Your JavaScript is currently disabled. For the best experience viewing this website please enable JavaScript as described here.

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments

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.

Word Highlighter:
0of0
Change Font and Font Size
Font:
Font Size:
CITE

Unreported Judgment

Ney v Queensland Police Service[2024] QCAT 527Member Jensen
Add to List

Ney v Queensland Police Service[2024] QCAT 527

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Ney v Queensland Police Service [2024] QCAT 527
PARTIES:	rachel elise ney (applicant) v queensland police service (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR407-23
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:	11 November 2024
HEARING DATE:	11 November 2024
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Jensen
ORDERS:	The decision made by the respondent on 10 May 2023 to reject the applicant’s application for a firearms licence is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – RENEWAL AND OTHER MATTERS – review of decision to reject application for firearms licence under Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) – where applicant charged with property related offences and drug offences – where no conviction recorded – where applicant had a traffic history – whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 13, s 24 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 20, s 24 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10B, s 29, s 142 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657 CTA v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCAT 440 Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR 51 Kirton v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 70 McVie v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 491 R v Beissel (1996) QCA 488 Vlahos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 199 Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Senior Constable C Moore

REASONS FOR DECISION

The issues

[1]
The applicant applied to the respondent on 28 August 2022 for a firearms licence, which the respondent rejected by notice dated 10 May 2023 (the ‘decision’). The two reasons given in the decision are as follows:
1. It is considered by the authorised officer that the applicant is presently not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), (the ‘Weapons Act’); and
2. It is not considered to be in the public interest that the applicant hold a licence authorising the possession of weapon.
[2]
The applicant subsequently filed an application in this tribunal to review the decision and requesting that she be granted a firearms licence. The respondent opposes the application.

The basis for reviewing the decision

[3]
By virtue of s 142(1)(a) and s 142(2) of the Weapons Act, the applicant may apply to the tribunal for a review of the decision. Review jurisdiction is conferred on the tribunal under s 9(1) and s 9(2)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the ‘QCAT Act’).
[4]
Pursuant to s 20(1) of the QCAT Act, the purpose of the review of a reviewable decision is to produce the correct and preferable decision.
[5]
Pursuant to s 20(2) of the QCAT Act the tribunal must hear and decide a review of a reviewable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.
[6]
Pursuant to s 21(1) of the QCAT Act, the respondent is required to use its best endeavours to help the tribunal so that it can make its decision on the review.
[7]
Pursuant to s 24(1) of the QCAT Act, in a proceeding for a review of a reviewable decision, 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.

The Weapons Act provisions and other authorities

[8]
The principles and object of the Weapons Act are set out in s 3 which provides:

(1)
The principles underlying this Act are as follows—

(a)
weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;
(b)
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)
The object of this Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.

[9]
Section 10(2)(e) of the Weapons Act relevantly provides that a licence may be issued to an individual only if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
[10]
The concept of fit and proper is described in s 10B of the Weapons Act which relevantly provides:

(1)
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, an authorised officer must consider, among other things—

(a)
the mental and physical fitness of the person;

………….

(ca)
whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates –

(i)
the person is a risk to public safety; or
(ii)
that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to public interest; and

(d)
the public interest.

(2)
However, for the issue, renewal or revocation of a licence, a person is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence if, in Queensland or elsewhere within the relevant period—

(a)
the person has been convicted of, or discharged from custody on sentence after the person has been convicted of, any of the following offences—

(i)
an offence relating to the misuse of drugs;
(ii)
an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence;
(iii)
an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon

……..

(5)
In this section –

relevant period means –

(a)
for the issue or renewal of a licence – the 5 year period immediately before the day the person applies for the issue or renewal of the licence;

[11]
I accept the respondent’s submission that where a conviction appears on the criminal history as not being recorded, the respondent’s submission is that, although not a deeming of the person as not fit and proper pursuant to subsection (2), the criminal history is still material in the exercise of discretion in relation to that issue.
[12]
The applicant did not submit any case authorities in relation to the two reasons in the decision for rejecting the application. The respondent has however submitted the following –

Fit and proper

[13]
In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33, it is stated:

The expression "fit and proper person", 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.

