O'Donnell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing
[2025] QCAT 143
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- O'Donnell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2025] QCAT 143
- Add to List
O'Donnell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2025] QCAT 143
O'Donnell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2025] QCAT 143
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: | O'Donnell v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 143 |
PARTIES: | CAMERON GLENN O'DONNELL (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) |
APPLICATION NO/S: | GAR253-23 |
MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
DELIVERED ON: | 17 April 2025 |
HEARING DATE: | 3 September 2024 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member Munasinghe |
ORDERS: | Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing’s decision to revoke Cameron Glenn O'Donnell’s firearms licence is confirmed. |
CATCHWORDS: | FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – REJECTION OF LICENCE – where Respondent revoked Applicant’s firearms licence because it considered he was not a fit an proper person to hold a licence – where the Tribunal considered what it means to ‘reside only in Queensland’ – where the Tribunal’s finding that a person was of generally good character did not lead to axiomatic conclusion that they were a fit and proper person within the meaning of s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10, s 10B Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] 94 ALR 11 Hafza v Director-General of Social Security [1985] FCA 201 Levene v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1928) AC 217 |
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: | |
Applicant: | Self-represented |
Respondent: | A Bauuer |
REASONS FOR DECISION
- [1]Cameron Glenn O'Donnell applies to the Tribunal to review a decision by Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) to revoke his firearms licence (‘licence’).
Background
- [2]On 28 February 2019, Mr O'Donnell applied for a Category A and Category B firearm licence. In his application he nominated 11 Torrey Place (‘nominated address’) as the storage address where his firearms were generally kept. He also indicated that he did not have any permanent alternate storage addresses.[1] Further, at page 8 of the application, Mr O'Donnell indicated that he did not have any psychiatric or emotional problems.
- [3]On 15 May 2019, QPS issued Mr O'Donnell with a licence.
- [4]On 7 August 2022, QPS suspended Mr O'Donnell’s licence. QPS took that action after receiving a telephone call from a General Motors customer service employee, who indicated that Mr O'Donnell had made threats to kill himself.[2]
- [5]On 31 January 2023, QPS attended 11 Torrey Place, Robina to serve Mr O'Donnell with a suspension notice. A resident told them that Mr O'Donnell no longer lived at the address but may be residing at a caravan park in Woree. When police called the Cairns Coconut Resort in Woree, where Mr O'Donnell had been staying, they were told that he checked out on 3 September 2022 and did not leave a forwarding address.
- [6]On 28 February 2025, QPS revoked Mr O'Donnell’s firearms licence. It did so because, contrary to s 24 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’), Mr O'Donnell failed to advise QPS that he no longer lived at his nominated address.[3] That omission caused QPS to form the view that Mr O'Donnell was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence due to it not being in the public interest.[4]
- [7]A Tribunal hearing occurred on 3 September 2024.
QPS Contentions
- [8]At the hearing QPS contended:
- Mr O'Donnell no longer resided in Queensland, which is a limitation on the issue of a licence under s 10(2)(g) of the Act.
- Mr O'Donnell is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence because of his mental health.
- Mr O'Donnell is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence because he failed to advise QPS that he no longer resides at his nominated address.
- [9]Mr O'Donnell gave the following evidence and made the following submissions:
- he sold 11 Torey place on or about April 2022 and has been travelling around Australia with his wife and children “full time”. Presently he has no fixed address. He intends to continue travelling and working until he “figures out what he wants to do”.
- currently his family was staying at his Nanna and Pops house in Terranora, NSW after working in Warwick for a couple of months. His property is stored in a container on a friend’s property in Tumbulgum, NSW. His friend allows him to keep his possessions in the container free of charge.
- his whole family lives in Queensland. His brother and mother live in Brisbane. His grandparents live on the border between Queensland and New South Wales. His father lives in Hervey Bay and his grandmother lives on the Gold Coast. Mr O'Donnell claimed he has only ever lived in Queensland.
- before embarking on his travels, Mr O'Donnell bolted the safe containing his guns to the concrete floor of his brother’s garage. He conceded that he should have advised QPS that the guns were no longer situated at his nominated address.
