Scott Andrew Mann v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing - [2023] QCAT 126

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Scott Andrew Mann v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 126

PARTIES:

SCOTT ANDREW MANN

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR283–21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

3 February 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

1. The decision of the Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing dated 25 March 2021 is confirmed.

2. The Application to review a decision filed on 22 April 2021 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – REVOCATION, CANCELLATION OR SURRENDER - where applicant was in possession of the silencer in Category R weapons – where applicant was not licenced for a Category R weapon – where applicant had been convicted of an offence against law in Queensland involving the use carriage or possession of a weapon – where the applicant contravened a condition of the licence – whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a license – where domestic violence orders had been made and the breaches of that order – whether it is in the public interest for the applicants license to be revoked.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10, s 10A, s 10B, s 24, s 29(1)(b), s 29(1)(c), s 29(1)(d)

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11 at p.56

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Mr Catanzaro, Solicitor.

Respondent:

Sgt D Ayscough

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 25 March 2021 an Authorised Officer of the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (“QPS”) revoked the firearms license number 26571827 of Scott Andrew Mann.
The decision to revoke the firearms license was made as the Authorised Officer was satisfied that Scott Andrew Mann was no longer a fit or proper person to hold a license due to his having committed an offence against a law in force in Queensland involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon. The Authorised Officer was also satisfied that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a license due to it not being in the public interest.
On 22 April 2021 Scott Andrew Mann (“the applicant”) filed an application to review the decision made on 25 March 2021 by QPS. The applicant sought to overturn the decision of QPS and to reinstate his firearms license.

