Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. XAR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing - [2025] QCAT 281

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

XAR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2025] QCAT 281

XAR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[2025] QCAT 281

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

XAR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 281

PARTIES:

XAR 

(applicant)

v

queensland police service – weapons licensing

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR699-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

22 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

21 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Townsville

DECISION OF:

Member Jensen

ORDERS:

Pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the decision made by the respondent on 26 September 2023 to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – REVOCATION OF LICENCE – where nolle prosequi entered in District Court on all charges – 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

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 20, s 21(1), s 24, s 28(3)

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10B, s 29(1)(d), s 142

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33

Betson v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 334

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

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

Grobler v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 103

Ma v Queensland Police Service – Weapons licensing [2024] QCAT 74

Mercer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 250

Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr T Fergusson

REASONS FOR DECISION

The issues

  1. [1]
    The respondent is not satisfied, pursuant to s 29(1)(d) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (the ‘Weapons Act’), that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence due to it not being in the public interest.
  2. [2]
    The respondent gave the applicant a revocation notice dated 26 September 2023 (the ‘Decision’) stating that: 

You are advised that your Firearms Licence No 10106515 is revoked for the following specific reason (s):

The Authorised Officer is satisfied that you are no longer a fit and proper person to hold your licence due to it not being in the public interest.

  1. [3]
    The applicant subsequently filed a review application on 10 October 2023 seeking an order that the Decision be reversed.

The basis for reviewing the decision 

  1. [4]
    By virtue of s 142(1)(e) 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’).
  2. [5]
    The purpose of the tribunal’s review is to produce the correct and preferable decision, following a fresh hearing on the merits.[1] The tribunal considers the matter afresh based on the evidence before it and according to law. In its review jurisdiction, the tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and makes its own decision.
  3. [6]
    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.

Consideration

Background

  1. [7]
    It is not disputed that:
    1. Criminal charges - On or about 7 December 2020, the applicant was issued with a Notice to Appear in court in respect of 11 alleged offences involving two separate complainants, as follows:
      1. six offences allegedly committed between 13 July 2015 and 27 October 2015;
      2. five offences allegedly committed between 6 February 2018 and 18 February 2018; 
    2. On 15 February 2023, the applicant was committed for trial in the Townsville District Court in relation to the six offences;
    3. On 2 May 2023, the applicant was committed for trial in the Townsville District court in relation to the five offences;
    4. The respondent made the Decision on 26 September 2023;
    5. With the approval of the prosecution service, the applicant and the two complainants engaged in Adult Restorative Justice Mediation resulting in confidential agreements being reached between the applicant and both of the complainants. The respondent was notified during July and August 2024 that these agreements had been reached;
    6. The prosecution of the applicant did not proceed, and the applicant’s criminal history shows that, on 4 October 2024, a nolle prosequi was entered in the Townsville District Court in respect of all charges; 
    7. Domestic violence allegations - On or about 28 February 2023, the applicant was served with a police protection notice pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld). The notice provided for the first court date as 8 March 2023 but there is no evidence before me of any order being made on the date. The notice also shows the “aggrieved person” as the applicant’s sister and the “named person” as his nephew i.e., his sister’s son. The Magistrate’s court records show that the result of the domestic violence application was that it was struck out on 21 August 2023.
  2. [8]
    Therefore, the authorised officer revoked the applicant’s firearms licence after the domestic violence application had been struck out, but while the criminal charges were still on foot and before the nolle prosequi was entered in the District Court.
  3. [9]
    One of the issues in dispute is the relevance of the above information in deciding whether the applicant is a fit and proper to hold a licence under the Weapons Act. 