- concerning the allegation that he threatened suicide, Mr O'Donnell claimed that he purchased a brand-new Chevy Silverado which failed under warranty. He purportedly said words to the effect of “what does it take for GM to actually recognise a family? Is it a death on your hands before you take anything seriously or are you going to keep lying to us?”[5] He made the comment to “get their (GM’s) attention” and held no genuine intention to harm himself.
- he admitted that he experiences anxiety for which he has taken benzodiazepines and medicinal cannabis. However, he no longer consumes those substances.
- [10]Mr O'Donnell relies on a report by Psychologist Michael Kruger-Davis dated 19 June 2023. Relevantly, the report states:
- Mr Kruger-Davis interviewed Mr O'Donnell and conducted mental status examination, and suicide risk assessment. He also gave Mr O'Donnell several reliable depression, anxiety, psychological distress and alcohol use selfreporting questionnaires, which were completed and returned.
- Mr O'Donnell’s suicide risk profile is currently extremely low.
- There is no current evidence that Mr O'Donnell has any mental disorder, personality disorder, thought disorder or mood disorder, or substance use disorder or current suicidal ideation that would require treatment.
- [11]Mr Kruger-Davis also gave evidence at the hearing and his viva voce evidence was consistent with the written opinions expressed in his report. Relevantly, he said:
- To be diagnosed with a mental disorder, it is necessary to meet the criteria for all the conditions listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (‘DSM’). Many people have some anxiety symptoms, especially if they have insomnia or back pain, which doesn’t get in the way of their normal functioning. Dr Kruger-Davis did not consider that there was any evidence Mr O'Donnell was diagnosed with a general anxiety disorder listed in the DSM notwithstanding he had been prescribed medicinal cannabis.
- A person could experience situational or episodic anxiety without reaching the threshold for a diagnosis of generalised anxiety disorder.
- There were no indications that Mr O'Donnell had either a mental condition or a mental impairment or illness which would warrant any treatment.
- Mr O'Donnell is of sound mind. He does not have a mental illness, personality disorder or substance use disorder.
- In his professional opinion, Mr O'Donnell does not pose a real threat to himself or the general public in the matter that he conducts his life now. He does not believe that the threat of personal risk or public safety will change if he is given authority to possess and use firearms.
- There are currently no factors that would indicate Mr O'Donnell would not be able to exercise will power and continuous control if he were to possess and use firearms.
- [12]Mr O'Donnell relies on favourable reference letters from his former employer, Sandra Hawkin, and his grandfather, Cameron O'Donnell. Neither letter refers to the Tribunal proceeding or addresses Mr O'Donnell’s suitability to hold a firearm licence. Rather they appear to be authored for prospective employers.
Relevant Law
- [13]Relevantly, s 10B of the Act requires that, in deciding or considering, for the issue of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, regard must be had to the following:
- the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
- whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and
- whether the person has stated anything 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—
- the person is a risk to public safety; or
- that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and
- the public interest.
Consideration
- [14]During the hearing, QPS retracted its contention that Mr O'Donnell was unfit to hold a weapons licence by virtue of his mental health.[6] That was a sensible concession considering Mr Kruger’s evidence.
- [15]Accordingly, this review boils down to two remaining issues:
- Firstly, is QPS precluded from issuing Mr O'Donnell because he does not reside only in Queensland within the meaning of s 10(2)(g) of the Act?
- Secondly, is Mr O'Donnell a fit and proper person to hold a licence?
Does Mr O'Donnell reside only in Queensland?
- [16]The Act contains no definition of the word ‘reside’ for the purpose of s 10(2). Neither does the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). Absent such a definition, the ordinary meaning of the word should prevail unless there is something in the context to suggest that another meaning is intended.[7]
- [17]The dictionary definition of the word reside means ‘to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; have one’s abode for a time.[8] In Levine v Ireland Revenue Commissioners (1928) AC 217, Viscount Cave LC said: “the word ‘reside’ is a familiar English word and is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning “to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one’s settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place”.
- [18]Applying the definitions above to the present matter, Mr O'Donnell does not dwell permanently in Queensland. Presently, his abode is in NSW. Nor can it be said that Mr O'Donnell’s absence from Queensland is merely temporary. His evidence at the hearing was to the effect that he had not decided where he was going to live.