Background

The applicant was born on 31 March 1968 and was aged 53years at the time of the revocation of his firearms license.
The applicant operates and manages a real estate business and employs sales and administrative staff to assist him. He says that his family is third generation real estate agents.
The applicant also conducts a primary production business managing cattle properties in partnership with his mother. He says he is a third generation primary producer and had been working in the cattle industry for about 30 years. Subsequent to the decision by QPS to revoke his firearms license he signed an agreement on 23 September 2021 to purchase 150 head of mixed cattle from his mother for $200,000.
The applicant resides on a cattle breeding and fattening property of approximately 63.16 ha. He has held a weapons license since he was 18 years of age.
In early 2011 the applicant had a relationship breakdown with his then partner and a Temporary Protection Order was made against him in the local Magistrates Court on 7 February, 2011. He says he had no legal representation and agreed to the order without admission thinking it was cheaper and easier. Condition 3 of the Temporary Protection Order stated;
the respondent is prohibited from having or attempting to have any contact (including by any means of communication) either directly or indirectly with the aggrieved.
On 7 February 2011 a Senior Constable served the order on the applicant and explained to him the conditions of the order at that time.
Subsequently on 15 February 2021 the aggrieved attended at a suburban Police Station and complained that she had received the following communications from the applicant;
(a)At 6:24 pm on 11 February 2011 the aggrieved had received a text message from the applicant’s telephone number;
(b)At about 6:24 pm on 11 February 2021 the aggrieved received four text messages originally sent to the aggrieved’s friend which requested that the friend forward the messages to the aggrieved. The messages were forwarded to the aggrieved
(c)At 9:42 am on 14 February 2011 the aggrieved had received a text message from the applicant’s telephone number;
(d)Also at about 9:42 am on 14 February 2011 the aggrieved received two emails from an email address of the applicant sent to her work and personal email addresses;
(e)Approximately 2:15 pm on 14 February 2011 the aggrieved received at her workplace six red roses accompanied by a card in which the sender referenced them as being from “your man”;
(f)On 14 February 2011 the aggrieved received an email message from the email address of the applicant;
(g)The applicant had left voice messages identifying himself and stating that he was aware that it was in contravention of the condition of the Temporary Protection Order;
On Sunday, 20 March 2011 the applicant attended the local Police Station and was interviewed in connection with the above complaints. During the interview the applicant acknowledge that he had received a copy of the Order and that the conditions had been explained to him and that he understood them. He also stated he had contacted the aggrieved by telephone and that he knew it was in contravention of the Order. He was served with a notice to appear in the local Magistrates Court on 21 April 2011 on charges that he had contravened the Temporary Protection Order.
On 21 April 2011 at the local Magistrates Court the applicant was found guilty of charges of breach of the Temporary Protection Order and was fined $500. In default of payment of the fine, a prison term of five days was ordered the and he was given one month to pay the fine. No conviction was recorded.
These events in 2011 resulted in the applicants then firearms licence being revoked and he was without a license until 2015.
From 2015 the applicant regained his firearms licence.
On 20 March 2019 the applicant was requested to attend a local property to help clear out the personal effects of a deceased person and to prepare the property for sale. He says that he was informed that police had already attended the property and collected rifles and ammunition that had belonged to the deceased and stored in a gun safe. However, after cleaning the property one of the children of the deceased gave him a silencer for safekeeping as he was the only person with a gun safe. He says that as the police had already taken weapons from the deceased’s property;
I mistakenly thought that I could store the silencer as it must’ve been considered as an “antique” and not a “Category R” weapon. I kept it in my gun safe in an abundance of caution.
After my research on the GSA Bold Spot Silencer, it seems that it was first produced in around 1950 and stopped in around 1993. Meaning that the silencer is rather older and between 28 to 71 years old. I note that this silencer is a threaded silencer which means it can only be fitted to a rifle which has the threads carved into the barrel. As the police accepted during my sentence, none of my rifles have such threads which means that the silencer cannot be attached to any of my weapons nor was it ever attached to one in the past. I never had any intention to use the silencer.
In about January 2020 the applicant says he ended a “long-term relationship” with his then partner. The applicant was accused by the former partner of Domestic Violence which he says included “many false accusations one of which included mental health”. The applicant denied these allegations.
On 21 January 2020 the local Magistrates Court made a Temporary Protection Order against the applicant.
On 22 January 2020 he took a rifle with him to patrol cattle on his rural property while looking for feral pests. He says he stored the rifle in a grey carry case. While looking for feral pests, he received a call to come to town urgently to meet with a potential client for his real estate business. He returned to his home on the property and placed the grey carry case, containing the rifle and ammunition, in his gun safe but omitted to remove the ammunition from the rifle magazine or to separately store the rifle, magazine and ammunition in the gun safe. He says;
with the benefit of hindsight, I must’ve also thought I had fired all my bullets and did not realise there was one left.
Later that day he says he was contacted by the local police to arrange a meeting at his premises to serve a Domestic Violence Application and documents on him.
The Police “Court Brief” says at 10:30 am on 22 January 2020 police attended the residence of the applicant and served the Domestic Violence Application and Temporary Protection Order. After explaining that paperwork, the police officers attending were required to execute a revocation of his weapons and his weapons license. The “Court Brief” then states;
The defendant provided access to his weapons storage area located in his laundry. Upon executing the weapons revocation, police located a Savage Arms 340E Bolt Action, Centre Fire, 222 Rifle in a grey case. The grey case contained the rifle, a magazine containing live .222 rounds and the bolt. The defendant was in the room at the time and he stated, “I’m Sorry”. He was then asked to leave the room while police cleared the weapon to make sure the weapon was safe.
A short time later, in the same gun safe and located in the compartment above the rifle storage section police located a GSA Bold Spot Silencer. This item was recorded and seized. A silencer is a Category R weapon which the defendant was not lawfully authorised or permitted to possess.
The weapons, weapons license and the GSA Bold Spot Silencer were then removed by the police and taken to the local police station. It is said that because of Covid 19 restrictions several months later the applicant was given the opportunity to be formally interviewed by police about these matters but he declined and refused a recorded interview.
On 24 November 2020 the Domestic Violence Application came on for hearing in the local Magistrates Court. The applicant defended these proceedings. The hearing of the Application took two (2) days. The Magistrates Court dismissed the Domestic Violence Application.
On 7 December 2020 the applicant was given a notice to appear in the local Magistrates Court in February, 2021, on the following charges arising from events at the applicant’s rural property when police attended on 22 January, 2020;
(a)failed to securely store small arms ammunition and power device cartridges and firearms in different parts of a secured area; and
(b)unlawful possession of weapons Category R weapon.
On 12 January 2021 police served on the applicant a notice that his firearms licence to 6571827 was suspended on grounds that he was no longer a fit or proper person to hold a license due to his current mental illness and due to it not being in the public interest for him to hold such a licence. At that stage Weapons Licensing records indicated that three (3) weapons were registered to the applicant and which were being held at the local police station.
The notice of suspension requested the applicant to provide the following medical report to enable his current suitability to continue to be the holder of a license;
it is requested you provide a medical report issued by a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist which outlines your present suitability to continue to hold, possess and/or use firearms held under your license/s considering the need to ensure public an individual safety.
On 22 January 2021 the applicants solicitors sent a letter to QPS attaching a medical report. Those solicitors also said that their client instructions were he has no concerns regarding his mental health and is surprised by the suspension notice.
The attached medical report dated 18 January 2021 says that that the medical practitioner had known the applicant for eight years and was aware of the previous history of relationship problems over recent years and then stated;
I have assessed Scott today and it is my opinion that he is not currently suicidal or homicidal. He is of sound mind and is aware of the consequences of his actions. I base this on a detailed assessment of his history and mental state. I understand the weapons involved include a shot gun and handguns which he uses around his rural property.
On 10 February 2021 the two firearm charges came before the local Magistrates Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to the charges. He was fined $350 with 28 days to pay the fine. No conviction was recorded. The applicant says that he pleaded guilty as it was the first opportunity for him to accept responsibility for his actions. He submitted that there were multiple mitigating factors including the ammunition found in relation to the charge was found locked inside his gun safe.
On 25 March 2021 QPS issued a Notice of Revocation of the applicant’s firearm licence number 6571827.
On 28 March 2021 police served the applicant with a Notice of Revocation that his firearms licence was revoked on the grounds that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence having committed an offence against the law in Queensland involving the use, carriage discharge or possession of a weapon. The revocation of the license was also made on the basis that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a license due to it not being in the public interest.
On 22 April 2021 the applicant made application to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) to review the decision of QPS made on 25 March 2021 to revoke his firearms licence. The applicant maintains that he is a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence. He believes the basis on which his firearms licence was revoked was incorrect by relying on his past relationship breakdowns, mental health allegations and the weapons charges from 2020. He maintains that he is a person of high character and reputation. Each of these matters will be considered below by reference to the relevant legislation and the facts of these proceedings.

