Pivotto v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing

Pivotto, the applicant, brought proceedings against the Queensland Police Service, the respondent, challenging the revocation of their firearms licence. The applicant was charged with a traffic infringement and fined for speeding. In a letter to the police, the applicant sought to challenge the charge and fine, using language consistent with sovereign citizen ideologies. The police subsequently revoked the applicant’s firearms licence, asserting that the ideologies espoused in the letter indicated that it was not in the public interest for the applicant to retain a firearms licence. The court was required to determine whether the holding of such ideologies alone warranted the revocation of a firearms licence, the meaning of ‘fit and proper person’ and ‘public interest’ in this context, and whether the applicant was a real risk to public and individual safety.

The court considered the nature of the discretion to revoke a firearms licence and whether there was a real prospect of the applicant misusing a weapon, such that the licence should be revoked. The court concluded that the mere holding of sovereign citizen ideologies did not necessarily indicate that the applicant was a real risk to public and individual safety. The court found that more was required before the discretion to revoke a firearms licence could be exercised, and that there was no real prospect of the applicant misusing a weapon. The court also held that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

The court set aside the respondent’s decision to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence, finding that the respondent had not considered all of the relevant information before making its decision. The court found that the respondent’s decision was unreasonable because it was based on an incorrect understanding of the law and failed to take into account all of the relevant information. The court found that the respondent had not considered whether the applicant was a real risk to public and individual safety and had not considered the meaning of ‘fit and proper person’ and ‘public interest’ in this context.

The court made an order setting aside the respondent’s decision to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence. The court did not make any orders in relation to the applicant’s traffic infringement or fine.