McEwan v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing

[2024] QCAT 64

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

McEwan v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 64

PARTIES:

NICHOLAS JOHN MCEWAN

(applicant)

V

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR752-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 February 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

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 firearms licence subsequently revoked – whether application for review lacking in substance

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 142

REPRESENTATION & APPEARANCES: 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

1. On 14 September 2023, the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) decided to suspend Mr McEwan’s firearms licence.

2. On 19 October 2023, Mr McEwan sought a review of the suspension decision.

3. On 20 November 2023, the QPS decided to revoke Mr McEwan’s firearms licence.

4. As Mr McEwan’s firearms licence has since been revoked, the application for review of the suspension decision is lacking in substance for the purposes of section 47(1)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). Even if Mr McEwan was successful in having the suspension overturned, his firearms licence would not be returned to him due to the subsequent revocation.

5. Accordingly, the application for review will be dismissed.

6. For completeness, I note that the revocation decision was also a reviewable decision under section 124(1)(e) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). Accordingly, it was open to Mr McEwan to apply for review of this decision by way of a separate application.