Tribunal’s Review Jurisdiction

The Application by the applicant requires the Tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction.[1]
[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 19.
That jurisdiction requires the Tribunal to decide the review in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) and the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld).[2] The Tribunal is to perform the functions conferred by both acts and has all the functions of the QPS for the reviewable decision being reviewed.[3] The Tribunal must hear and decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[4]
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 19(a).
[3]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 19(b) & (c).
[4]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 20.

Power to Revoke a Firearms Licence

The Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) provides that a licence may be revoked if the Authorised Officer if one or more of several criteria are satisfied. The criteria which is relevant here includes the following;[5]
(a)the licensee has been convicted of an offence against any law in force in Queensland or elsewhere involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon;
(b)the licensee has contravened a condition, participation condition or special condition of the licence;
(c)the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
[5]Weapons Act 1990 s 29(1)(b), (c) and (d).
In determining whether a person is fit and proper to hold a licence, the Authorised Officer is to have regard to s 10B of the Weapons Act which contains the following considerations relevant to these proceedings;[6]
(a)the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
(b)whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and
(c)the public interest.
[6]Weapons Act 1990 s 10B(1)(a), (b) & (d).
Each of these considerations will be discussed individually below.

Is There a Conviction for an Offence Involving a Weapon (s 29(1)(b))

