Charker-Pulle v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing

[2025] QCAT 465

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Charker-Pulle v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 465

PARTIES:

LOUIS CHARKER-PULLE
(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING
(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR273-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2025

HEARING DATES:

14 November 2025

HEARD AT:

Sandgate

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDERS:

The decision of the Respondent made on 17 March 2024 to refuse a firearms licence to the Applicant is set aside and the application for review is upheld.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – FIT AND PROPER PERSON – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW –– where the respondent made an application for a weapons licence for use as a security guard – where an authorised officer within Weapons Licensing at Queensland Police Service issued a notice of rejection of the application on the basis that it was not considered to be in the public interest – where the authorised officer had regard to the respondent's criminal and traffic offence history and determined that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to be issued a weapons licence – significance of making false or misleading statements when applying for a licence

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), s 3(1)(b), s 3(2),

s 10(2)(c), s 11, s 28A, s 151

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33
Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634
Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378
Queensland Police Service v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147
Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330
Sukaserm v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 389

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

T Fergusson, QPS

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Applicant made an application dated 21 December 2022 for the issue of a firearms licence pursuant to the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’). He applied for a firearms licence for use in an occupational context as a security guard operating as a sole provider. He had been the holder of a weapons licence for use in the security industry from September 2006 until September 2007, but lost that when arrested for offences in 2009.

1. On 17 March 2024, an officer within Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) rejected the application. The reasons given for rejection were that it was considered by the authorised officer that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Act and it was not considered to be in the public interest that he hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons.

1. The grounds for rejection did not at the time suggest that he had stated in or in connection with his application for the licence a false or misleading matter, although in the course of the hearing before me that became an issue.

1. The principal issue that arises for determination here is how to treat the criminal and traffic history of the applicant, which the respondent contended was “atrocious”.

1. The application that he has made is to enable him to acquire and use for the purpose of conducting his security guard sole practitioner business, which he operates through his company, to transport significant sums of moneys to ATMs. He has found himself in a position where he is transporting significant sums in cash several times per weekend. He takes that cash to various ATM sites and inserts the money into ATM safes.

1. At present, he is able to do this, but is doing so without a weapon, with the consequence that there is no weapon protection open to him. Without a weapon, there is no deterrent effect either because a weapon is not available to be seen by any person who might be proposing to perform a robbery.

1. He says that if he is able to obtain this licence, he would apply to be able to obtain a single weapon, which he alone would carry and store either at his house, which is where he said he would store it in the application for the licence, or alternatively at the warehouse, where he now operates and in respect of which he would need permission form licencing authorities.

The relevant law  

1. By s 3(2) of the Act, the object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. By s 3(1) of the Act, the principles underlying the Act are that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety, and 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.

2. Relevantly, section 4 of the Act provides:

   The object of this Act is to be achieved for firearms by—

   (a)     prohibiting the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and automatic and self-loading shotguns except in special circumstances; and

   (b)     establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms; and

   (c)     requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and

   (d)     providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for—

   (i)licences authorising possession of firearms; and

   (ii)the acquisition and sale of firearms; and

   (e)     ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.

3. By s 10(2)(e) a licence may only be issued to and held by an individual if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and by s 10(2)(f) of the Act has a reason mentioned in section 11 to possess the weapon or category of weapon.

4. Section 10 of the Act also provides that a licence may only be issued to an individual if the person has, under section 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence and has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence.

1. Section 11 of the Act lists the "genuine reasons" for possessing a weapon in Queensland, which are necessary to obtain a weapons licence. These include as genuine reasons, sports or target shooting, recreational shooting, an occupational requirement (including for rural purposes), the collection, preservation, or study of weapons, and any other reason prescribed by regulation.

2. The term ‘fit and proper’ is not defined but the Act does require that certain things be considered, and amongst them is the public interest. The phrase ‘fit and proper person’ in the context of the weapons legislation has been considered by the Tribunal in light of the discussion as to the meaning of that expression by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 (‘Bond’) where it was said at [36]:

   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.

3. In Magarry v QPS Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 (‘Magarry’) the Tribunal considered the description of the meaning of fit and proper person set out in Bond. The learned Senior Member observed that the Act does not list the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether it is in the public interest to revoke a licence, but the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act.

4. In Magarry, the Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Magarry’s renewal of his firearms licence and revoke his collector’s licence in far more serious circumstances than those arising in the matter before me.

