Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing - [2024] QCAT 9

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

Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2024] QCAT 9

Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2024] QCAT 9

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 9

PARTIES:

TODD ALLAN AITCHISON

(applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR138-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 January 2024

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lember

ORDERS:

The decision made by the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing on 28 January 2021, to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence, is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant sought to review a decision to revoke a firearms licence — where applicant has an extensive history of traffic offences – where applicant charged with unlawful possession of firearms after licence revoked – whether applicant is a fit and proper person in those circumstances

Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland) s 3

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 4, s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 9(1), s 17(1), s 20, s 21

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s 3

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

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld)

AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] 1 VR 63

Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1995) 93 CLR 127

KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police [2016] QCAT 49

Lawler v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 309

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

Moye v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2017] QCATA 79

Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing v Ryder [2019] QCATA 159

Re TAA [2006] QCST 11

Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough [1975] HCA 17

Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70

TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unity & Anor (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505

Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28

Wardrope v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2020] QCAT 409

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

 

Applicant:

Mr R Mugford, solicitor, Jeff Horsey Solicitor

Respondent:

Self-represented.

REASONS FOR DECISION

What is the application about?

  1. [1]
    Mr Aitchison is a long-haul truck driver with a history of traffic offending.
  2. [2]
    By a decision made 28 January 2021,[1] Mr Aitchison’s recreational firearms licence was revoked by the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Unit (‘QPS’) due to concerns over his ongoing traffic offences.
  3. [3]
    Mr Aitchison asks the tribunal to review that decision.[2]
  4. [4]
    By way of background:
    1. Mr Aitchison had held his firearms licence since 2015, but, given his traffic offending history at the time, the licence was issued to him with a stern warning that any further offences, including traffic offences, may result in a review of his suitability to hold a licence.[3]
    2. By 28 January 2021, Mr Aitchison had acquired a further sixteen demerit points for traffic offences, leading to the revocation of his firearms licence.
    3. Since the revocation, Mr Aitchison:
      1. (i)
        on 30 September 2021, was found guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon (category A, B or M), and was sentenced to a $450 fine with no conviction recorded;
      2. (ii)
        on 9 September 2022, was convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon (category A, B or M) and was fined $600 but the conviction was not recorded; and
      3. (iii)
        accumulated further demerit points for traffic offences.
  5. [5]
    Mr Aitchison asks the tribunal to set aside the revocation decision. The QPS asks the tribunal to affirm it. My decision and the reasons for it now follow.

What is the role of the tribunal?

  1. [6]
    The tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with matters if empowered to do so by the QCAT Act or by an enabling Act.[4]
  2. [7]
    The tribunal’s review jurisdiction is the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the enabling Act to “review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act”.[5] 
  3. [8]
    Section 142(1)(e) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’) permits Mr Aitchison to apply to the tribunal for a review of the decision to revoke his licence.
  4. [9]
    The role of the tribunal in such an application is to review the circumstances afresh and to produce the correct and preferable decision.[6]  The evidence to be considered by the tribunal in assessing Mr Aitchison’s suitability to hold a firearms licence is not confined to that which was before the QPS as the original decision maker and may include updated information.
  5. [10]
    The role of the QPS is to assist the tribunal in making that decision,[7] rather than to take an adversarial role or to defend the decision under review. 

The legislative framework for decisions about firearms licences

  1. [11]
    The issuing of a firearms licence to an individual is governed by the Act, read with the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’).
  2. [12]
    All specific provisions within the Act and Regulation must be read in the context of the objects and purposes of the Act.  By section 3 of the Act:

(1) The principles underlying the 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.

  1. [13]
    By section 4 of the Act, its objects are achieved, relevantly, by:

(c) requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and

(d) providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for—

(i) licences authorising possession of firearms; and

(ii) the acquisition and sale of firearms; and

(e) ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.

