Riley v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing
[2023] QCAT 178
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Riley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 178
PARTIES:
DARREN LEE RILEY (applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
GAR058-22
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
20 May 2023
HEARING DATE:
2 May 2023
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Olding
ORDERS:
The decision under review is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – REVOCATION, CANCELLATIONS OR SURRENDER – whether applicant fit and proper person to hold firearms licence – where applicant’s membership of gun club cancelled – where applicant sent or posted abusive communications
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10, s 10B
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Senior Sergeant DM Ayscough
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this case about?
The applicant, Mr Riley, has applied for review of the decision of Queensland Police Service – Weapons licensing to revoke his firearms licence.
Issue for determination
The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether Mr Riley is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. In deciding this issue, the Tribunal must consider:
(a)Mr Riley’s mental fitness;
(b)whether Mr Riley has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence that he knew is false or misleading in a material particular;
(c)the public interest.[1]
[1]Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), ss 10, 10B.
Background
Mr Riley gave evidence, which I accept, that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) following a horrific incident some years ago in which he sustained substantial burns to his body. As a consequence, he is not employed and receives a disability pension.
Prior to the circumstances leading to suspension of his firearms licence, Mr Riley enjoyed shooting at a shooting range and also from time to time shooting deer and other wildlife.
Failure to disclose PTSD in application for licence
Mr Riley did not disclose treatment for PTSD in his application for a licence. Mr Riley gave evidence, which I accept, that he is not currently receiving any treatment for mental illness. He also says he has never received such treatment.
While he may not have perceived it to be treatment, Mr Riley must have at least discussed PTSD with his GP, since he stated that his GP said attendance at the range would be a very good idea in the context of his rehabilitation. He also seemed to confirm that his entitlement to a disability pension stemmed from both his physical injuries from the incident referred to above and the PTSD.
However, Mr Riley emphasised in his oral testimony what he perceives to be a stigma attached to PTSD. Specifically, a false perception that those suffering PTSD are prone to or at risk of violence. Mr Riley’s symptoms as he described them related to difficulties in coping with crowds and public places. He does not see himself as a violent person or at risk of violent behaviour, and indeed there is no evidence that he has conducted himself in a violent fashion.
I accept Mr Riley’s explanation of why he did not disclose his PTSD. In saying that, I do not encourage or condone failure to make full medical disclosures in applications for firearms licences which is obviously a serious matter. Rather, it is the case that other concerning matters as outlined below carry more weight in my view in the context of this matter.
Alleged behaviour at shooting range
In July 2021, QPS received correspondence from the shooters association for the range Mr Riley had been attending that it could no longer support Mr Riley as a financial member. This was said to be due to concerns that he “refuses to follow directions or instructions from Range Officers, creating constant disharmony on the firing line/range”. The branch concluded that it “no longer has any Range Officers who feel safe to conduct any range duties should [Mr Riley] be in attendance on our Range.”
The association’s decision to exclude Mr Riley followed complaints from members resulting in a unanimous vote of members in attendance at the relevant branch general meeting.
Executives of the association gave evidence at the hearing. It is clear that there is a history of accusations, denials and counteraccusations between Mr Riley and members and officials. However, the Tribunal did not hear from members who witnessed the alleged behaviour and voted for his exclusion.
Mr Riley denies that he conducted himself inappropriately. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not in a position to, nor is it my role, to adjudicate regarding this controversy.
Accordingly, though I find that Mr Riley was excluded from membership of the association, following accusations of inappropriate conduct leaving members feeling unsafe when Mr Riley was in attendance, I make no findings regarding the truthfulness of those accusations. For the reasons that follow, it is not necessary to do so for the purposes of this review.
Abusive communications
Concerning examples of abusive and threatening communications from Mr Riley are in evidence.
One arose in the course of the current proceeding. The respondent’s “QCAT Support Officer” emailed Mr Riley in these terms:
Good morning Mr Riley
I refer to the attached directions and more specifically to direction 1.
Please note that the respondent has not received a copy of the extension of time application that was due on 17 January 2022.
Could you please provide a copy of the extension of time application as a matter of urgency to avoid further delays in your matter.
Kind regards
Mr Riley’s response runs to some 14 paragraphs. It contains foul language, accusations and threats. The extract below gives an indication of the flavour of the response:
look at you (sic) fucking records cunt! on the correspondence sent out via post was there any directs other than papers to be served on the other party? no so stop fucking me over and behaving in a corrupt abusive manner!!!!
stop your harassment and you fuckup or I will see you in small claims!!!!