[14]
Also, as to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person:

It is well established on the authorities that irresponsible, uncontrolled, antisocial or behaviour constituting a risk to public safety does not have to be limited to the subject matter of, in this case the renewal application. Such behaviour exhibited in other areas of an applicant’s interaction with those about him or her may determine whether that person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence applied for.^[1]

Public interest

[15]
As to the public interest and related matters, the respondent submits that the following authorities are relevant:
1. “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.^[2]
2. 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.^[3]
3. As to the public interest –

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 member.^[4]

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 (a person) were given access to a firearm.^[5]
The decision-maker is required to consider the things then listed, 'among other things'. They are not simply permitted to consider the matters listed, they must do so and are given wide purview to consider 'other things'.^[6]
A person who has been convicted of a criminal offence has a criminal conviction, whether or not it is formally recorded, and that being so, the court should not in my opinion lend its aid to attempts to conceal that fact. It is no part of this court’s function to minimise the seriousness of these offences with a view to influencing a government instrumentality to disregard or overlook these offences.^[7]
Traffic offences demonstrate a failure to appreciate the importance of the requirements of the licensing regime and the need to comply with them.^[8]

The respondent’s case

[16]
The respondent relies on the applicant’s criminal and traffic histories to oppose the applicant and to argue that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.
[17]
The respondent submits that s 10B(1)(d) of the Weapons Act requires that 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, an authorised officer must consider, among other things, the public interest. In addition, the public interest test appears in s 10B(1)(ca)(ii) of the Weapons Act.
[18]
The respondent submits that the Weapons Act does not specify circumstances and/or factors that an authorised officer must consider when deciding whether it is in the public interest to issue or refuse a licence; and that s 15 of the Weapons Act provides that in deciding an application, the authorised officer may consider anything at the officer's disposal.
[19]
The respondent further submits that –
1. In 2019 the applicant was charged with "drive while relevant drug is present" for which she was convicted and her drivers’ licence disqualified.
2. Most of the traffic infringements are for life endangering offences deemed to be part of the Fatal Five behaviours that are responsible for the majority of fatal traffic crashes.
3. The failure to comply with traffic regulations, safety requirements and standards of conduct which are tacitly accepted to be for the good order of society. The offences reflect a disregard for community safety and an inability to adhere to licencing requirements and regulations and display repeated non-compliance with a licencing scheme.
4. In deciding what is in the public interest, the decisions of the courts state the public interest includes standards of human conduct tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members.

The applicant’s case

[20]
By contrast, the applicant submits that she is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. She relies on s 10B(1)(a) of the Weapons Act in relation to her mental and physical fitness and she submits that it would not be contrary to public interest to hold a firearms licence. The applicant relies on the following evidence –
1. Letter from her GP Dr Porter dated 19/6/2023;
2. The psychologist report of Mr Noel Ryan dated 31/10/2024;
3. Character references from –
  1. Terri Beaver regarding the applicant’s volunteer work for Martie’s Tea House dated 25/11/2019 at the Warwick Show and Rodeo;
  2. Ned Makim, president of the Feral Pig Research Unit undated;
4. Letter about the applicant’s volunteer work from Margaret Miller OAM dated 29/10/2024, founding member and president of the Leukemia Foundation;
5. The applicant’s occupation is primarily based on building positive customer relations and serving members of the community, along with volunteering her time to the Warwick Show & Rodeo Society every year;
6. The applicant has no mental health issues, is of sane mind and has no physical impairment;
7. The applicant has no criminal convictions recorded against her, and no history of violence related charges or restraining orders. She submits that the criminal and traffic histories are not sufficient to warrant the rejection of the firearms licence;
8. The applicant states that she has been asked multiple times for jury duty service which she submits demonstrates she is also a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence;
9. The applicant has held steady employment, currently as a duty manager for the past two years and previously, a salon manager for 10 years;
10. The applicant is currently a financial member of the Shooters Union.
[21]
During evidence at the hearing, in relation to the issue of her being a fit and proper person, the applicant stated that she has a plan for the future and that her offending is in the past. She said has a plan to purchase a small farm in the district where she can raise cattle and sheep. The applicant also relies on the fact that she has an “approved manager” licence under the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld). In relation to the drug charge whilst driving, the applicant stated that she had methamphetamine in her system, but that her drug taking has stopped and she no longer takes drugs. The applicant submitted that she applied for the licence for recreational shooting and for livestock protection.

Consideration

[22]
Dr Porter wrote –

Thank you for seeing Rachel Ney, age 30yrs l month, for an opinion and management. Rachel needs a psychology assessment to certify she is psychologically ok to hold a gun license. She had an unfortunate incident some years ago when mum had given her some sleeping tablets and she was pulled up by police and she had "drugs” on her that she had not been prescribed and consequently had a charge. This was 4 years ago. She has had some traffic speeding offenses that were all under 20 km over limit. As a result, her gun license application was rejected.

