FJ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licencing

[2023] QCAT 502

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

FJ v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licencing [2023] QCAT 502

PARTIES:

FJ

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR070-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2023

HEARING DATE:

8 August 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Munasinghe

ORDERS:

1.       The respondent’s decision is set aside and substituted with the Tribunal’s decision that the applicant be issued with a firearms licence authorising him to possess category A and B weapons for an occupational requirement for rural purposes.

2.       Publication of any information that might identify the applicant, SJ or WJ, is prohibited, other than to the parties to this proceeding, or to give effect to the Tribunal’s orders.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – REJECTION OF LICENCE – where applicant applied for a weapons licence – where applicant was involved in an altercation with his son that caused the death of his wife – where a Domestic Violence Order was made against the applicant – where application for a firearms licence was rejected – whether applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence – whether the applicant is a risk to public safety – whether authorising the applicant to possesses a weapon would be contrary to the public interest

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

Weapons Act1990 (Qld), s 10B, s 11

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Mr Carpenter of Carpenter Law, Solicitor
Respondent:	Marissa Carey, Policy Officer & Phoebe Goddard, Senior Review Officer

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. FJ applies to the Tribunal to review a decision by Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) to reject his application for a firearms licence.

2. On 21 January 2022, QPS rejected FJ’s application because it did not consider him a ‘fit a proper person’ to hold a licence within the meaning of s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘Weapons Act’).

3. QPS contends that FJ is not a fit and proper person, because:

   (a)He was named the respondent in a domestic violence order that ran from 23 September 2015 to 22 September 2017; and

   (b)It is not ‘in the public interest’ to issue FJ with a licence.

Factual Background

1. The events preceding this review proceeding are tragic. 

2. FJ lived with his wife WJ at A Station which is located 20 kilometres from the rural town of Aramac. FJ’s adult son SJ lived nearby at B Station.

3. At approximately 9.00pm on 11 July 2015 FJ, WJ, and SJ were in the Aramac Hotel. FJ was pushing a pram containing his Grandson (SJ’s son). A male patron in the pub derided FJ for pushing the pram and swore at WJ several times. FJ took offence to the patron’s conduct and told him “… the reason I’m rocking the pram is because it’s my grandson and his father isn’t here”. Unlucky, SJ walked out at the precise moment FJ uttered those words.

4. SJ took exception to his father’s comments and verbal argument ensued. The argument commenced in the Hotel but migrated outside where physical blows were exchanged (‘altercation’). WJ attempted to break up the altercation but was knocked down, by either FJ or SJ, which caused the back of her head to hit the ground.

5. FJ and WJ returned to A Station where WJ’s health progressively deteriorated. At 11.20pm FJ called 000. WJ was transported by ambulance to Barcaldine Hospital, then flown to Townville Hospital, but sadly passed away at 2pm on 13 July 2015. Professor David William, Consultant Forensic Pathologist, conducted an autopsy and concluded that WJ died from a subdural haemorrhage caused by her fall.

6. On 11 April 2017, Northern Coroner Kevin Priestly found that WJ died due to head injury after attempting to intervene in a physical altercation between FJ and SJ when she was accidently knocked, causing her to fall backwards and to strike her head on the ground.

7. The altercation caused the police to apply for a Protection Order against FJ under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) in which SJ was named the aggrieved.

8. On 23 September 2015, FJ consented (without making admissions) to the Protection Order being made. FJ did not breach the Protection Order, which ended on 22 September 2022.

9. By operation of s 28A of the Weapons Act, FJ’s weapon licence was revoked because he was named as the respondent in a Protection Order.

Relevant Law

1. Relevantly, s 10B of the Weapons Act requires that, in deciding or considering, for the issue of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, I must consider:

   (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 connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knowns is false or misleading in a material particular. and

   (d)whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information which 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

   (e)the public interest.

The Hearing

1. At the hearing FJ gave the following evidence:

   (a)He requires a weapon to euthanise livestock on his property when they are maimed by dingos and feral pigs. Presently, he must rely on others to perform that task. FJ provided an example of a bull that dragged its broken leg around for two days before it could be destroyed. He also requires a weapon to prevent predation and to kill livestock to supply rations to feed employees that work on the station.

   (b)He erroneously selected ‘recreational shooting rural lands’ as the genuine reason for possessing a weapon when electronically applying for the licence.

