Aslan v Queensland Police Service - [2022] QCAT 117

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Aslan v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 117

PARTIES:

ASLAN

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR410-20

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

29 March 2022

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Burson

ORDERS:

1. The decision of the Respondent is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION _ APPLICATION FOR A LICENCE -FIT AND PROPER PERSON - where review of decision made to revoke weapons licence – whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence

Steven John Brown v Queensland Police Service [2021] QCAT 293

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond and Others (1990) 170 CLR 321

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr J Treanor, Solicitor, Hannay Lawyers

Respondent:

Sgt D Ayscough, Queensland Police Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background and Facts

The Applicant at the time of hearing was a 55 year old man who resides on the Gold Coast. The Applicant was previously a tow truck driver, but for the past two and half years has operated a business transporting tiny homes. The Applicant now does this almost exclusively.
The Applicant has been a member of the Gold Coast Pistol Club for two years and seeks the reinstatement of his weapons licences.
The Applicant’s weapons licences were revoked by an authorised officer under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) by way of notice dated 9 September 2020. The grounds included that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to retain a licence[1] and that it was not in the public interest for the Applicant to hold a weapons licence with regard to all the information available to the Authorised Officer that the Applicant retain a weapons licence.
[1]Section 10(2)(e) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld).
The Applicant has criminal history from 1992 until his latest Public Nuisance offence in 2019 with a conviction for that offence in 2020.
The Applicant seeks to have the Tribunal set aside the decision of the QPS revoking his weapons licences.

Merits Review

The Applicant has sought a review of the decision in the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is by way of merits review.[2]
[2]Section 20(2) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
The Applicant made application under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld).[3]
[3]Section 142(1)(a) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld).
The Tribunal’s powers to conduct proceedings are found in section 28 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld).

Queensland Police Service Position

The Respondent provided material paginated 1 to 53 outlining the documents for the Tribunal to consider in the review of the decision to revoke the weapons licences held by the Applicant.
This included the Applicant’s criminal history. The Applicant’s criminal history is outlined in pages 39 to 47 of the material from the Respondent.
The Respondent’s criminal history includes serious offending in the years between 1991 and 2009, these included offences of violence towards people.
The Respondent also has a lengthy traffic history that has been included…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Aslan v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QCAT 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Aslan v Queensland Police Service, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was asked to review the decision of the Queensland Police Service to revoke the Applicant’s weapons licences. The Applicant, a 55-year-old resident of the Gold Coast, sought to have his weapons licences reinstated after they were revoked under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). The key legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and whether it was in the public interest for him to retain his licences.

The Applicant had a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for violent offences, possession of a handgun and ammunition without a licence, and a recent conviction for public nuisance. The Tribunal considered the principles and objects of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), which emphasise the importance of public safety in the licensing of weapons. The Applicant presented evidence in the form of a psychologist's report, completion of an anger management course, and character references, but the Tribunal found these submissions insufficient to overcome the weight of the Applicant’s criminal history.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant’s criminal history, particularly the recent public nuisance offence, demonstrated a risk to public safety. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s criminal history, combined with the concerning behaviour evidenced in the dash cam footage, met the criteria outlined in section 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) for revocation of a weapons licence. The Tribunal also considered the concept of "fit and proper person" as established in previous cases, concluding that the Applicant’s past conduct made him unsuitable to hold a weapons licence.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Queensland Police Service to revoke the Applicant’s weapons licences, affirming that the decision was consistent with the paramount objective of ensuring public safety. The Tribunal observed that the Applicant’s criminal history, including his recent offence, indicated a risk to public safety that could not be mitigated by the evidence provided in support of the Applicant. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the evidence and facts before it, applying the principles of natural justice and the objectives of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld).

Orders