The QPS Notice of Revocation dated 25 March 2021 states the applicant has been convicted an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon.
The QPS rely upon the applicant’s plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court on 10 February 2021 to the following offences;
(a)unlawful possession of weapons Category D/H/R weapon; and
(b)failure to securely store small arms ammunition and power device cartridges and firearms in different parts of a secured area.
The applicant was found guilty and was fined $350 with no conviction recorded.
Notwithstanding that no conviction was recorded, the Magistrates Court’s accepted the applicant’s plea of guilty to both charges and he was convicted of those offences.
The Tribunal finds that in terms of s 29(1)(b) of the Weapons Act the applicant has been convicted of an offence against a law in Queensland relating to the use, carriage or possession of a weapon.
That conviction enlivens the Authorised Officer’s discretion in s29 of the Weapons Act to revoke the applicant’s firearms licence. Whether that discretion should be exercised depends upon the facts and circumstances of the offence.
Those facts and circumstances include;
(a)the applicant retained a silencer from 20 March 2019 which is a weapon in Category R when he was not licensed to do so;
(b)the applicant’s explanation is that he mistakenly thought he could store the silencer as it must have been considered as an “antique” and not a “Category R” weapon. He says he kept it in the gun safe out of an abundance of caution. He says he never had any intention to use the silencer.
(c)Category R weapons include a list of the highly dangerous weapons such as machine-gun, a firearm capable of firing 50 calibre BMG cartridge ammunition, antipersonnel gas, antipersonnel device, hand grenade, rocket launcher and other weapons as well as a silencer intended to be used for reducing the sound caused by discharging a firearm;
(d)the applicant’s explanation for not securely storing his firearm and ammunition on 22 January 2021 was that he was urgently called into town to meet with a potential client for his real estate business and in his haste he failed to secure the weapons and ammunition.
(e)He also says that he did not separate his rifle from the ammunition into separate compartments in the firearms safe as he considers, with the benefit of hindsight, he must he have fired all his bullets and did not realise that a bullet was left in the rifle.
As for the applicant’s explanation for possession of the silencer, it is clear that the weapon had not recently come into his possession but he had had it for some time since March 2019. In that time he treated it as a weapon and stored it in his gun safe. While it required a rifle barrel with a thread it is nevertheless the case that the silencer was otherwise in working condition. While the applicant says he regarded it as an antique with his research showing that it was manufactured sometime between 1950 and 1993 there is no evidence from any independent or expert source that the silencer was in fact an antique. Even if that evidence had been forthcoming nevertheless the applicant retained a Category R weapon when he would have known, or should have known, that he was not licensed for that category of weapon. Keeping the silencer in a gun safe out of an abundance of caution demonstrates he knew that he was in possession of a weapon for which he was not licenced and not entitled to retain.

The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept the applicant’s explanation when he treated the silencer as a weapon kept in his gun safe. He should have known, at least, that his possession of that weapon was not covered by his firearms licence. Weapons Licensing records indicate that the applicant had registered six (6) weapons which did not include the silencer. He failed to do anything about that situation other than to retain it in his gun safe until located by police on 22 January 2020, approximately ten (10) months after he first came in possession of that weapon.
The applicant’s explanation for his failure to properly secure and store his firearm and ammunition on 22 January 2020 was a situation where he acted in haste to attend his commercial real estate business interests. This demonstrated a preference to attend to the business of a potential client ahead of his obligations to properly store his rifle and ammunition as required the Weapons Act. It appears from his explanation that he was intent on giving priority to attending to the real estate enquiry in town rather than properly storing his firearm and ammunition. His explanation, albeit with hindsight, that he must have thought he had fired all bullets from the rifle when in fact that was not the case demonstrates carelessness in his storage of weapons. Given his obligations to properly store his weapons the evidence discloses that he failed to examine his rifle to see what ammunition, if any, was in the rifle or in its magazine. A proper and prudent approach to the safe and secure storage of his weapons and examination would be to ensure that all ammunition had been removed from the rifle. Why he did not do this is unexplained on the evidence other than the by the fact that in hindsight he thought he’d fired all bullets and acted in haste responding to the urgent call to meet with a potential client. The applicant must have known that leaving his rifle with the magazine in the grey carry case was not an appropriate or acceptable way of securing and storing his weapon.
The Tribunal finds that in respect of his failure to properly secure and store his firearms that he was acting carelessly, in haste and the preferred to attend to his commercial real estate interests ahead of obligations to properly store and secure his rifle and ammunition.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the whole of the evidence that the applicant has been convicted of an offence against the law in Queensland involving the use, carriage or possession of a weapon.

Has the Applicant Contravened a Condition of his Firearms Licence (s 29(1)(c).

The QPS Notice of Revocation dated 25 March 2021 states that the Authorised Officer was satisfied that the applicant had contravened a condition of his licence.
The licensee must have an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapons the possession for which he is authorised by the licence.[7] Where there is a change in the licensees possession or use of a weapon, then within fourteen (14) days of the happening of that event the licensee must advise an officer in charge of police of that change and provide particulars of the change.[8] A person must not, without reasonable excuse, possess or retain a restricted item.[9]
[7] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s10(2)(b) & s 10A(1).
[8]Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 24(1) &(2)(b)(i).
[9] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 67.
The facts and circumstances referred to earlier establish that that the applicant has contravened a condition, participation condition or special condition of his license. The possession of the silencer from 20 March 2019 to January 2020 is sufficient by itself establish a breach of the relevant conditions. The applicant did not report his possession of the silencer to the local officer in charge of police within 14 days of 20 March 2019. Similarly, the facts relating to his storage of his firearms and ammunition on 22 January 2020 would likewise result in a contravention of the terms of his license.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has contravened a condition of his license from at least early April 2019 to January 2020 and was again in contravention the terms of his license on 22 January 2020.