I have known Rachel Ney for 20 years and she has always been quite stable without any psychological issues.

[23]
Dr Porter states that the applicant requires a “psychological assessment to certify she is psychologically ok to hold a gun licence.” No opinion is provided as to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, and I therefore do not place much weight on this report.
[24]
Noel Ryan wrote:

Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing

QCAT Case Number: GAR 407-23

Ms Ney approached me for an assessment of her suitability lo obtain a firearms licence.

CONSULTATION DATES

I conducted my evaluation consultations with Ms Ney at the Centre for Healthy Living Warwick on two occasions on October 8 & October 15. Each Consultation look one hour. Ms Ney was completely open and honest in her account of her transgressions in her youth that gave rise to the denial of her application for a Gun licence. In addition to interviews, she undertook some evaluation questionnaires that did not reveal any psychological impediments viz Depression, Anxiety, Stress all in the 'Normal Range', no history of significant traumatic experiences.

HISTORY

Ms Ney grew up in the city of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, in a stable, middle-class family. She has been working since she left school. After moving to Warwick some eight years ago, it took her a little while to secure a steady job and a settled lifestyle. She has had a steady partner, a tradesman, for some six years. She works in a responsible job as Duty Manager at a local Hotel. Currently, she and her partner are actively seeking an acreage property in this district on which to settle and raise a family in a self-sustaining lifestyle.

Additional Medical History

Ms Ney did not report any medical history for herself or her partner that might preclude holding a gun licence or owning weapons. Her partner does not hold a firearms licence or own any weapons.

CONCLUSION

Ms Ney does not present with any mental health or personality impediments that would represent a threat to herself, her partner or the community at large. She impresses as a mature, responsible, well-balanced adult who has moved on from earlier life offences that did not involve threats of harm or violence. She and her long-term partner hold responsible employment and have hopes and plans to settle into a rural lifestyle with a family of their own. If they keep small animals for consumption, there is the likelihood of needing lo humanely dispose of sick or injured animals as well as protect family and livestock from feral animals such as pigs and dogs.

RECOMMENDATION

It is my opinion and recommendation that Ms Ney is 'a fit and proper person to unconditionally hold a firearms licence'. It is of particular importance for her future lifestyle with her partner on the land in the near future when they plan to keep small animals for domestic consumption. Given the threats to humans and livestock from marauding feral pigs and wild dogs in the district, gun ownership to deal with injured livestock and predatory feral animals will be necessary.

FURTHER INFORMATION

I myself do not own or use firearms and I do not possess a firearms licence.

In my youth, I was a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) in the Army Reserve (Signals Corps) where I was trained in the safe use of firearms.

To update my knowledge with regard to Queensland Legislation, I completed a Course (11029AT) in Firearms and Weapons Safety Cat B on 25-01-23 with “Site N Scope” Training Pty Ltd, using the standard assessment materials provided by the Queensland Police Service.

If further information is required, I may be contacted directly on mobile 0407 762 906.

[25]
Noel Ryan’s opinion is that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Mr Ryan is a psychologist who consulted with the applicant. In addition, Mr Ryan states that the applicant took some evaluation questionnaires “that did not reveal any psychological impediments viz Depression, Anxiety, Stress all in ‘Normal Range’, no history of significant traumatic experiences”. Mr Ryan states that the applicant reported growing up in Toowoomba in a stable middle class family; she has a steady partner; that she has a responsible job as duty manager at a local hotel and did not report any medical history for herself or her partner that might preclude holding a gun licence or owning weapons and that her partner does not hold a firearms licence or own weapons of any kind.
[26]
I place some weight on this report because Mr Ryan is a registered psychologist. However, that weight is lessened because –
1. the relationship between the applicant and the psychologist is not particularly extensive. The report states that the applicant only visited Mr Ryan on two occasions with each session lasting one hour; and
2. the report lacks detail regarding the applicant’s past offending and in particular there is no way of knowing from the report whether Mr Ryan’s opinion takes into account the applicant’s criminal and traffic histories. In that respect, the report only contains broad statements that:

Ms Ney was completely open and honest in her account of her transgressions in her youth that gave rise to the denial of her application for a Gun Licence…

and that

she “has moved on from earlier life offences that did not involve threats of harm or violence”; and

The report was prepared for a QCAT review. However, Mr. Ryan does not set out his professional experience and expertise which I find affects the probative value of his evidence; and
the applicant’s criminal and traffic histories are the reasons for the decision to reject the application and I infer from the lack of articulation of those histories in the report that Mr Ryan may not have been fully informed in this regard.

