Eggins v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing - [2023] QCAT 380

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Eggins v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 380

PARTIES:

JESSE EGGINS

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE - WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR275-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

14 September 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member King-Scott

ORDERS:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS LICENCES AND RELATED MATTERS LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT REVOCATION, CANCELLATION SUSPENSION OR SURRENDER –

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WEAPONS – CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE – where applicant’s firearms licence refused – where applicant failed to disclose prior convictions – failed to disclose prior application had been refused - prior domestic violence orders

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant, Jesse Eggins, applied for a firearms licence on the 9th of September 2021. The purpose, for which the Applicant sought the category A and B licence, was for recreational shooting on rural lands.
The application was rejected by the Respondent on 25 May 2022 on the grounds that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to be issued with a licence. The grounds of rejection set out in the Respondent’s statement of reasons. They are that the Applicant failed to disclose relevant information in respect of his previous convictions as well as a prior rejection of an application for a firearms licence.
It appears that on the 22nd of May 2007 the Applicant was convicted of a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm at the Innisfail Magistrates Court and find $1,500 with no conviction recorded. At the time he was 17 years of age.
In the online application form lodged by the Applicant on 9 September 2021 he was asked the following question:
Have you in Queensland or elsewhere ever been charged with any offence, this includes any traffic and/or criminal offence(s) that resulted in a Court attendance? (Please tick yes even if you were charged but not convicted or a conviction was not recorded.)
In the same online application, he was asked:
Have you in Queensland or elsewhere ever been refused a licence or authority for a firearm or a weapon?
On 19 August 2016 the Applicant’s application for a firearms licence was rejected by the Respondent for the following reasons:
(a)It was not considered in the public interest that he should hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons;
(b)He was considered by the authorised officer that at the time is not a fit and proper person to hold licence under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (the Act);
(c)He had been subject to an order made under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) or interstate domestic violence order within the preceding 5 years.
He certified those answers as being true and correct in every detail despite the warning that it was an offence to state anything in a document kept, given or made under the Act that a person knows is false or misleading. To both the above questions he answered - no.
His explanation, in relation to the first question, was his belief that only convictions as an adult only were required to be disclosed. He was 17 years of age at the time of that conviction. In relation to the second matter the Applicant states that he believed he telephoned weapons licencing and informed them about the domestic violence order and that he cancelled the application rather than having it refused.
Neither application is credible, in relation to the first matter where there was a clear warning and the question contained sufficient detail to put the applicant on notice that it included even a Court attendance even if not convicted or if no conviction was recorded. In relation to the second question, I note that the Applicant does not categorically deny that he cancelled the application, but he believed he did so. Records reveal that it was processed and the application refused.
I note that in the Applicant’s previous application on the 10 October 2015 he responded to the first question in the affirmative and gave details of being charged in Western Australia in 2012 with obstructing police. He was convicted of that offence. That offence was not referred to in the application under review.
Is also relevant that they domestic violence protection order relating to the applicant was for the period 2 June 2016 to 2 June 2017. The Applicants application was made on time September 2021 which was within the five-year period. Again, it was not disclosed in the current application.
Section 10B of the Act sets out what matters should be taken into consideration of who is a fit and proper person. The phrase is not otherwise defined. Section 10B provides:
Fit and proper person-licensees
(1) In deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a license, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a license, an authorised officer must consider, among other things-
(a)the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
(b)whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and
(c)whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a license, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false and misleading in a material particular; and licence, the person knows is false and 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-
(i)the person is a risk to public safety; or
(ii)that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and
(d) the public interest.
Section 158 of the Act provides:
False or misleading statements
(1) A person must not state anything in a document required to be kept, given or made under this Act that the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.
Maximum penalty—100 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment.
(2) It is enough for a complaint for an offence against subsection (1) to state the statement made was ‘false or misleading’ to the person’s knowledge, without specifying which.
(3) In this section—
state includes disclose, declare, advise and give.
The Applicant has breached Section 10B (1) (c) and (c) of the Act. He has failed to declare his previous conviction(s) and, also the domestic violence order. The Applicant, in stating that he has not in Queensland or elsewhere been refused a licence for a firearm, provided false and misleading statements contrary to s. 158 of the Act. As stated earlier his explanations are not credible and I do not accept them. He is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence in the circumstances.
I dismiss the application.