  1. [14]
    Section 29 of the Act relevantly provides:

(1)  An authorised officer may, by a revocation notice given to a licensee, revoke the licensee’s licence if the authorised officer is satisfied of any of the following things— ...

(d) the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence;

Note— Section 10B states matters for consideration.

  1. [15]
    Section 10B of the Act relevantly provides:

(1) In deciding or considering, for the …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; and

(b) whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and

(c) whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and

(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 the public interest; and

(d) the public interest.

(2) However, for the …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—

…

(iii) an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon;..

(5) In this section—

relevant period means—

…

(b) for the …revocation of a licence—the 5 year period immediately before the date of … a revocation notice under section 29, …given for that …revocation.

Discussion

Whether there is a conviction for an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon

  1. [16]
    Section 50(1) of the Act provides that it is an offence to possess an unregistered weapon:

A person must not unlawfully possess a weapon.

  1. [17]
    By section 4 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld (‘PSA’), "conviction" means a finding of guilt, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty, by a court,[8] however, section 12 provides that, except as otherwise expressly provided by the PSA a conviction without recording the conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose. Neither the PSA nor the Act provide that a conviction without recording is taken to be a conviction for present purposes.
  2. [18]
    Accordingly, there are no convictions to which section 10B(2)(a)(iii) of the Act would apply in this proceeding. This means that the decision becomes an exercise of discretion applying section 10B(1) factors.

Mental and physical fitness, domestic violence orders, police protection notices; False and misleading information, criminal intelligence or other information indicating the person is a risk to public safety

  1. [19]
    There is no relevant information pertaining to these factors before the tribunal.

Public interest

  1. [20]
    In Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] 1 VR 63 (DPP v Smith’) the Supreme Court of Appeal observed that:

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: Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough [1975] HCA 17; (1975) 132 CLR 473, at p. 480, per Barwick CJ.

  1. [21]
    Public interest must be considered by having regard to the objects of the Act, in particular public safety.[9]
  2. [22]
    As Member Fitzpatrick (as she then was) observed in Lawler v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 309 at [44]:

In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence within the terms of the Act, case law[10] casts light on the relevant concepts, including:

(a) The context of the phrase, the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. Has improper conduct occurred, is it likely to occur, can it be assumed that it will not occur or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur.[11]

(b) Whether a person is fit and proper is a value judgment. The seriousness of conduct and the weight to be given to matters favouring the person are matters for evaluation.[12]

(c) The expression is to be given its widest scope and determined on its own circumstances.[13]

(d) The applicant must show not only that he is “possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him” as the holder of a particular licence but must also show he has ‘sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public…”.[14]

(e) Fitness and propriety are flexible concepts. It involves an assessment of the person’s knowledge, honesty, and ability in the context of the role they are seeking to undertake.[15]

  1. [23]
    The QPS submit that the principal issue in determining public safety is whether there is a risk to the safety of the public if the firearms licence is returned to Mr Aitchison and say that, in the context of the Act, the tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety if Mr Aitchison is given access to a firearm.[16] I agree that this is the applicable test.

A. Traffic offending

  1. [24]
    Between 14 March 2000 and 15 March 2015 Mr Aitchison’s traffic offending included, among others:
    1. Exceeding speed limit by >13kmph <20kmph (March 2015, August 2014, May 2008);
    2. Exceeding speed limit by >20kmph <30kmph (April 2013, November 2011);
    3. Exceeding speed limit by >30kmph <40kmph (February 2007);
    4. Modifying vehicle parts or equipment which effects safety (November 2012);
    5. Failing to stop at a red traffic light (October 2011);
    6. Using a hand held mobile phone while driving (April 2011);
    7. Driving while a relevant drug is present (April 2008);
    8. Careless driving/driving without due care and attention (September 2006); and
    9. Unlicensed driving (May 2004).
  2. [25]
    Throughout this period Mr Aitchison received demerits point warning letters, SPER suspension letters and a demerit point suspension.
  3. [26]
    In response to a ‘show cause’ letter dated 21 July 2015, in which Mr Aitchison was informed of concerns as to him being a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence because of his previous traffic history, he submitted the following:[17]

From my understanding it [the show cause] may be related to a driving under the influence charge in approximately 2009, dangerous driving offence approximately 10 years ago and 12 months good behaviour good driving behaviour bond which occurred four years ago due to loss/gain of demerit points. To my knowledge I do have two speeding offences which occurred in the past 12 months in which I was in unfamiliar environments and unfamiliar with the speeds.

