Hulm v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing
[2024] QCAT 498
•12 November 2024
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Hulm v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 498
PARTIES:
LESLIE JOHN HULM (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
GAR718-24
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
12 November 2024
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Chapple
ORDERS:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant sought review of suspension of firearms licence – where suspension period has since expired – whether application for review lacking in substance
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 47
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 28, s 142
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
On 12 August 2024, the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) decided to suspend Mr Hulm’s firearms licence bearing numbers 26513833 and 30034436 (‘the Firearms Licence’).
Referencing in its decision s 28(2)(c)(ii) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), the QPS stated that the Firearms Licence “is suspended for a period of 90 days to afford you [Mr Hulm] the opportunity to provide a recommendation from a medical practitioner that you [Mr Hulm] is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence”.
On 16 October 2024, the QPS emailed Mr Hulm advising that his medical submission had been reviewed by an authorised officer and deemed insufficient for the reinstatement of the Firearms Licence.
On 28 October 2024, the QPS emailed Mr Hulm advising that an authorised officer had again reviewed his medical report and deemed it insufficient.
On 30 October 2024, Mr Hulm filed in the Tribunal an application to review the suspension decision, outside the 28-day statutory review timeframe. Mr Hulm has not filed in the Tribunal an application to extend time.
The Tribunal considers that the 90-day suspension period expired on 10 November 2024 and, accordingly, the Firearms Licence suspension also expired on 10 November 2024.
The Tribunal considers that even if Mr Hulm were to make an application to extend time, and the Tribunal were to grant an extension of time, the application for review of the suspension decision is lacking in substance for the purposes of s 47(1)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) on the basis that the Firearms Licence suspension has expired.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the QPS has decided to revoke the Firearms Licence.
If the QPS has decided or decides to revoke the Firearms Licence, Mr Hulm is at liberty to exercise his review rights in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
Accordingly, the application for review will be dismissed.
0
0
2