The Weapons Act provisions

  1. [10]
    The system of licensing weapons in Queensland is established by the Weapons Act. 
  2. [11]
    In order to decide whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence s 10B of the Weapons Act 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—
  1. the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
  1. whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued, or release conditions imposed against the person; and
  1. 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— 

  1. the person is a risk to public safety; or
  1. that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to public interest; and
  1. the public interest

Interaction between the Weapons Act and the Penalties and Sentences Act

  1. [12]
    The applicant submits that the authorised officer used unproven allegations in the decision-making process to define him as a not being a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The applicant submits that the tribunal is required to consider a person’s conduct in reaching a decision, not allegations of conduct.
  2. [13]
    The applicant filed a statement dated 20 August 2024 wherein he states: 

[4]What has led to this current application before the court is that I have had more than my fair share of false accusations from individuals that QPS are using in their decision-making process. None of these accusations have led to convictions because none were true. I respect that QPS must investigate, however, I should not be condemned in the process merely due to the process, and I have cooperated fully on each occasion. For QPS, who do not know me, have not met me or interviewed me, to use these allegations in their decision-making process to define me as not being a fit and proper person is biased at best, and possibly illegal at worst.

  1. [14]
    Later in the same statement, the applicant refers to ss 12(1)–(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (the ‘PSA’) and submits that he is innocent and that “if a conviction cannot be used, surely a charge cannot be used, especially after it is dismissed by prosecution” as follows: 

[15]The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) makes provision for convictions not to be recorded. Section 12(3)(a) states that the unrecorded convictions are not convictions for any purpose. The words are clear. The unrecorded convictions are not convictions for the purpose of s 10B(2) of the Weapons Act and thus cannot be used by Weapons Licencing to determine a person’s fit and proper status….

This has been explored in length and the principle applied in Grobler v Queensland Police Service [2023] QCAT 103 and further applied in Betson v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 334 of which both applicants had the revocation of their Weapons Licences set aside and were deemed to be fit and proper persons because the Qld records have no conviction recorded. I too have no conviction recorded. Furthermore, I wish to emphasise, that in my own situation, I have not even been to trial for any offences, it is merely allegations that have been made, leading to records being placed on my file. If a conviction cannot be used, surely a charge cannot be used, especially after it is dismissed by prosecution. I am innocent and have not been found guilty or convicted of any offence; it is not fair that in this situation QPS are attempting to reverse the onus of proof, and I am here defending myself yet again. The weight of this cannot be overlooked.

  1. [15]
    Section 12 of the PSA relevantly provides:

Court to consider whether or not to record conviction

  1. A court may exercise a discretion to record or not record a conviction as provided by this Act.
  1. In considering whether or not to record a conviction, a court must have regard to all circumstances of the case, including—
  1. the nature of the offence; and
  1. the offender’s character and age; and
  1. the impact that recording a conviction will have on the offender’s—
  1. economic or social wellbeing; or
  1. chances of finding employment.
  1. Except as otherwise expressly provided by this or another Act—
  1. a conviction without recording the conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose; and
  1. the conviction must not be entered in any records except—
  1. in the records of the court before which the offender was convicted; and
  1. in the offender’s criminal history but only for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).
  1. [16]
    Section 12(1) of the PSA provides that a court may exercise a discretion to record or not record a conviction. Section 12(2) of the PSA lists factors that a court may have regard to in considering whether or not to record a conviction. Section 12(3) of the PSA then sets out the consequences of not recording a conviction. First, the conviction is not to be a conviction for any purpose. Second, it prohibits the entering of the conviction into any records, with two exceptions.
  2. [17]
    In the case of Commissioner of Police v XPR,[2] (“XPR”) the Court of Appeal confirmed the line of authority in Grobler v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[3] (“Grobler”) and Betson v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing[4] (“Betson”) that when applying s 10B of the Weapons Act, an authorised officer cannot have regard to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded, or the facts and circumstances of those offences. These cases deal with the interaction between the Weapons Act and s 12 of the PSA.
  3. [18]
    In order for s 12 of the PSA to be engaged, the applicant must be convicted by a court. The definition of “conviction” is found in s 4 of the PSA and provides as follows:

conviction means a finding of guilt, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty, by a court.

