in extreme stress. Ammunition was normally stored in the gun safe. His son, however, found a shell.

Respondent’s further evidence

  1. [34]
    Ms Carey drew attention to inconsistencies between what was said by the applicant to Sergeant Hoffmann at the time and the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal.

Applicant in closing

  1. [35]
    The applicant pointed out Sergeant Hoffmann’s second affidavit was made more than 2½ years after the incident. He repeated he acted in a crisis.
  2. [36]
    The shotgun, the applicant stated, was not stored under his bed; it was stored in his gun safe. He does not know where his son obtained the shell.

Findings

  1. [37]
    I accept the incident occurred in the circumstances described by the applicant to Sergeant Hoffmann on 1 April 2020 and recorded on his body worn camera. The shotgun, I find, was under the applicant’s bed. I further find the applicant was not cleaning the shotgun in his bedroom immediately before the incident as stated by him in evidence.
  2. [38]
    The applicant’s son, while angry and agitated following a telephone conversation with his girlfriend, drove a motor vehicle into a tree. He likely knew the shotgun was under the applicant’s bed. After retrieving the shotgun from under the applicant’s bed and loading it, and threatening to shoot himself, the applicant’s son went outside the applicant’s home and fired the shotgun.
  3. [39]
    Fortunately, no one was injured.
  4. [40]
    The shotgun should have been in the applicant’s gun safe. He was aware his son suffered depression and should have been vigilant to ensure his son did not have access to any of his weapons.

Consideration

Fit and proper person

  1. [41]
    The term ‘fit and proper person’ is not defined in the Weapons Act. The assessment of whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence is different from, but related to, an assessment of whether a person is of good character. In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[11], a decision of the High Court of Australia, Mason CJ, at [63], explained the question whether a person is a fit and proper person is one of value judgement. He continued:

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.

  1. [42]
    The expression, Toohey and Gaudron JJ held, standing alone carries no precise meaning:

It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the 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 future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.[12]

(Emphasis added)

  1. [43]
    In deciding or considering, for the revocation of a weapons licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, the Tribunal must consider, among other things, the matters in section 10B(1) of the Weapons Act. There is no evidence calling into question the applicant’s mental or physical fitness.
  2. [44]
    A domestic violence order has not been made against the applicant. A police protection notice has not been issued against him and release conditions have not been imposed against him.
  3. [45]
    It is not suggested the applicant has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a license, or an application for the renewal of a licence, he knows is false in a material particular.
  4. [46]
    Nothing in the form of criminal intelligence or other information indicating the applicant is a risk to public safety or authorising the applicant to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest was tendered in evidence to the Tribunal.
  5. [47]
    The term ‘public interest’, as I said in GKR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[13], is not defined in the Weapons Act. In Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor & Ors[14], Wilcox CJ and Keeley J, explained:

The purpose of the reference to ‘public interest’ is to ensure that private interests are not the only matters taken into account; to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the Commission’s consideration. The effect of the reference is to amplify the ‘scope and purpose’ of the legislation.[15]

  1. [48]
    The Supreme Court of Victoria (Kaye, Fullagar and Ormiston JJ), in Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith[16], earlier held:

... The public interest is a term embracing matters, among others, of standards of human conduct and of the functioning of government and government instrumentalities tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the well being of its members. The interest is therefore the interest of the public as distinct from the interest of an individual or individuals. ...

  1. [49]
    It is an inherently broad concept giving a decision-maker the ability to have regard to a wide range of factors in choosing whether to exercise a discretion adversely to an individual.[17] It allows for issues going beyond the character of a person to be considered, including concerns in relation to public protection, public safety, and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system.[18]
  2. [50]
    A person, for the revocation of a licence, is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence if, in Queensland or elsewhere within the relevant period, the person has been convicted of, or discharged from custody on sentence after the person has been convicted of, any of the offences mentioned in section 10B(2) of the Weapons Act or a domestic violence order, other than a temporary protection order, has been made against the person. There is no evidence of the applicant being convicted of, or discharged from custody on sentence after he has been convicted of, any of the offences mentioned in section 10B(2)(i) or (ii) within the period stipulated or at all.
  3. [51]
    As I have said, on 16 October 2020, in the Magistrates Court at Pittsworth, the applicant was charged with an offence against section 60(1) of the Weapons Act. No conviction was recorded. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the revocation decision are the same as those giving rise to the charge. There is nothing to be separately considered.
  4. [52]
    Otherwise, the applicant has not been convicted of, or discharged from custody on sentence after being convicted of, an offence, whether relating to the misuse of drugs, involving the use or threatened use of violence, the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon, or any other offence. A domestic violence order has not been made against the applicant within the period stipulated or, to the extent disclosed by the evidence, at all.