- [19]In Hafza v Director-General of Social Security [1985] FCA 201 at paragraphs [13][14], Wilcox J considered several authorities concerning the concept of ‘residence’.
He said:
- As a general concept ‘residence’ includes two elements: physical presence in a particular place and the intention to treat that place as home; at least for the time being, not necessarily for ever…
- Physical presence and intention will coincide for most of the time. But few people are always at home. Once a person has established a home in a particular place – even involuntarily: see Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lysaght (1928) AC 234 a p 248 and Keil v Keil (1947) VR 383 – a person does not necessarily cease to be resident there because he or she is physically absent. The test is whether the person has retained a continuity of association with the place – Levene v. inland Revenue Commissioners (1928) AC 217 a p 225 and Judd v. Judd (1957) 75 WN (N.S.W) 147 a p 149 – together with an intention to return to that place and an attitude that that place remains “home” – see Norman v Norman (1969) F.L.R 231 at p 236…
- [20]Mr O'Donnell has not evinced any firm intention to return to Queensland. On his own account, he intends to continue travelling until he “figures out what to do”. Neither has he maintained continuity of association with the state. He sold his house in Queensland. He now lives in NSW and stores his property there.
- [21]On balance, having considered the authorities above, I am not satisfied that Mr O'Donnell resides only in Queensland. Accordingly, by operation of s 10(2) of the Act, QPS may not issue him a license. On that basis I am minded to confirm QPS’ decision to revoke his licence.
- [22]I considered whether s 10(2A)(a) of the Act could apply to Mr O'Donnell’s circumstances, but ultimately concluded it did not. Section 10(2A)(a) provides that s 10(2) does not apply to a person who resides in a State adjoining Queensland who:
- satisfies the authorised officer that the person has a genuine reason for possessing a weapon for which a license is required under this Act; and
- is not disqualified from obtaining a licence in the adjoining state.
- [23]Mr O'Donnell presently lives in NSW, but that does not necessarily mean he resides there for the purposes of the Act. The authorities canvassed above plainly state that residence of a place requires the intention to treat a place as home. On the evidence before the Tribunal, Mr O'Donnell is uncertain about where his final abode will be. Further, the onus falls on Mr O'Donnell to furnish the Tribunal with evidence about his eligibility to hold a license in NSW, which he has not done.
The question of fitness
- [24]Additionally, it is necessary to consider whether Mr O'Donnell is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Mr O'Donnell admits that contrary to s 24(2)(a) and (d) of the Act, he contravened the conditions of his license which required him to advise QPS about a change of address and a change in the place entered in the firearms register as the place where his firearms were generally kept (‘contraventions’).
- [25]The High Court considered the expression “fit and proper person” in the seminal decision of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] 94 ALR 11. Relevantly, at [36], Toohey and Gaudron JJ opined:
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 conduct may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed 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.
- [26]Mr O'Donnell’s contraventions were plainly improper, serious, and occurred over a prolonged timeframe. He sold his house in April 2022. Police only became aware of that fact on 31 January 2023, when they attempted to serve paper work on him. Therefore, there was a period of at least eight months during which police did not know, Mr O'Donnell’s whereabouts, or the location of his guns.
- [27]The principles underlying the Act, inter alia are to improve public and individual safety by imposing strict controls on the possession of weapons and requiring the safe storage and carriage of weapons. It is trite to observe, that those objectives cannot be achieved if QPS are unable to precisely establish the location of weapons circulating in the public domain, or the whereabouts of their owner.
- [28]Mr O'Donnell’s referees attest that he is a person of generally good character and reputation. I have no doubt that is true. However, it does not axiomatically follow that he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Mr O'Donnell demonstrated a sustained insouciance and a cavalier attitude towards complying with the strict conditions of his licence. I am not persuaded it is in the public interest to issue him with a firearms licence. I therefore confirm QPS’ decision to revoke Mr O'Donnell’s license.
Footnotes
[1]Page 6.
[2]QPS Occurrence Report Q 12201415136.
[3]Form 7 ‘Revocation Notice dated 28.02.2023.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Transcript of Hearing, p 14.
[6]Transcript of hearing, p 37.
[7]Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing [2012] WASC 465, [22] (Hall J).
[8]Macquarie Dictionary, Ninth Edition (2023).