  1. [19]
    At the time of the Decision, the applicant did not have a conviction because that is not the result of a committal hearing. At the end of a committal hearing, the magistrate decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence from the prosecution on its face to support a conviction if it is believed by a properly instructed jury. If yes, there is a prima facie case, and the accused is committed to stand trial in a higher court. If no, the case is dismissed. Here, the magistrate found there was a prima facie case in respect of all 11 charges, and the applicant was committed to stand trial in the District Court.
  2. [20]
    However, the trial did not proceed. Instead, a nolle prosequi was entered in relation to all charges. A nolle prosequi is a decision by the prosecution to discontinue or abandon criminal proceedings. A nolle prosequi is therefore not a conviction either under the PSA.
  3. [21]
    Contrary to the applicant’s submissions I am satisfied that there is no interaction between the Weapons Act and s 12 of the PSA in this case because the applicant does not have a conviction following either the committal proceedings in the Magistrates Court or the nolle prosequi in the District Court. I am therefore satisfied that ss 12(1)–(3) of the PSA do not assist the applicant in these proceedings, nor do the cases of Grobler, Betson and XPR.

Is the applicant a fit and proper person to hold a licence?

  1. [22]
    The approach to the issue of whether a person is a fit and proper person was discussed in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ at [56] as follows–

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.

  1. [23]
    The purpose of the references to “public interest” in the Weapons Act 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 tribunal’s consideration and to amplify the ‘scope and purpose’ of the legislation.[5] The public interest is a broad concept involving standards of human conduct tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the well-being of its members.[6]

Mental and physical fitness [s 10B(1)(a)]

  1. [24]
    There is no evidence before me that the applicant’s mental or physical fitness makes him unfit to hold a licence.

Domestic violence [s 10B(1)(b)]

  1. [25]
    There is no evidence before me of a temporary or final domestic violence order. There is evidence of an order of the Ayr Magistrates Court striking out the domestic violence application on 21 August 2023.
  2. [26]
    Even though there has not been a court order for domestic violence, in deciding or considering whether the applicant is or is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, s 10B(1)(b) of the Weapons Act requires the tribunal to consider the police protection notice issued on 28 February 2023.
  3. [27]
    The police protection notice describes a triple zero call at approximately 2:14am on 28 February 2023 by the aggrieved (the applicant’s sister) requesting police assistance. The applicant’s version of events (as written by police in the police protection notice) is that he received screen shots from his wife containing threatening messages from the named person (his nephew) such as “I’m gonna slit your throat. I’m gonna kill you slut”. The applicant says he became distressed by those messages; he left his work in Moranbah and immediately drove to his sister’s house in Ayr where he called out to the named person to come outside. After the named person failed to come outside, the applicant “shouldered in” the locked front door and gained access to the house and started looking for the named person. The notice states that the applicant tried to talk to the named person (who remained under the bed) before leaving the address. The applicant alleges the aggrieved was yelling which he believed to be due to illicit drug use and that he was concerned for her mental health.
  4. [28]
    The police observations are that the applicant’s actions are extreme. The police say that the applicant has made a five hour car trip to confront the named person and in the process assaulted his sister and caused property damage. The police found there were risk factors such as that the applicant allegedly threatened to kill the named person and make the named person “go missing”. The notice states that the applicant was detained and transported to the Ayr watchhouse and that the aggrieved is supportive of the application.
  5. [29]
    In relation to the hearing on 21 August 2023, the applicant submits that when he arrived at court the police withdrew immediately, and the magistrate struck out the application for a protection order. In his statement in these proceedings, the applicant denies the allegations of domestic violence and states that he provided 11 contradictions that were contained in the police statement. The applicant further states that the aggrieved person “gave written and verbal support of the application being withdrawn..”.
  6. [30]
    Because the application was struck out without being heard by a court, the allegations of domestic violence were not proven. However, I have considered the police protection notice, as required by s 10B(1)(b) of the Weapons Act, and I give it a strong level of weight because there are events that occurred (which are not in dispute) and that are relevant to the applicant’s conduct such as:
    1. the aggrieved called triple zero at approximately 2:14am on 28 February 2023 requesting police assistance;
    2. the applicant, who lives in Moranbah:
      1. drove to the home of the aggrieved on or about 28 February 2023 where he gained entry; and
      2. was detained and transported to the Ayr watchhouse by police following which a police protection notice was issued.