Since these events I have made corrections to my behaviour in regards to driving and other aspects of my life to make myself a better fit and proper person. These corrections started with the amount of driving I do and my behaviour towards it...I have also developed behavioural strategies to eliminate bad driving ethics and behaviours (for example, not driving whilst tired).

I have also taken on more responsibilities in my life, in the past seven years I've got married, started a family, bought a house and started and invested significantly in my business which will show I have taken on more responsibilities.

I honestly do feel I have made adequate changes to my life and behaviour to be deemed a fit and proper person and I do take full responsibility for my actions of the past.

  1. [27]
    Within months of penning this letter, on 22 December 2015 Mr Aitchison was infringed for exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 kmph, for which he received eight demerit points and a $1,099 fine and a high-speed suspension that, on appeal, became a special hardship restriction until 29 November 2016. 
  2. [28]
    He then received the following infringements between January 2018 and June 2019:
    1. failing to stop at a red traffic light (February 2018);
    2. exceeding the speed limit by less than 13kmph (January 2018, August 2018); and
    3. exceeding the speed limit by >13kmph <20kmph (May 2019).
  3. [29]
    In support of his application for review, Mr Aitchison filed an affidavit sworn 21 May 2021 in which he says, among other things, the following:

The decision to revoke the weapons licence appears to be based solely on my traffic history. The decision maker has relied upon and stated that on 25 May 2004 [17 years ago] that I …was charged with driving under the influence of drugs and making a false driving record. …this is a spent conviction.

The decision maker then talks about how many demerit points I have accumulated over the last period of time. Clearly, I am a long-distance truck driver and as a result of being a long-distance truck driver I am on the road for a greater amount of time than a normal person. It is noted that the amount of demerit points that I have gained are approximately 2 to three points a year. It is my submission that that is not an excessive amount and is consistent with what other people in my profession would have received.

It appears to me that having my licence suspended for traffic offences that go back in some cases 20 years appears unfair and unjust in all the circumstances. If my licence continues to be revoked it is likely the business will fail.

I'm presently a director of a company TYM industries which runs a business at hunting and shooting with Sundays. I am heavily involved in the running of that business. I often work behind the counter. As a result of my licence being revoked, I cannot work in the shop.

I am also required to pick up various guns and ammunition in the business area and type into the shop. I can't do that without a weapons licence.

I have invested and considerable amount of money in this business. I have invested at least over $400,000 in this business.

In addition to this my whole family including my daughter my wife and myself participated in recreational shooting. We participate in this at least once every fortnight. It is a family activity. My family will be significantly punished if no I'm not able to participate.

I've never been convicted of using a weapon in an inappropriate way. I've never been sentence to any violent offences whatsoever. The offence is relied upon by the decision maker, in most occasions, occurred almost two decades ago. Subsequent to that I had been granted a licence.

I do not see what has changed in the meantime. The only thing that could possibly have changes the allocation of demerit points.

There was also discussion about a charge for being in possession of an unregistered weapon. That charge is still pending …and I intend vigorously defending the charge.

Nevertheless, there are no allegations that I've been charged with any acts of violence or threatening to use the weapon on another person.