5. The Senior Member’s decision was confirmed on appeal in QPS v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147 (‘Magarry’). In the reasons on appeal Cullinane AM QC Judicial Member said as follows:

   [26]    The Act provides for a licensing regime. Section 10B provided for the considerations on any application for the grant renewal etc of a licence. In deciding whether a person is or is any longer fit to hold a licence consideration must be given to the mental and physical fitness of the person, whether there is a risk to public safety and the public interest. Consideration of the concept of “fit and proper person” is found in cases such as Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321.

   [27]    The Tribunal approached the matter on the basis of the principles set out in Stower v Smart (2007) QDC 4.

   [28]    I, with respect agree that these principles represent the approach which gives proper expression to the principles of the Weapon Act 1990.

   [29]    These are as follows:

   (a)It is of extreme importance to bear in mind the object of the Act which is stated in s 3(2) to be “to prevent the misuse of weapons”.

   (b)The proper exercise of discretion would require the Magistrate to evaluate the evidence of the character of Stower.

   (c)The proper exercise of discretion would then lead to the questions “in these circumstances is there any real prospect of Stower misusing his weapons so that his licence should be suspended? Is his right to possess firearms a real risk to public and individual safety?”

   [30]     Here the Tribunal has carried out an exercise which involves weighing the considerations militating in favour of and against the Respondent but bearing in mind that all other considerations are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.

6. In Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634 it was said in relation to examining the historical behaviour of an applicant that:

   It is well established on the authorities that irresponsible, uncontrolled, antisocial or behaviour constituting a risk to public safety does not have to be limited to the subject matter of, in this case, the renewal application. Such behaviour exhibited in other areas of an Applicant's interaction with those about him or her may determine whether that person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence applied for.

7. I adopt and apply those principles to the facts here.

   Facts relevant to whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence

8. Between 2004 and November 2009, the applicant worked in the security industry. He commenced his employment in residential patrols at Royal Pines on the Gold Coast and then worked for Armour Guard and did so for some time before transitioning to a security job with the Queensland Government at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Then he started working in the Surfers Paradise district as a 'bouncer' at nightclubs and bars. On 13 November 2009, he was arrested at his home for possession of Schedule 1 drugs and weapons. He had until then had a security licence but it was then revoked.

9. On 16 February 2011, he was ordered to serve three years imprisonment, with parole after one year for the offences for which he had been arrested in 2009.He spent a year in prison. Following his release from prison, he moved back to his parents' house to place himself in a controlled environment. He then went to Gladstone where he was able to work with the approval and oversight of his parole officer. He was also dealt with for drug-related offences for which he was convicted in 2013, relating to offences that occurred in June of that year, although he says these were effectively things he had in his possession and in storage from the time of the 2011 convictions.

1. Hence, at the time he made his online application for the licence some three years ago, the Applicant had had a history of committing criminal offences for which he was convicted, but also a considerable history of recorded traffic offences, both in respect of offences for which he was directly charged and required a court appearance, but also where he was issued with traffic infringement notices.

1. He says he is unable to obtain insurance to carry sums in excess of $50,000 unless he is able to carry a weapon. He is the only employee or security officer in the business and says that he would wear a uniform when doing his work and carrying the weapon.

1. He was cross-examined at length about his plans in that regard. He was also cross-examined at length about his criminal history and his traffic history. At times, he seemed reluctant to answer some of the questions surrounding these offences directly, and he was also somewhat reluctant to disclose his history of drug offences, or the circumstances by which he said it came to have him hospitalised in a mental health institution.

1. He did, however, provide answers to those questions.

1. Some of those he gave were in relation to the drug-related offences for which he was convicted in 2013, relating to offences that occurred in June of that year. He said in his affidavit that on a week off in June 2013, and while staying at his parents' house, he was charged and fined for possessing steroids, a dangerous drug, and being in possession of a weapon, he says a mace from the head of a perfume bottle. He says the was only about 5ml of steroids found and it dated from the time of the raid in November 2009. He pleaded guilty and was fined on 27 July 2013 and was then required to take one month off work in Gladstone and spend that time in a correctional facility due to breach of parole conditions.

1. He was cross-examined about these offences, and his answers were not particularly convincing, particularly in relation to whether he was in possession of steroids or some other kind of drugs and was in possession of objects or a weapon, which might have some drug association.