Knowingly made a false or misleading statement in connection with an application for a licence or application to renew a licence [s 10B(1)(c)]

  1. [31]
    This review application relates to a revocation, not an application for, or renewal of, a licence. There is no evidence that the applicant has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in the course of these proceedings.

Any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised office has access that indicates he is a risk to public safety or authorising him to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest [s 10B(1)(ca)]

  1. [32]
    The respondent contends that the following information is relevant:
    1. the 11 charges resulting from the police investigations;
    2. the QP 9s which outline the allegations against the applicant;
    3. the decision of the magistrate on two occasions after committal where prima facie cases were found in respect of the 11 charges; and 
    4. the agreement reached between the applicant and the two complainants after mediation.

(collectively called “the Information”).

  1. [33]
    Since making the Decision, a nolle prosequi was entered in respect of all criminal charges. The respondent contends this does not assist the applicant because he has not, in these review proceedings, rebutted the prima facie cases found at committal stage and the Information therefore remains relevant. The respondent relies on the case of Ma v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing,[7](“Ma”).
  2. [34]
    In contrast, the applicant argues the Information is not relevant because he pleaded not guilty at all times and says that “if a conviction that is not recorded cannot be used surely a charge cannot be used, especially after it is dismissed by prosecution”. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the case of Ma has no bearing on his case because of critical differences between Ma and his circumstances including:
    1. Mr. Ma had a firearm on his person and was intoxicated at the relevant time, whereas the applicant was not;
    2. Mr. Ma had evidence against him including eyewitnesses, whereas there is “zero” evidence against the applicant and no eyewitnesses;
    3. Mediation is not an admission of guilt;
    4. Ma was accused within hours of the incidents whereas the applicant was accused years later;
  3. [35]
    The applicant makes the point that his conduct has not been proven in any way. I am satisfied that this is the case. However, for the reasons that follow, I am also satisfied that there is nothing in the Weapons Act that prevents the tribunal from having regard to the Information in respect of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, notwithstanding there is no finding of guilt against him:
    1. It has been decided that a determination on whether it is in the public interest for the applicant to hold a firearms licence is not contingent on the court result but rather on an applicant’s actions. In Mercer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (No 2)[8] it was said that:

A determination on whether it would be in the public interest for Mr. Mercer to continue to hold a firearms licence is not, however, contingent on the court result but rather on Mr. Mercer’s actions: Bazouni & Ors v Commissioner of Police [2002] NSWADT 100. 

  1. In the case of Ma it was held at [30] that “other information to which an authorised officer has access would include the results of the police investigation” and at [35] said:

As Mr Ma has put nothing before the tribunal to rebut the prima facie case of the sexual assault complaints against him, I have no alternative but to dismiss his application.

