SDM v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing

[2025] QCAT 74

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

SDM v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 74

PARTIES:

SDM

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR063-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

12 March 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding

ORDERS:

1.     The decision to revoke the applicant’s weapons licence is set aside.

2.     Publication of any material that may identify the applicant is prohibited.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – GENERALLY – where the applicant’s application for a firearms licence was revoked – where the applicant was charged and found guilty of offences – where no convictions were recorded – where authorised officer had regard to such convictions – whether such convictions can be taken into account in decision to grant or refuse weapons licence

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(1)

XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:   

Respondent:  

Self-represented

M Carey, Queensland Police Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. The applicant applied for review of the decision of the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) to revoke his weapons licence.

2. The QPS submission that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence was based on the facts and circumstances relating to three offences. The applicant was found guilty of the offences and convicted. However, pursuant to s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (‘PSA Act’), the court on each occasion decided not to record a conviction.

3. A key issue that arose in the review was whether it is appropriate to take into account the convictions or the facts and circumstances relating to the convictions in determining whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. At the time of the hearing, I was aware that this legal issue was under consideration in another case in which the President of the Tribunal presided. I advised the parties that I would delay deciding this matter pending resolution of the issue.

4. The issue has now been resolved by the decision of the Tribunal in XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1. In that matter, the Tribunal decided that it is impermissible to take into account a conviction, or the facts and circumstances relating to the conviction, when a court has decided not to record the conviction.

5. Accordingly, it is not permissible for the applicant’s convictions or the surrounding facts and circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

Consideration

1. The QPS case that the applicant is not a fit and proper person was primarily based on the facts and circumstances relating to the convictions. The applicant put forward evidence of his professional standing including a reference relating to his service, and meticulous care, as a weapons instructor. The QPS accepted that the applicant is of good standing in a professional capacity but noted the circumstances leading to the convictions occurred when the applicant was acting in his personal capacity.

2. The QPS did not submit that there were any other factors indicating the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Additionally, I had the benefit of reading character references provided by the applicant. These included a reference from an Australian Defence Force (‘ADF’) sergeant major who had worked with the applicant for 15 years and attested to his diligence including as a weapons instructor and a reference providing similar assurance from another ADF colleague who had been the applicant’s direct supervisor. A reference relating to his current role as an aircrew officer on a helicopter rescue service also attested to the applicant’s meticulous preparation and attention to safety.

3. On the evidence I am permitted to take into account, I am satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

4. The QPS did not submit that there was any other basis on which the applicant did not meet the requirements to hold a weapons licence.

   Conclusion and orders

5. For the reasons set out above, on the evidence I am permitted to take into account, I am satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. The QPS did not submit that there was any other basis on which the applicant failed to meet the requirements for holding a weapons licence.

6. The decision to revoke the applicant’s weapons licence must therefore be set aside.   

Non-publication

1. Under section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may make a non-publication order. Section 12(3) of the PSA prohibits the entering of convictions, where the court decides not to record a conviction, in any records (subject to limited exceptions that do not apply here). It is appropriate in those circumstances to make an order prohibiting publication of any material which may identify the applicant.