  1. [30]
    In relation to the driving offences, in his application for review, Mr Aitchison said that, given a person is permitted twelve demerit points in three-year period, his average of two per year in a six-year period suggests that “my driving is not too bad” and, given that he is an interstate truck drive “it is hardly surprising that I accumulate demerit points from time to time”.
  2. [31]
    In his affidavit sworn 21 May 2021, Mr Aitchison noted that “it is interest interesting that the decision maker has stated that many of the offences were considered endangering and was a risk to public safety”. I asked Mr Aitchison on cross examination to clarify whether he considered his traffic offences had endangered public safety, to which he replied ‘yes’. 
  3. [32]
    He went on to say that he was not accused of “aggressive driving behaviours like weaving” and explained that “when driving a 60-tonne vehicle…it doesn't take long to build up speed” and that it can be difficult to reduce speed when required.  He said that two of his high-speed offences took place as he rolled down a hill and gained speed.
  4. [33]
    Subsequently, Mr Aitchison committed the following further traffic offences:
    1. on 17 February 2022 using a heavy vehicle speed limiter and exceeding the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour; and
    2. on 17 March 2022 using or permitting the use of an unregistered trailer with three or more axles.
  5. [34]
    On cross examination Mr Aitchison queried why, if a factory worker would not lose their job for licence for mistakes made on the job, how can traffic infringements be brought into a firearms licence decision for a truck driver as they are “mistakes within a job” and most of his offences took place in a company vehicle? In my view, this deflection showed a lack of appreciation and insight into the purpose of road rules, driver licensing regimes and laws regulating the operation of heavy vehicles and their drivers, and the risk posed to the public of non-compliance with these regimes. Specifically, each of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (section 3(1)(b)(iii)) and the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland) (section 3(a)) has the object of promoting road safety/public safety. 
  6. [35]
    The QPS notes that Mr Aitchison’s traffic history includes life endangering offences of high range speeding, driving whilst a relevant drug is present, unlicensed driving, careless driving and failing to stop at red lights, and say, therefore that an observation of all the facts and taking into consideration his previous and continuing offending concludes Mr Aitchison’s behaviour reflects flagrant disregard for an analogous licencing scheme.[18]
  7. [36]
    Mr Aitchison submits that, given his circumstances and the fact that there are no more serious traffic offences, his driving history “is not perfect but does not demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the road rules”.
  8. [37]
    In McVie v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 491 at [20] then Senior Member Oliver found, in relation to an applicant who had traffic offences spanning twenty years and who had accumulated one hundred and two demerit points over that period, that:

When considering this application afresh that is, standing in the shoes of the decision maker, one cannot ignore Mr McVie’s disregard of his obligations under the traffic regulations.  He is now 38 years of age and these breaches have continued over a period of some 15 years at a time when, as an adult, Mr McVie should have shown more responsibility in his attitude both to the system of law and order in the community and other road users.

  1. [38]
    In Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634 at [10] then Adjudicator Bertelsen observed that:

Where the applicant’s ongoing traffic record and criminal history are indicative of a continuity of irresponsible and antisocial conduct it is fair to imply that such conduct could extend to his conduct as a holder of a firearms licence.

  1. [39]
    To show cause as to why he should be given a firearms licence in light of his significant traffic history, Mr Aitchison assured the QPS in 2015 that he had “made corrections to” his driving behaviour and that he had “developed behavioural strategies to eliminate bad driving ethics and behaviours”. If in fact these strategies were developed, they have certainly not been effective.
  2. [40]
    I do not accept that Mr Aitchison’s submission that as a long-haul truck driver his driving history “is not too bad” given the significant time he spends on the road. The more time a driver spends on roads, the greater the importance of their compliance with relevant laws and regulations to reduce the risk to public safety. Mr Aitchison has shown a reckless disregard for traffic laws, particularly those pertaining to speed limits.
  3. [41]
    It has been observed that:[19]

A person aware of the consequences of his actions on others is less likely to re-offend than a person who has no insight into the effect of his actions on others