   (c)The altercation with SJ was caused by several stressors including a long running drought and working long hours. In the months preceding the fight, FJ and SJ were working 16-hour days constructing a 6-foot-high fence to exclude wild dogs from his station. The dogs were killing his sheep. Constructing the fence was a priority before cattle droving occurred. 

   (d)In the Christmas of 2014, A Station experienced a drought that lasted for five years. The absence of grass during the drought required FJ to feed his livestock with cotton seed. Extra droving was required to move the cattle into areas that could sustain their feeding requirements. FJ estimated that the drought increased is annual station operating costs by approximately $200,000. FJ hated seeking his stock hungry. He “loves his cattle and loves his land”.

   (e)FJ accepts that his excessive consumption of alcohol contributed to the altercation. He did not drink alcohol for seven and a half years after the altercation, although recently has had a few drinks socially.

   (f)After his wife died, FJ declined an offer of medication by his doctor. He “doesn’t believe in tablets”. He “wanted to have a good clear mind to think about things”. He also declined to see a counsellor. He knew what caused the incident and thought “he could work things out himself”. They “are strong people”. The best way for him to prevent a similar incident occurring was not to not drink and to get on with life and running the station. His wife “would have wanted it that way”.  

QPS Submissions

1. QPS contends that FJ is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence because he is a risk to public safety and authorising him to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest. QPS submitted that licence holders were required to exercise self-restraint and control in emotional situations. QPS argued that there was a lack of evidence, particularly medical evidence, to indicate that FJ has taken steps to mitigate the risk of committing similar violence again. QPS was critical of FJ’s failure to engage in psychological counselling or to take medication.

2. Further, QPS queried whether there was enough material to indicate that that FJ had genuine reason for possessing a weapon, noting that in his application he selected ‘recreational shooting rural lands’ as the genuine reason for possessing a weapon, rather than an ‘occupational requirement for rural purposes’.

Findings

1. I am satisfied that FJ is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. In my view the altercation was an aberrant event. It was the culmination of a series of personal stressors which are unlikely to ever be repeated. It is plain to me that the death of his wife served as a salutary lesson for FJ. Many years have now passed since her tragic passing. In that time FJ has committed no further acts of violence. It is apposite to note that FJ is 65-year man with unblemished record and no relevant criminal history. I am not convinced FJ has a proclivity for violence. Whilst the objects of the Weapons Act, inter alia, state that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety,[1] in this case, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude the FJ has a propensity for violence which warrants protection of the public.

   [1]Weapons Act, s 3(1)(a).

2. I reject QPS’ submission that FJ has not taken steps to mitigate the risk of similar conduct repeating. He stopped drinking immediately after the altercation. There is no evidence of any psychological condition that indicated FJ requires medication or that his attendance at counselling is necessary to reduce the risk of further violence. FJ struck me as a stoic man who dealt with the tragedy of his wife passing by getting on with the job of running his farm and repairing his relationship with his son. Hard work was his therapy. Rather than taking the easy path of medication, it seems to me that FJ overcame his demons by soberly confronting the causes and consequences of his actions. The effluxion of time since the incident, and the absence of any violence prior to it, provides me with comfort that FJ is not a risk to public safety. Corollary to that finding, I also consider that authorising FJ to possess a weapon is not contrary to the public interest.

3. I am further comforted by the fact that FJ maintains an ongoing personal and professional relationship with SJ. FJ did not breach the protection order, notwithstanding he worked, and continues to work, closely with SJ, including a period of droving that lasted 8 months.

4. I am also satisfied that FJ has a genuine reason for possessing a weapon, namely as an occupational requirement for the purpose of running his rural station. On his application, FJ noted that he has 1500 cattle on his property. I accept FJ’s evidence that the material use of his property has not changed in 44 years. I find that FJ requires a weapon to euthanise livestock, protect them from predation and provide rations for station employees. I note that in previous licence applications FJ has indicated his reason for possessing a weapon was an occupational requirement. His failure to do so on his most recent application appears to simply be an error.  

Orders

1. For the reasons above, I have formed the view FJ is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Accordingly, I set aside QPS’ decision rejecting FJ’s application for a licence and substitute it with the Tribunal’s decision to issue him with a licence authorising him to possess category A and B weapons for an occupational requirement for rural purposes.

2. I also propose to make a non-publication order to comply with s 159(1)(b)(i) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), which prohibits publication of information which identifies, or is likely to lead to identification of a person, who is a party to a proceeding under that Act.