1. In the end, I am not overly concerned about precisely what the circumstances of convictions were in 2013, first, because they occurred more than 12 years ago and he has not been convicted of any other criminal offence whether serious or otherwise since. Secondly, he was convicted on all counts with which he was charged at that time but only fined a relatively small sum of $1,600, that being a fair guide to the identified severity of the offences, or lack thereof.

1. He was also cross-examined at length about the convictions and serious sentence imposed upon him in 2011 for the offences which occurred in 2009 in respect of which he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, of which he served one year, before being released on parole. These were quite serious drug possession charges and the police investigative records concerning those offences, which he did not appear to significantly dispute, reveal that he was found to have had 120 grams of cocaine on him, as well as amphetamine, dangerous drug steroids as well as being in possession of tainted currency and implements for the smoking of drugs.

1. The cross-examination of him went to the failure on his part to disclose the full detail of these offences when he made his application for the weapons licence.

1. In relation to what he disclosed in the licence application, much was sought to be made of the fact that when asked in the application form if he had been charged with any offence, including traffic or criminal offences that resulted in a court attendance, he disclosed only that he was arrested in 2009 for drug charges and that in 2011 he spent one year in prison, then three years on parole. He did not refer to the 2013 offences and convictions, and he did not refer to any of his traffic history.

1. For the respondent, it was suggested that intentional nondisclosure revealed some sinister aspect to his character, which suggested he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The basis for the refusal of the licence was not upon any such non-disclosure. It is with the benefit of the full criminal history as well as his traffic history that one can see the extent of his offending, and it is true that there was very much in his history which was not set out in the application.

1. It does not follow however that those who were processing his application and made the initial determination to refuse it, did not have copies of that history before them, were not able to properly assess what his true character was, and his fitness to hold a licence.

1. Much was also sought to be made about the requirement to provide information about whether he had ever received treatment for psychiatric or emotional problems. He said no to this question in the application form, but it emerged from the evidence at the hearing that he had a serious motorcycle accident when he was 17 and became dependant on prescription morphine. He went to a private hospital to help break free of this dependency, but he says that they took him straight off the drug, making him go cold turkey, as he put it, and he had psychotic episodes as a result and was then re-hospitalized in a mental health ward. This was more than 20 years ago.

1. He later applied to the Mental Health Tribunal, which he says determined one and a half years later that he was of sound mind. He then did his security and weapons licence certification and worked in the security industry.

1. Again, the original decision to refuse his licence in no way referenced the non- disclosure of his mental health history, although it would probably not have been known to relevantly exist. It can be properly considered by this Tribunal. As I indicated earlier, he was after that allowed to have a weapons licence for use in the security industry from September 2006 until September 2007, but lost the licence when he was arrested in 2009. There were no reported incidents of him misusing the weapon in that time.

1. He claimed that he had put all of this behind him and that he had been through a very difficult time in his life in that period but had moved on. His explanation for not mentioning this in the application was that he did not consider it a requirement to disclose such matters as they were essentially private and no longer affected him. I accept that explanation.

1. Although I was not entirely convinced that he was being truthful in relation to the precise circumstances in which he came to be convicted of drug related offences in 2013, all of this happened a considerable time ago, and there has been no recent criminal history or any evidence to suggest that he has been in trouble with the law since 2013, or that he had any involvement with drugs or any other criminal activity since, even if it did not result in charges.

His traffic history and non-disclosure of it, and his criminal history in the application

1. Then there was the question of his traffic history. His traffic history was not disclosed at all in the application for the licence. That is not to say that it was not taken into account.

1. Indeed, the reasons for refusal of the licence made specific reference to his criminal history which went back to 1996, and included the serious offences and convictions in 2011 and 2013. Those reasons referenced what was described as an extensive traffic history, and a traffic history report was attached. The reasons for rejection noted that he had not complied with standards of conduct which are tacitly accepted to be for the good order of society and that whilst his offending could be considered minor, looked at in its entirety, it showed that he was a person who was not fit and proper at that time to be issued with a weapons licence.

1. In final submissions for the respondent, it was argued that the applicant has little respect for the laws of the State and had an “atrocious” traffic history. It submitted that he has shown he had no regard for public safety. It was submitted that he wishes to be able to carry a handgun in public, but that it was entirely inappropriate to put a weapon into the hands of someone who did not “follow the rules of our society”. It was submitted that he had not disclosed his mental health history and had he done so the police service would have asked for a psychological report to ascertain his present mental health condition. It submitted that he had not disclosed three of the four court appearances that he had been involved in that resulted in criminal convictions and that his traffic history was critical, in that it showed he had a significant recent history of speeding offences.