Other matters

  1. [53]
    I have also taken into consideration several additional matters in considering and deciding whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence under the Act. First, the applicant is 60 years of age having been born on 28 February 1964. He has had access to, and used, weapons from a young age.
  2. [54]
    Secondly, the evidence shows the applicant has an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of weapons and recently completed a course in firearms safety without being required to do so.
  3. [55]
    Thirdly, the evidence shows he has a secure storage facility for his weapons.
  4. [56]
    Fourthly, the applicant’s evidence and that of his partner shows the applicant has a reason to possess weapons, the control of snakes and feral animals on his rural property.

References

  1. [57]
    The applicant tendered in evidence the references summarised in paragraphs [14][14](b) and [14](c) of these reasons for decision. The persons concerned, however, were not called to give evidence on behalf of the applicant.
  2. [58]
    The extend to which each of the persons concerned were made aware of the background to the revocation decision is unclear.
  3. [59]
    In CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General[19], the Tribunal gave no weight to references by persons who were not made available to appear and give evidence before the Tribunal because, first, it was not apparent the extent to which they had been given background information and, secondly, there was no opportunity to test their evidence by cross-examination.
  4. [60]
    Whilst I have not disregarded the references, I have accorded them little weight.

Conclusion

  1. [61]
    Notwithstanding the conflicting evidence about the location of the shotgun and the circumstances giving rise to the incident and potential consequences, on balance, I am of the opinion the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons Act, and I so find. In doing so, I have had regard to the following:
    1. the applicant’s age and experience with the safe use, storage and maintenance of weapons;
    2. the circumstances giving rise to the revocation decision;
    3. the applicant being without any record of offending, whether offending specified in the Weapons Act or otherwise, apart from that arising out of the incident giving rise to the revocation decision;
    4. the applicant’s need for a weapon to control snakes and feral animals on his rural property; and
    5. the applicant’s recent voluntary completion of a course in firearms safety.

Decision

  1. [62]
    The decision of the Tribunal is as follows:
  1. The publication of the names of the applicant and his family is prohibited.
  2. The decision of the respondent made 27 November 2020 to revoke the applicant’s firearm’s licence number 26611861 under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) is set aside.

Footnotes

[1]QCAT Act, s 66(3).

[2][1991] 51, [63].

[3](1995) 131 ALR 657.

[4][1999] NSWATAP 9.

[5]Weapons Act, s 10B(2).

[6]Weapons Act, s 10B(5).

[7]Weapons Act, s 142.

[8]QCAT Act, s 19.

[9]QCAT Act, s 20(2).

[10]QCAT Act, s 24(1).

[11](1990) 170 CLR 321.

[12]Ibid, [36].

[13][2023] QCAT 335.

[14][1995] IRCA 540; (1995) 131 ALR 657.

[15]Ibid, 681.

[16][1991] 1 VR 63.

[17]See Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9, [25].

[18]See Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16, [33].

[19][2022] QCAT 305.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    MDW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • Shortened Case Name:

    MDW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 275

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Scott-Mackenzie

  • Date:

    03 Jul 2024

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
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
CA v Director-General, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2022] QCAT 305
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 305
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 305
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor [1995] IRCA 540
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] IRCA 540
Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v OConnor (1995) 131 ALR 657
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 131 ALR 657
Cite 2 - (1995) 131 ALR 657
Cite 3 - (1995) 131 ALR 657
Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1999] NSWADTAP 9
Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWATAP 9
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1999] NSWATAP 9
Cite 2 - [1999] NSWATAP 9
Constantin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (GD) [2013] NSWADTAP 16
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] NSWADTAP 16
Cite 2 - [2013] NSWADTAP 16
Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1991) 1 VR 63
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1991) 1 VR 63
Cite 2 - (1991) 1 VR 63
GKR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 335
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 335
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 335

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.