  1. [42]
    Despite demerit warning letters, good behaviour allowances, the scrutiny of the QPS during his licence application, and the subsequent scrutiny of the tribunal during the review, the offending has continued.
  2. [43]
    In my view, Mr Aitchison was dismissive of and lacked insight into the risk his traffic offending behaviours pose, particularly when involving a heavy vehicle. The risk of his reoffending in those circumstances is considerable and it is fair to imply that such non-complying conduct could extend to his conduct as a holder of a firearms licence

B. Weapons offences

  1. [44]
    On 23 February 2021 police attended Mr Aitchison’s residence to execute a search warrant. Mr Aitchison declared that an unregistered firearm (a double barrel shotgun) was being stored in the walk-in robe of the residence. He told police that the firearm belonged to his grandfather and that he was going to hand it in on the next amnesty. Mr Aitchison was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon (category A, B or M) as an outcome.
  2. [45]
    His solicitor, Mr Mugford later said:[20]

We are instructed the weapon was in pieces and not capable of being used without expert assembly.

Our client had only just received the pieces.

He was at the time an associate of a gun business in Prosser pine. We are instructed the process for registering a gun is to take it to a licenced gun shop where the paperwork is completed.

He had the gun for the purpose of registering the gun at his gun shop.

It has been determined by the government that this is the appropriate procedure for registering a gun. Our client was operating within that framework.

  1. [46]
    On 30 September 2021, the Beenleigh Magistrates Court made a finding of guilt in relation to this offence and imposed a fine of $450. No conviction was recorded.
  2. [47]
    On 17 February 2022 police intercepted Mr Aitchison's truck on the Bruce Highway for a traffic offence. During the intercept, a search was executed in which the following three knives were discovered:
    1. directly above the driver's seat in the truck lining, a tan handle knife which can be open and closed with one hand;
    2. in a small black bag located directly behind the driver's seat, a green handle knife that could also be opened and closed with one hand; and
    3. in the driver's side dog box, located directly behind the driver's seat, a skull handle knife that can be opened and closed with one hand.
  3. [48]
    Such knives are classified as weapons under section 7A Category M Weapons of the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld), being “any knife so designed or constructed so as to be used as a weapon that while the knife is held in one hand, the blade may be released by that hand”.
  4. [49]
    Mr Aitchison advised police the knives were pocketknives used for cutting straps on the loads he carries and said that he got the knives from his weapons store.
  5. [50]
    Police seized the weapons and Mr Aitchison was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon (category A, B or M) consequently. On 9 September 2022, he was convicted of this offence, and fined $600 with no conviction recorded.
  6. [51]
    On cross-examination Mr Aitchison gave the following evidence:
    1. The shotgun had been in his possession for approximately three weeks when it was discovered by police, and he had intended to take it to his gun shop.
    2. He had no answer for Ms Goddard when questioned as to what permitted him to hold or to transport the shotgun when his licence was only for recreational shooting with a pistol.  
    3. With respect to the knives, he was not aware that knives of that nature are weapons (as defined).
  7. [52]
    In relation to both offences, Mr Aitchison accepted that he had “made some errors” in relation to the weapons charges but said that:

In both these cases there is no suggestion that [Mr Aitchison] had deliberately done something wrong. There was nothing involved to exacerbate the offending. There is no suggestion that the applicant had used the weapons or threatened to use the weapons inappropriately.

  1. [53]
    Mr Aitchison says that as the two weapons possession charges do not include threats or use of the said weapons, his conduct does not fall foul of the public interest standards set out in DPP v Smith.
  2. [54]
    In Wardrope v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2020] QCAT 409 Member Cranwell observed that:

It is trite to state that unsecure storage of firearms, as well as possession of unregistered firearms, gives rise to a risk to public safety. 