Mr Riley gave evidence that he mistakenly thought the email to which he responded came from the Tribunal, rather than QPS - Weapons Licensing. That makes Mr Riley’s response to the rather benign request all the more concerning; it could not be said to be contextualised by his earlier interactions with the QPS.
More concerning, though, is a communication directed by Mr Riley to the office of the Attorney-General in mid-2020. The communication opens by referring to bankruptcy proceedings and his complaint that he did not owe money to a person who, the context suggests, Mr Riley believes fraudulently petitioned for his bankruptcy. Mr Riley went on to state:
if your government continues its current actions towards me local and state I will fight for freedom and what is mine with my life. I am not a violent person but I know what is right nad (sic) wrong and what has been done to me is WRONG …and I will fight for what is RIGHT. and I cant do that in court and anywhere else because of your corrupt laws and what you have done so …On the day I lose everything is the day i wage WAR…on all government entities at all levels …take what is not yours and I will take all that is yours…not a threat it is a fucking fact…STOP all action towards me and investigate IMMEDIATELY…criminals are born they are made by cunts you the government and courts wrongly ruining peoples lives and take what is not theirs… be fucking careful what you do now …
I have made complaints and tried to defend myself for years and no one will take blame and just point it at someone else … you fix this cunt… no one else but you pieces of fucking shit…this is the last correspondence I send to anyone regarding this matter ….after which you will either respnd and help or you will only see ACTION…
Not surprisingly, this communication resulted in a visit from the police. The officer’s report stated that Mr Riley said he had no intention to engage in any criminal behaviour and was just angry at the time. “He is frustrated but was reasonable with police”. Mr Riley was counselled by the police who concluded that he “seemed remorseful”.
Other matters
Mr Riley does not have any convictions for violent offences. He holds a current Blue Card.
With one exception, it is over 15 years since he has been convicted of any offences aside from driving offences. Given the passage of time, I give little weight to those earlier offences.
The exception – a Commonwealth offence of failing to file a Statement of Affairs – occurred on 28 May 2021 and appears to relate to bankruptcy matters. Conviction for an offence may give rise to concerns regarding a person’s respect for compliance with the law, which is relevant to their fitness to hold a firearms licence.
Mr Riley did not offer any explanation for or testimony regarding the circumstances of this offence. While not irrelevant, it is in my view at the less serious end of the spectrum of offences that could be relevant to a person’s fitness to hold a firearms licence.
Is Mr Riley a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence?
In approaching this question, s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), mandates that I “must” consider the mental fitness of Mr Riley.
The difficulty I face is that, notwithstanding the issue being clearly raised by the QPS who suggested obtaining a medical report, I have no medical evidence upon which to base consideration of Mr Riley’s mental health.
But that does not relieve me of the requirement to consider Mr Riley’s mental fitness. In that regard, I am troubled by the abusive and threatening communications extracted above.
The communication with the QPS, which Mr Riley mistakenly thought was with this Tribunal, is out of all proportion to the issue which apparently provoked it. The communication directed to the Attorney-General is quite threatening.
Mr Riley explained these as “just venting”. He assured the Tribunal he would not act violently and I accept he believes that to be so. I have also taken into account the absence of any history of physical violence.
However, it is fair to say, I believe, that these communications are well outside the normal range of communications even for those dealing with the stress of litigation and significant health and other issues and frustrations such as Mr Riley has experienced. They raise a concern regarding how Mr Riley might react in other circumstances when under pressure.
The answer may be that he would react in a non-violent way in keeping with his apparent history. However, the difficulty is that the communications are of such an extreme nature. They are also consistent with the allegations of irrational behaviour at the shooting range, suggesting a possible pattern of over-reaction to stress or frustration.
I accept that Mr Riley regards this conduct as mere venting. But actions have consequences. Venting in this extreme way has the consequence that I am unable to be satisfied, in the absence of medical evidence, that Mr Riley’s mental health is such that it is in the public interest for him to be permitted to hold a firearms licence.
If Mr Riley reacts in such an extreme way to the relatively benign request he understood to have come from the Tribunal, how can I be satisfied, without an expert opinion, that he would not react in a more extreme way if he were to experience more severe frustration in the future? It may be the case that Mr Riley would not react violently or otherwise in a way that is inappropriate for a person permitted to possess firearms. But I cannot be satisfied of this on the evidence before me.
Accordingly, I am unable to be satisfied Mr Riley is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. It follows that the decision under review to revoke his licence must be confirmed.
0
0
0