  1. The application of the Weapons Act is not impacted by s 12 of the PSA for the reasons outlined above.
  2. Regard should be had to the principles and object of the legislation as set out in s 3 of the Weapons Act which places primacy on public and individual safety and the prevention of misuse of weapons:
  1. The principles underlying this Act are as follows—
  1. weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;
  1. 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.
  1. The object of this Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.
  1. The above principles and object of the Weapons Act allow the tribunal to have regard to the applicant’s circumstances notwithstanding that the prosecution of the criminal charges did not proceed.
  2. Furthermore, section 10B(1) of the Weapons Act requires the tribunal to consider the public interest and person’s wider circumstances including their mental and physical fitness, whether there are any domestic violence orders or notices, any knowingly made false or misleading statement in connection with a licence application or renewal and other information to which the authorised officer has access.
  1. [36]
    As to the charges resulting from police investigations, the QP 9s and the  committal hearings, the police brief shows that the charges against the applicant were of a serious nature involving two separate female complainants. The evidence at the committals comprised witness statements from each complainant plus eight formal witness statements in respect of one complainant and 10 formal witness statements in respect of the other complainant. Even though the applicant denies there were any independent eyewitnesses, I place due weight on the fact that there were these witness statements.
  2. [37]
    The committal hearings allowed the magistrate to assess the prosecution evidence, including the witness statements just mentioned. It is not disputed that at the conclusion of the committal hearings, the magistrate found that there were prima facie cases against the applicant in respect of all 11 charges and the applicant was committed for trial in the District Court. 
  3. [38]
    In the case of Ma, the learned member dismissed the review application stating that the applicant had put nothing before the tribunal in the review proceedings to rebut the prima facie case of the sexual assault complaints against him.
  4. [39]
    The applicant contends the Ma is not applicable citing the differences between the cases that are set out above. However, I am satisfied that even though the facts of the Ma case and this case are different, the principle from the Ma case remains applicable, namely that evidence of the prima facie cases at the committal stage is relevant information under s 10B(1) of the Weapons Act for the tribunal to consider in review proceedings of this type.
  5. [40]
    In these proceedings, the applicant did not present evidence to rebut the prima facie cases that were found by the magistrate following the committal hearings ending on 15 February 2023 and 2 May 2023 in the Townsville Magistrates Court. I am satisfied that those unanswered prima facie cases are relevant for the purposes of s 10B(1) of the Weapons Act and I give them considerable weight. 
  6. [41]
    I have also considered the justice mediations and the fact that agreements were reached. The evidence before me was of a broad nature to the effect that the mediations took place and that confidential settlements resulted. However, there is a lot of outstanding information regarding this process which was not before me at the hearing. There were no copies of the agreements in evidence. There is no reliable evidence as to why the mediations took place and the prosecutions discontinued; an explanation only was given by the respondent in the form of oral submissions during the hearing. Also, the parties disputed whether it was the prosecution or the applicant who, after the committal hearings, proposed the mediations. There is a letter dated 14 October 2022 from the applicant’s solicitors to the police prosecutor (written prior to the committal hearings) proposing mediation and suggesting that possible areas of agreement could include restitution, a restraining order, a written letter from the applicant and counselling. However, there is no evidence regarding the terms of the actual agreements (the applicant citing confidentiality reasons). For all these reasons, I place minimal weight on the justice mediation process and agreements in relation to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. 
  7. [42]
    In terms of personal background, the applicant’s statement provides:
  1. I have been a qualified fitter welder and have consistently held full time employment since I was 17 years old, I am now 44 years old. I am currently working with [intentionally omitted] and have held this position for close to a decade. I am in a fast-paced problem-solving position, supervising a large team and managing highly critical resource equipment. I have demonstrated the ability to remain calm, professional and cooperative in what is well known as a challenging role among many confronting personalities.
  1. I also run my own businesses; beef cattle, sugar cane and poly welding. I run these businesses on my days off. I take pride in being able to multitask and work hard towards reaching my goals. I have never had any conflict or violent incidents as a business owner ……..
  1. …..I have been an active, involved and valued member of my local community As a hard-working employee I volunteer as an Emergency Response Team (ERT) member contributing a minimum of 140 hours a year volunteered for rescue skills. As a business owner I support senior school students who attend my farm annually for education purposes. Independently and as a father and husband, I am a member of the local working dog association, a member of the clay target shooting association, I am involved in local community groups and fundraising with the Kalmia State School P&C, the local surf lifesaving club and the junior soccer team. I cannot prevent heinous allegations being made against me, nor can I prevent QPS seeing these and judging me unfairly, however, I can demonstrate that I am a fit and proper person and emphasise regularly that there is no evidence to the contrary.
  1. I have been a member of sporters shooters association for over 20 years, and I am a primary producer who requires this licence to control vermin as well as humanely ending the life of fatality injured cattle on our farm. These are valid reasons for my licence. I have always stored my firearms securely.
  1. [43]
    The above evidence of personal background is relevant and was not contested by the respondent during the hearing. I give it due weight.
  2. [44]
    There is a character reference from the applicant’s wife. She states that she is aware of the criminal charges and says that “there is nothing in [the applicant’s] character that I would define as being a risk to public interest and I am confident to attest that his behavior and character are very much that of a fit and proper person”. I accept this as being a sincere statement on her part. However, I give the reference minimal weight because the writer of the reference is the applicant’s wife and I infer from reading her reference as a whole that she is not necessarily disinterested in these proceedings.
  3. [45]
    There are also character references from XRR and XTT Neither of these references refer to being aware of the serious criminal charges faced by the applicant and accordingly, I give them minimal weight.