  1. [55]
    Mr Aitchison gave inconsistent explanations regarding his intentions for the unregistered shotgun found unsecured in his home. He showed no insight into the risk to public safety it posed. Similarly, he showed no awareness or insight into the risks posed by the unregistered knives located in his truck, or any insight into the fact that they were classed as ‘weapons’ despite saying he acquired them from his own weapons shop. But for the order made not to record convictions for these two offences, Mr Aitchison would have been deemed by section 10B(2)(a)(iii) of the Act as not being fit and proper to hold his licence. The seriousness of these offences nonetheless is relevant to a consideration of whether Mr Aitchison poses “virtually no risk” to public safety. The circumstances do not convince me that Mr Aitchison is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities that befall him as a firearms licence holder.

Decision

  1. [56]
    Mr Aitchison made much of the impact upon of him the revocation of his licence in terms of its impact on his ability to work in the gun shop in which he is heavily invested. The QPS correctly note in reply that Mr Aitchison’s firearms licence is not an occupational one.
  2. [57]
    In any event, I accept that Mr Aitchison will suffer some inconvenience in not being able to pursue his hobbies of recreational shooting with his family.
  3. [58]
    However, Mr Aitchison’s careless attitude towards weapons, including the unlawful possession and storage of the same, and his reckless regard for road rules and, therefore, for the safety of other road users in circumstances where he, on his own evidence, drives considerably more than typical road users and in heavy vehicles satisfies me that the risk to public safety of issuing him a firearms licence strongly  outweighs any inconvenience to him of refusing him such a licence.
  4. [59]
    As required by the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), I have had regard to Mr Aitchison’s human rights, including the right not to be punished more than once for his offences, however, in the circumstances I am satisfied that any limitation on these rights is consistent with the proper purpose of promoting and protecting the public interest in ensuring that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.

What is the “correct and preferable” decision? 

  1. [60]
    The correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision of the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing made 28 January 2021 and to revoke Mr Aitchison’s firearms licence.

Footnotes

[1]  Served upon him on 23 February 2021.

[2]  Application to review a decision filed 10 March 2021.

[3]  Letter dated 13 October 2015.

[4] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), section 9(1).

[5]  Ibid, s 17(1).

[6]  Ibid, s 20.

[7]  Ibid, s 21.

[8] Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 4.

[9] Moye v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2017] QCATA 79 at [36].

[10] KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit – Queensland Police Service & Commissioner of Police [2016] QCAT 49; TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unity & Anor (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505, [12].

[11] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380.

[12]  Ibid.

[13] Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No2) (1995) 93 CLR 127, 156-7

[14] Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70

[15] AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101.

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

[17]  Undated letter marked ‘00018B’ filed by the QPS on 26 March 2021.

[18] McVie v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

[19]  Ibid at [52] citing Re TAA [2006] QCST 11, [97].

[20]  Email to the QPS dated 20 April 2021.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Aitchison v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 9

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Lember

  • Date:

    05 Jan 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
AJO v Director-General Department of Transport [2012] NSWADT 101
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] NSWADT 101
Cite 2 - [2012] NSWADT 101
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
Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCAT 634
Commissioner of State Revenue v Gundachar [2017] QCATA 79
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCATA 79
Cite 2 - [2017] QCATA 79
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
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd and another v The State of New South Wales and others (1995) 93 CLR 127
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1995) 93 CLR 127
Cite 2 - (1995) 93 CLR 127
KZT v Weapons Licensing Unit - Queensland Police Service [2016] QCAT 49
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 49
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 49
Lawler v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 309
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 309
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 309
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
Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing v Ryder [2019] QCATA 159
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCATA 159
Re TAA (2006) QCST 11
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2006) QCST 11
Cite 2 - (2006) QCST 11
Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden [1975] HCA 17
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1975] HCA 17
Cite 2 - [1975] HCA 17
Sinclair v Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1975) 132 CLR 473
Sobey v Commercial Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1979) 22 SASR 70
Cite 2 - (1979) 22 SASR 70
TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General - Industry Licensing Unit (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 505
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 505
Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2000] NSWADT 28
Cite 2 - [2000] NSWADT 28
Wardrope v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2020] QCAT 409
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 409
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 409

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.