Beckett v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch

[2011] QCAT 89

CITATION:		Beckett v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2011] QCAT 89
PARTIES:	Mr Mark Hamish Beckett
v
Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAR405-10

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     On the papers

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON: 25 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS : 

WEAPONS – JURISDICTION – where Australian Customs issued seizure notice – where Queensland Police Service had delegated authority to issue permit – where applicant asserts Service decision wrongly categorised weapons – whether Service decision a reviewable decision

Weapons Act 1990, s 142
Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth)

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Beckett purchased three model space guns, replicated from the 1986 movie Aliens.  Two of the guns arrived in Queensland at which point Australian Customs issued a Seizure Notice stating that the guns were prohibited imports.  Customs notified Mr Beckett that, to enable release of the guns, he needed “written confirmation in the form of a police permit from the State police before the goods can be issued”.  If the police permit issued, Customs would issue a Form B709A.

2. Mr Beckett made the necessary application to the Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch.  By letter of 10 November 2010, the Service advised Mr Beckett that: in its opinion, the guns were Category R weapons; before the guns could be registered to Mr Beckett he needed Permits to Acquire; the guns had to be inspected to enable a Form 31 (that the guns are permanently inoperable) to issue; and that the B709A would not issue unless and until the Service issued the Permit to Acquire and the Form 31.

3. It is apparent from the material that there is a disconnection between the parties.  The Service, without the benefit of inspection, has classified the guns as a category R weapon.  Mr Beckett considers the guns to be artefacts, pieces of movie memorabilia or, perhaps, novelty items but not weapons in any real sense of the word.  When viewed from Mr Beckett’s perspective, his frustration at the bureaucracy is understandable.

4. There is a threshold question of whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Service. Mr Beckett, in asserting that the tribunal does have jurisdiction, relies on the provisions of section 142 of the Weapons Act 1990 and the decision of the tribunal in Schrodter v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch[1].

   [1] [2010] QCAT 230.

5. As both parties have identified, the tribunal’s jurisdiction is determined by an examination of the enabling Act.  The relevant Act is the Weapons Act 1990 and the relevant section of the Weapons Act 1990 is section 142, which sets out the types of decisions that may be reviewed by the tribunal. They are:

a)a decision refusing an application for a licence, permit, approval or other authority under the Act;

b)a decision refusing to accept the nomination of a person by an applicant for a shooting club permit;

c)a decision refusing to accept a representative notice under section 92;

d)a decision imposing or amending a condition applying to a licence, permit, approval or other authority under the Act;

e)a decision revoking or suspending a licence, permit, approval or other authority under the Act.

1. Mr Beckett asserts that the “decision” is a decision under section 142(d) to impose a condition applying to the B709A permit.

2. The Service correctly points out that a decision to issue a B709A permit is not a decision under the Weapons Act 1990 but a decision under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) and the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). In response to a request from me, the Service has identified Section1B of Schedule 6, Part 4 of the Regulations as the source of its delegated power. Therefore, it is clear that the “decision” of the Service cannot be a decision under the Weapons Act 1990 and cannot be a decision within the ambit of section 142 of that Act. If the decision does not fall within section 142, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

3. I do not find Schrodter helpful in determining whether the tribunal has jurisdiction. That proceeding involved an appeal against the Service’s decision to revoke a weapons licence. An appeal against that type of decision is clearly contemplated by section 142(1)(e) of the Weapons Act 1990.

4. The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine Mr Beckett’s application and it should be dismissed.

[10]  I note that the Service presumes that Mr Beckett now has possession of the guns in question and that he has not taken up an offer from the Service to resolve the question of whether the guns are, in fact, Category R weapons.  Even if the tribunal did have jurisdiction, there seems little utility in progressing Mr Beckett’s application when other, more expedient alternatives are open to him.