Public interest [s 10B(1)(d)]

  1. [46]
    The respondent submits that considering all information available it is in the public interest for the applicant’s licence to be revoked.
  2. [47]
    I place a lot of weight on the following in terms of relevance to the public interest and whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence:
    1. the seriousness of the criminal charges;
    2. the absence of a rebuttal in this proceeding to the findings by the magistrate of prima facie cases at the committal stage;
    3. the police protection notice; and
    4. the principles and object of the Weapons Act which are to impose strict controls on the licensing of persons and that the possession of weapons is subordinate to the need to ensure public safety.

Conclusion

  1. [48]
    When I consider and weigh the relevant evidence afresh (“standing in the shoes of the authorised officer”) and having regard to the principles and object of the Weapons Act, I am satisfied that on balance it is in the public interest that the applicant’s licence be revoked. In reaching this decision, I am most persuaded by the police protection notice, the information regarding the 11 criminal charges resulting from the police investigations, the QP 9s which outline the allegations against the applicant and the prima facie cases at the committal stage.
  2. [49]
    I consider the correct and preferable decision is that the respondent’s decision to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence is confirmed.

Human Rights Act

  1. [50]
    In relation to 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 and that a person must not be arbitrarily deprived of the person’s property.
  2. [51]
    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.[9] In so finding, I have had regard to the significance of the purpose of the limitations imposed by the Weapons Act such as:
    1. The principle contained in s 3(1)(a) that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;
    2. The principle contained in s 3(1)(b) that 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;
    3. The object of the Weapons Act to prevent misuse of weapons.

Order

  1. [52]
    Pursuant to s 24(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, the decision made by the respondent on 26 September 2023 to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1]QCAT Act s 20.

[2][2025] QCA 93, [34].

[3][2023] QCAT 103.

[4][2023] QCAT 334.

[5]Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657.

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

[7][2024] QCAT 74.

[8][2007] NSWADT 250, [88].

[9]See Weapons Act ss 3, 4(d); HRA s 13.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    XAR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • Shortened Case Name:

    XAR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 281

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Jensen

  • Date:

    22 Jul 2025

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) HCA 33
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1990) HCA 33
Cite 2 - (1990) HCA 33
Bazouni & Ors -v- Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2002] NSWADT 100
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2002] NSWADT 100
Betson v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 334
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 334
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 334
Cite 3 - [2023] QCAT 334
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 XPR [2025] QCA 93
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2025] QCA 93
Cite 2 - [2025] QCA 93
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
Grobler v Queensland Police Service [2023] QCAT 103
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 103
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 103
Cite 3 - [2023] QCAT 103
Ma v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 74
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCAT 74
Cite 2 - [2024] QCAT 74
Mercer v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 250
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] NSWADT 250
Cite 2 - [2007] NSWADT 250

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.