[27]
Ned Makin wrote:

This letter is to introduce Rachel Ney, a field data collector on behalf of the Australian Pig Doggers and Hunters Association Feral Pig Research Unit which is managing a number of projects aimed at increasing the knowledge base and understanding of feral pigs in the Australian landscape.

Rachel is part of a nationwide volunteer research team feeding data into two key protects:

The Great Australian Pig Hunt which is compiling data on recreational pig hunters' contribution to feral pig control on a shire-by-shire basis, while also measuring male and female feral pig percentages as well as numbers of breeding age pigs encountered.

The 10,000 EAR Project, which ls on track to be one of the biggest wildlife studies ever undertaken in the world, seeks to collect the tip of one ear from 10,000 feral pigs throughout Australia for DNA testing to potentially determine feral pig breeding habits, movement throughout the landscape by breeding disease history and anything else that might emerge.

Both projects are under the guidance of University of Queensland Associate Professor Ben Allen and managed by the Australian Pig Doggers and Hunters Association Feral Pig Research Unit

No property or site details will be captured nor disclosed in any of the research projects we are running in 2024. The closest location detail for physical samples will be 'nearest town'. The closest for pig counts will be the relevant local government area if you need any more information or have anything you might be able to contribute to our studies, please contact our office on 1300 364 648. Thank you for your time and your contribution to our research.

[28]
Terri Beaver wrote:

Letter of Recommendation for Rachel Ney

Margie's Tea House is a volunteer organization that has been set up to feed and cater for all the volunteers, officials and sponsors at the Warwick Show and Rodeo. We have been blessed with many wonderful people who volunteer at all the events we cover and Rachel Ney is one of these volunteers.

Rachel's contribution to the Tea House is valuable in so many aspects from repairs to the building, cooking, cleaning and serving our customers. Rachel is a reliable, responsible helpful person who treats everyone with respect and kindness. She is always happy and willing to help in all tasks asked of her Involved with the running of the Tea House.

One of the most important features of Margie's Tea House is the smooth running a team who works together and supports each other. Rachel is definitely a member of this team and has earned their respect. Rachel is a valued volunteer and team member at Margie's Tea House and would support her with any task she wishes to undertake in the future.

[29]
Neither of the references from Ned Makim or Terri Beaver contain a statement that the writer is aware of the applicant’s criminal and traffic histories, and I therefore do not place much weight on those references.
[30]
Margaret Miller OAM wrote:

Character Reference of Rachel Ney

My name is Margaret Mary Miller, and I am currently retired from 50 years Nursing. I was founding member and President of The Leukemia Foundation and I'm Patient Support Person. I have supplied meals etc. at Margie's Tea House for the volunteers at the Warwick Show and Rodeo Society since 1973 and with the help of friends, still volunteer my time. In 2018 I was honoured to receive an Order of Australia Medal in recognition for my work to the community. I have also the honour of receiving a personal medal from former Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove.

I have known Rachel for approximately 5 and a half years now. She has never given me the impression that her behaviour would be a risk to public safety, and she seems to be of stable and sound mind. However, in the past she has had traffic infringements, one of which was drug related. I do believe Rachel now makes better life choices for herself.

Rachel has volunteered and worked hard at Margie's Tea House for the Warwick Show and Rodeo society every year for the past five years. She is respectful, kind and willing to help anybody in need of assistance and works independently without supervision. Her contribution is much appreciated.

Rachel requires a weapons license for farm maintenance to protect her livestock and poultry from feral animals, injuries or disease.

I am aware of her weapons license application being rejected and I hope the information I have provided assists Rachel in her case, and I would be happy to provide further details if needed.

