Kanters v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing
[2022] QCAT 327
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Kanters v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 327
PARTIES:
John Leslie Kanters (applicant)
v
Queensland POlice Service – Weapons Licensing (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR275-21
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
13 September 2022
HEARING DATE:
2 September 2022
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Goodman
ORDERS:
The respondent’s decision to reject Mr Kanters’ application for a firearms licence is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – review application – firearms licence – whether applicant fit and proper person – public interest
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 18, s 20, s 24
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10B, s 29, s 142
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self represented
Respondent:
Acting Senior Sergeant Ayscough
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Kanters applied for a firearms licence so that he may engage in social and recreational shooting. His application was rejected by the respondent on 18 March 2021 after the respondent found that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), and that it was not in the public interest for him to hold a licence. Mr Kanters has sought review of that decision in this Tribunal.[1]
[1]s 142 Weapons Act (Qld) (‘WA’); s 18 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).
This is a fresh hearing on the merits, not an appeal, and the Tribunal must determine the correct and preferable decision.[2] Neither party bears an onus of proof. The Tribunal must determine whether Mr Kanters is a fit and proper person to hold a licence[3] having regard to the public interest.[4]
[2]s 20 QCAT Act.
[3]s 29(1)(d) WA.
[4]s 10B WA.
Mr Kanters has an extensive criminal history. He first appeared in the Childrens Court in 2002 and last appeared in a criminal court in 2009. His criminal history includes behaving in a disorderly manner x 4, obstructing police x 8, entering a dwelling without consent x 3, behaving in a threatening manner, serious assault, breach of probation x 3, committing public nuisance, leaving a hotel without payment, stealing an animal, assault occasioning bodily harm, threatening violence, and assaulting or obstructing police. He has spent time in jail.
Mr Kanters also has an extensive traffic history spanning 2003-2022. His convictions include driving an uninsured vehicle, failure to produce a licence, speeding, failure to comply with a condition on licence, disqualified driving, using a permit for another vehicle, driving under the influence, using an unregistered vehicle. His last offence of speeding was committed in August 2022.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
Mr Kanters provided both oral and written evidence. He says:
(a)When he was 17 years of age in around 2002 he began working for and with the family of a friend in a rural part of Queensland. They were a “very bad crowd”. He was subjected to abuse and beatings while in that employment, and experienced a very distressing and confronting situation when one of the family murdered a co-worker;
(b)He was not supported to recover from these experiences, and was not able to deal with them on his own. He “went off the rails”, committing crimes and using drugs and excessive alcohol. His offences of violence occurred in that context and culminated in him spending time in jail in late 2011;
(c)While he had been ordered by the court to attend drug and alcohol counselling, a relapse programme, and anger management, he did not know how to access those services and did not follow the Court’s order until he was jailed, which happened fairly shortly after. He completed an anger management course in jail, saying that it was “a big one” for him;
(d)While in jail he formed a conviction to turn his life around. Once released, he left the area where he was previously employed and moved to another area of the state. He began work and tried to turn his back on his old lifestyle but it was difficult for him;
(e)In approximately 2008 he secured employment at a mine and had structure in his life, and a good job with decent money. He has been working in the mining sector since that time;
(f)He has a good work ethic and has worked his way into positions of responsibility and obtained many machinery operation qualifications through his employment. In the week of the hearing, he had obtained a fly-in/fly-out position with a new employer and is proud of the progress which he has made;
(g)He has his life on track with a secure and stable relationship, and is building a home. He is very anti-drugs;
(h)During his employment in the mines, he has spent a lot of time driving home, which has been a six hour drive from his employment. While not excusing his speeding offences, it provides some context for the number of speeding offences he has. He acknowledges that speeding is a problem for him and has taken steps to eliminate speeding from his driving behaviour. In particular, he has installed technology in his car to alert him to the speed limit at any time and uses cruise control. He has taken a new job which is fly-in/fly-out and so will be spending a lot less time in the car. It is a work in progress;
(i)He feels that his ex-partner is driven to interfere with his life and has made unfounded allegations against him with a view to preventing him from having a relationship with his children and otherwise trying to destroy his life. This has placed enormous pressure on him and his family in recent years. Despite that, he has maintained his composure and not reacted to her behaviour, or engaged in any threatening, abusive or violent behaviour of his own. Recently, there has been no contact between them, which has been “great”;
(j)While the speeding offences are not immaterial, his criminal history of violent offences ended in 2009 and this shows that he has turned his life around. There is a lot in his past that he regrets, particularly his violent behaviour. Now, he would never hurt anyone, and his life is completely different. He will never behave again as he did when he was young;
(k)He previously held a gun licence, and has not committed any offences of violence since that licence was granted. His only transgressions have been traffic / speeding offences; and
(l)He would like to have a gun licence so that he can go shooting with his children, as he used to do with his father when he was young.