1. He did indeed have a history of speeding offences, the last of which was in February 2024. He had none in 2023 but four spending offences in 2022, one of which was exceeding the speed limit more than thirty km/h. He had two speeding offences in 2021, one in 2018, and unlicensed driving convictions in 2016 and 2018. He had one speeding conviction in each of 2015, 2014 and 2011.

1. This history does not make for a pretty sight, however, most of the speeding offences were mid-level offences where he was travelling between 13 and 20 kilometres per hour above the limit. Some years were worse than others. His last speeding or any other traffic offence occurred 21 months ago. His propensity to demonstrate a lack of judgement in complying with his legal responsibilities as the holder of a driver’s licence is a relevant matter but not of itself determinative of his fitness to hold a weapons licence.

1. Overall, I am not satisfied that despite this traffic history that they show that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence because they suggest that he had some general disregard for the laws of the state and in particular its traffic laws.

1. He also explained that he had changed his ways, and in particular, that in 2024 he completed a transport and road safety attitude course, which led him to have a different attitude to his driving. I accept that evidence, and in particular, it is evident that he is not been convicted of any traffic offence for almost two years.

1. The Respondent submits that this lack of candour and honesty in relation to his traffic and criminal history on the application for the licence is indicative that he is not a fit and proper person and that he does not comprehend the significance of these convictions. The reasons for refusal of his application listed a full criminal history which included a number of matters where no conviction had been recorded.

1. As I said in the recent decision in Sukaserm v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 389 considering convictions for offences, whether recorded or not, and treating a failure to disclose unrecorded convictions as relevant must now be considered in error having regard to what the Court of Appeal decided recently in Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93 (‘XPR’). The Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) (‘CLRO Act’) provides periods after which certain convictions need not be disclosed by a person. Sections 4 and 5 provide limitations on the non-disclosure of convictions or charges.

The applicant’s character generally

1. As to his character generally, he has numerous references that show him to be a reformed and respected member of the community.

1. Sue Fulford, a Registered Psychologist, was his counsellor in mid-2012 for six sessions of therapy. She has worked in a variety of settings including maximum and open secure prisons, various roles with the Parole Board and community justice settings such as Probation and Parole and Drug Courts both in Queensland and Victoria. Currently, she works as a senior psychologist in a public adult community mental health setting as well as private practice on the Gold Coast. She gave a reference in 2023 that stated:

It was clear during the period of therapy that Mr Charker-Pulle had identified the choices he was making and the connections for why he was using substances.

Further he was able to explore the motivation and reasons around he was using these maladaptive strategies. He was future oriented obtaining (almost) immediate employment and focused on increasing his skill set and living a pro-social life style.

1. A former employer from 2021 said in December 2022 that he was working then and had grown across multiple roles due to his ability to learn and also due to his “honesty and trustworthiness”.

1. There is a reference from Jai Napper also given in 2022. He says the applicant was an employee, a housemate, shareholder and his best friend. He is aware of his “charges” close to 10 years ago, says it was a very long time ago and thinks he has his paid his debt to the legal system for that. He says that since doing so, “he has committed himself to becoming a better person, becoming an experienced individual across many different work forces, collecting multiple difficult tickets”.

1. Finally, there was a reference from a Security Firearms Instructor. I pay no heed to the views it expressed because the matters it referred to in suggesting he had worked with the applicant in various roles and operational environments and during those times had witnessed him demonstrate a high level of responsibility and professionalism, particularly regarding the safe use of firearms, were shown to be false. He had trained but not worked with the applicant in fact.

1. I am cognisant of the importance of the object of the Act which is as stated in s 3(2) to be to prevent the misuse of weapons and as to whether in these circumstances there is any real prospect of him misusing weapons so that his licence should be refused. I do not consider that there is. Nor do I consider that permitting him to possess firearms is a real risk to public and individual safety. He has worked previously as a security officer with a weapon. He has a legitimate occupational need for a licence to assist him to derive an income from his business.

1. Taking all these factors into account, I determine that Mr Charker-Pulle is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence for the category he seeks. I determine that it is not against the public interest for him to hold such a weapons licence or have access to weapons. I do not consider he constitutes a risk to the public going forward.

2. The decision to refuse him a weapons licence should be set aside and I so order.