Palmer v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch

[2010] QCAT 149

CITATION: Palmer v Queensland Police Service
Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 149

PARTIES:	Mr Joel Lawrence Palmer
v
Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAR110-10  

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     21 April 2010

HEARD AT:  Brisbane

DECISION OF: Ms Clare Endicott

DELIVERED ON: 21 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: Stay application dismissed

CATCHWORDS :  Application for stay – section 22 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The hearing took place on the papers in the absence of parties.

REASONS FOR DECISION

HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION

1. An application was made to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 9 April 2010 by Joel Palmer (the applicant) seeking a review of a decision of Clayton Bradford, authorised officer of the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch (the respondent) made on 10 March 2010 to suspend Mr Palmer’s firearms licence. The applicant also sought a stay of the decision under review. 

ISSUES AND THE LEGISLATION

1. Section 22 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 provides that the Tribunal can make an order to stay a decision if it considers it desirable to do so.  The Tribunal can make an order to stay a decision only if it considers it desirable after having regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected by the making of, or declining of, a stay order, having regard to any submissions made to the Tribunal by the decision maker and having regard to the public interest.

2. Section 28 of the Weapons Act 1990 provides that an authorised officer may suspend a firearms licence if satisfied that the licensee has been charged with an offence against any law in force in Queensland or elsewhere involving the use or threatened use of violence or if on reasonable grounds the licensee is considered no longer to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. 

3. Section 3 of the Weapons Act 1990 provides that the principles of that 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. 

4. Section 4 of the Weapons Act 1990 provides that the objects of the Act are to be achieved by, inter alia, providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for licences authorising possession of firearms.  

SUBMISSIONS

1. The applicant made written submissions in support of his application to stay the operation of the decision made by the respondent to suspend his firearms licence. The applicant submitted that he has been employed since 2007 as a spare parts, weapons and firearms salesman.  He has no other source of income. 

2. Mr Palmer submitted that his employment would be in jeopardy if her were to lose his firearms licence as his employer could not employ a person to have access to weapons in the course of employment unless that person holds a firearms licence.  Mr Palmer submitted that he would suffer severe personal and financial hardship if he were not able to continue his fulltime employment.

3. Mr Palmer submitted that he had been charged with assaulting a police officer but he denied that he was guilty of that charge.  He submitted that prior to 12 April 2010 he had not been convicted of or charged with any offence against a law in Queensland involving the use or threatened use of violence.

4. The applicant submitted that it is not in his nature to commit an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence.  The applicant submitted that the conclusion that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence is not established.

5. The respondent made written submissions opposing the making of a stay order. The respondent submitted that the decision to suspend Mr Palmer’s firearms licence was not based on a presumption of guilt but merely as a result of the fact that he had been charged with an offence of violence. It was submitted that it was not in the public interest that Mr Palmer should hold a firearms licence at this time. 

6. It was submitted that Mr Palmer could continue in his employment as the business in which he was employed was a multi-purpose business.  Mr Palmer had been employed at the business for some 12 months prior to obtaining his firearms licence and he must have performed roles other than handling or having access to firearms. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the submissions made by Mr Palmer that his interests will be affected in the event that a stay of the decision is not made.  It is probable that his employment will be at jeopardy if he cannot fulfil the full extent of his current duties which involve handling firearms. 

2. The Tribunal accepts the submissions made by the respondent that the suspension is not based on a presumption of guilt but is an action designed by statute to achieve the objects of the Weapons Act 1990 which impose strict requirements on licences authorising possession of firearms for public safety reasons.     

3. The question to be determined in this application is how the Tribunal should respond to the disparate interests of the applicant and the public at a time when the outcome of the charge laid against the applicant is not known. 

4. The Tribunal is guided by the statutory principles 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. 

5. That legislative system holds licensees accountable for their actions and this accountability includes suspending licences if there is a perceived need to ensure public safety.   The interest of the individual must in this case be subordinate to the interest of public safety as set out in the principles in the Weapons Act 1990. 

6. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it is desirable in this case to make an order to stay the operation of the decision under review.  The application for a stay of the decision of the respondent made on 10 March 2010 is dismissed.