Mr Kanters conceded that he had not properly understood until the hearing that he was not authorised to supervise his children with guns even while holding a firearms licence. He would like his children to learn about shooting and gun safety but indicated that, if granted a licence, he would abide by all of the rules including ensuring that they only used guns in an authorised site while under the supervision of an authorised trainer.
Mr Kanters’ partner also provided written and oral evidence in support of his application. She stated that she has known Mr Kanters for around 9 years and they share a blended family. While she is aware of his colourful past, he has shown her and their children only love, compassion, honesty and dependability. She says that he has demonstrated that he is a caring respectable person who has left his past behind him.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
The Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) relevantly provides that:
(a)The underlying principles of 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. The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons;[5]
(b)The object of the Act is achieved by:
(i) establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms; and
(ii) requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and
(iii) providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for licences authorising possession of firearms.[6]
(c)A licence may be issued to an adult only if they have 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 they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
(d)In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, an authorised officer must consider, among other things, the public interest.[7]
[5]s 3 WA.
[6]s 4 WA.
[7]s 10B WA.
While the Act provides some categories of people who are not by definition fit and proper to hold a licence,[8] Mr Kanters does not fit within any of those categories. The Tribunal must therefore exercise a discretion to determine whether Mr Kanters is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. This discretion is exercised in accordance with the principles and object of the Act.
[8]s 10B(2) WA.
The respondent submits that the Tribunal should be satisfied that Mr Kanters is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence because:
(a)His long history of offending demonstrates a blatant disregard for the law and a lack of impulse and behaviour control;
(b)He has not provided any independent evidence of a sustained change in his behaviour;
(c)There is no evidence that Mr Kanters has undertaken counselling to develop lifelong skills to prevent a return to his past behaviour; and
(d)The driving offences in themselves are of concern, and a relevant matter for the Tribunal to take into account.
I consider that the lack of criminal charges since 2009 is independent evidence of the change that Mr Kanters has undergone. I accept that he has independently physically moved from the area in which he was engaged in and associated with ongoing violence, and has spent many years working in the mining industry and moving himself into a settled lifestyle. I accept that he does not use drugs, and only occasionally uses alcohol.
I accept Mr Kanters’ evidence that he has felt stressed and imposed upon by the actions of his former partner, and that he has refrained from retaliation. I accept his submission that the speeding history is in a different category to the offences of violence. I note that over 10 years has passed since Mr Kanters engaged in a violent offence. He does however have a significant history of violence over approximately a seven year period.
I acknowledge that Mr Kanters has taken great strides in addressing his antisocial behaviour, and developing what he describes as a stable and productive life. He is to be congratulated for his efforts. They have been significant.
On balance, however, I consider that there is insufficient independent evidence before me to establish that Mr Kanters has developed sufficient skills and strategies to prevent a return to his previous conduct. A return to the use of such violence by the holder of a firearms licence would clearly be contrary to the public interest. I have taken into account that there is no evidence on this issue from an expert such as a psychologist, and little evidence from Mr Kanters. I have taken into account Mr Kanters’ extensive criminal and traffic history, and that he has continued to commit speeding offences right up to the month before the hearing of this matter in the Tribunal.
I find that Mr Kanters is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence, and that granting him a licence would be contrary to the public interest at this time. I note that a further application may be lodged in the future. The respondent’s decision is confirmed.
0
0
0