[31]
Margaret Miller OAM states that the applicant has performed volunteer work for the past five years and that she is “respectful, kind and willing to help anybody in need of assistance…”. Ms Miller OAM also states that the applicant “has never given me the impression that her behaviour would be a risk to public safety and that she seems to be of stable mind.” She notes that the applicant has had traffic infringements, one of which was drug related. I place some weight on the character reference. However, this weight is reduced because the reference does not make it clear that it is made in full knowledge of the applicant’s criminal and traffic histories.
[32]
I also place some weight on the following evidence –
1. That the applicant is currently in good mental and physical health;
2. That the applicant has been in steady employment at a local hotel as duty manager for the last two years, holding an “approved manager” licence;
3. I accept her evidence that she has a plan for the future which includes purchasing a small farm in the district where she can raise animals; and
4. That the applicant is currently a financial member of the Shooters Union.
[33]
Even though there is evidence favourable to the applicant, I do not find it strong enough to outweigh the evidence from the respondent as follows -
1. In relation to the criminal history:
  1. In 2011, the applicant had 10 x property related offences (fraud and receiving tainted property) – no conviction recorded;
  2. In 2019, the applicant had 5 x drug related offences – no conviction recorded;
  3. In 2020, the applicant had 18 x property related offences (fraud/stealing) – no conviction recorded.
  4. All the offences are serious. Although no conviction was recorded in relation to any of the offences, the criminal history is relevant as a matter of discretion for the tribunal.
  5. I do not place much weight on the offences finalised in 2011 because the applicant was 18 years of age at the time, having been born on 22 April 1993.
  6. However, I regard the offences finalised in 2019 and 2020 as material in relation to this application. I place a lot of weight on the recency and seriousness of the offending as counting against the applicant, and which I note was within five years of her application for a firearms licence.
  7. The applicant submitted that all offences involved another person. However, I accept the respondent’s submission on this point that this revealed a tendency by the applicant to blame others for her offending and not to accept responsibility.
2. In relation to the traffic history:
  1. On 21 November 2019, the applicant was convicted of “drive while relevant drug is present” for which she was fined $500 and driver’s licence disqualified from driving for three months. I place a lot of weight on the recency and seriousness of this offending as counting against the applicant, and which also occurred within five years of the application for a firearms licence.
  2. I also place weight on the other traffic infringements issued to the applicant during the five year period prior to the application for a firearms licence.^[9] These offences show a disregard by the applicant of her obligations under the traffic regulations.^[10]
[34]
When considering this application afresh and having regard to the principles and object of the Weapons Act, I find the applicant’s past actions and behaviour are not consistent with societal standards. It is therefore my view that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be issued with a firearms licence.^[11]

Human Rights Act

[35]
Notwithstanding that no argument was directed at the impact of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (the ‘HRA’), I consider that the HRA applies in this matter and potentially impacts the applicant’s human rights, including under s 24 which provides that all persons have the right to own property alone or in association with others.
[36]
However, having regard to the principles and object of the Weapons Act, the fact that the object is to be achieved for firearms by providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for licences authorising possession of firearms, I find that the applicant’s human rights have not been limited to an extent and in a manner that is not reasonable and justifiable.^[12]

Order

Pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, the decision made by the respondent on 10 May 2023 to reject the applicant’s application for a firearms licence is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Kirton v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 70.

[2] Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9.

[3] Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657 (‘Comalco’).

[4] Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR 51, 63.

[5] Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28.

[6] CTA v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCAT 440.

[7] R v Beissel (1996) QCA 488.

[8] Vlahos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] NSWADT 199.

[9] 6 x exceed speed, 1 x fail to stop at yellow traffic light and 1 x passenger fail to wear seat belt.

[10] McVie v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 491.

[11] Comalco (n 3).

[12] See sections 3, 4(d) of the Weapons Act and 13 of the HRA.

Editorial Notes

Published Case Name:
Ney v Queensland Police Service
Shortened Case Name:
Ney v Queensland Police Service
MNC:
[2024] QCAT 527
Court:
QCAT
Judge(s):
Member Jensen
Date:
11 Nov 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 List of Cases Cited by this judgment

Case Name	Full Citation	Frequency
Animal Liberation v Gasser	View on:VR(1991) 1 VR 51	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1991) 1 VR 51 Cite 2 - (1991) 1 VR 51
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond	View on:JADE(1990) HCA 33	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - (1990) HCA 33 Cite 2 - (1990) HCA 33
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	View on:JADE[1999] NSWADTAP 9	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Cite 2 - [1999] NSWADTAP 9
CTA v Queensland Police Service	[2018] QCAT 440	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2018] QCAT 440 Cite 2 - [2018] QCAT 440
Kirton v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licencing Branch	[2012] QCAT 70	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 70 Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 70
McVie v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch	[2010] QCAT 491	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 491 Cite 2 - [2010] QCAT 491
R v Beissel	[1996] QCA 488	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [1996] QCA 488 Cite 2 - [1996] QCA 488
Vlahos v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force	View on:JADE[2013] NSWADT 199	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2013] NSWADT 199 Cite 2 - [2013] NSWADT 199
Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service	View on:JADE[2000] NSWADT 28	2 citations Jump To Cite 1 - [2000] NSWADT 28 Cite 2 - [2000] NSWADT 28

Cases Citing List of cases on Queensland Judgments citing this Judgment

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode

Change Font and Font Size

Ney v Queensland Police Service[2024] QCAT 527