Is the Applicant a Fit and Proper Person to hold a Firearms Licence (s 29(1)(d))

The considerations necessary for an assessment whether a person is a “Fit and Proper Person” are set out in section 10B of the Weapons Act. The relevant considerations in these proceedings are;[10]
(a)the mental and physical fitness of the applicant; and
(b)whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the applicant; and
(c)the public interest.
[10] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s10B(1)(a),(b) & (d).
The allegations relating to the mental health of the applicant appear to have arisen as a result of a Domestic Violence Application made by a former partner in January 2020. This Application was dismissed by the Magistrates Court on 24 November 2020. There is no evidence supporting this allegation and there is no evidence that the allegation was accepted by the Magistrates Court. The problem with this allegation is that it has never been proved.
QPS persisted with the mental health allegation in their Notice of Suspension dated 11 January, 2021the following information was sought of the applicants Firearms Licence. The accompanying documentation with that Notice said to enable a determination of the applicant’s suitability to continue to hold a firearms licence the following information was sought;
it is requested you provide a medical report issued by a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist which outlines your present suitability to continue to hold, possess and/or use firearms held under your license/s considering the need to ensure public and individual safety.
That medical report was to provide sufficient details of any mental/physical health condition and the applicants level of insight into that condition.
On 22 January 2021 the applicant’s solicitors sent a letter to QPS attaching a medical report dealing with their client’s mental health. Those solicitors stated;
In addition and for your consideration, our Client wishes to clearly state that he has had no concerns regarding his mental health and is surprised by the suspension notice.
Our Client understands that the allegations of self-harm between August and November, 2019 as contained in your letter, stem from baseless allegations by his former partner…… which also formed part of her unsuccessful DV Protection Order filed against our Client on 21 January 2020.
The attached doctors medical report dated 18 January 2021 said that the applicant had been known to the doctor in a professional capacity for eight (8) years and amongst other matters the report went on to state;
I am aware of the previous history of relationship problems over the last recent years. I have assessed him today and it is my opinion that he is not currently suicidal or homicidal. He is of sound mind and is aware of the circumstances of his actions. I base this on a detailed assessment of his history and mental state. I understand the weapons involved include a shot gun and handguns which he uses around his rural property.
Subsequently on 25 March 2021 QPS issued a Notice of Revocation of the applicant’s firearms licence. The local police officers were requested to serve the Notice on the applicant and were also advised that Weapons Licensing records indicated six (6) weapons were registered to the applicant, but these were already held at the local police station.
At the Tribunal Hearing there was no evidence to contradict the contents of the medical report nor the instructions given by the applicant to his solicitors. There was no evidence available from which any conclusion could reasonably have been drawn and that the applicant was in some way affected by mental and physical unfitness to hold a license.
The Tribunal finds that there was no evidence available to determine that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence by reason of any issue affecting his mental or physical fitness.
The criteria relating to whether a domestic violence order has been made involves some short consideration of the Domestic Violence Application brought against the applicant in the local Magistrates Court in about January 2020. However, as has already been discussed, that Domestic Violence Application was dismissed by the Magistrates Court on 24 November 2020. Those facts and circumstances are accordingly of no relevance in considering the application to review the decision of QPS made on 25 March 2021.
What is relevant however is the Domestic Violence Protection Order made by the Magistrates Court on 9 March 2011 and the subsequent breaches resulting in a conviction in the Magistrates Court on the 21 April 2011. These facts and circumstances have already been discussed above.
While the applicant says that he agreed to the Protection Orders being made in March 2011 thinking it was cheaper and easier to do, nevertheless he was found guilty in April 2011 of multiple breaches of that Order and a fine of $500.00 was imposed. No conviction was recorded.
The evidence establishes that when the applicant was interviewed by police in connection with the multiple breaches he admitted he had previously been served with a copy of that Order when the conditions had been explained to him and he said he understood those conditions.
While the applicant pleaded guilty to the multiple breaches, the above facts and circumstances do not disclose that he had any reasonable cause or defence to the multiple breaches of the Order.
These breaches of the Order in 2011 suggests that the applicant gave preference to his own interests in having contact with the aggrieved rather than to obey the law and abide by the conditions of the Order. While those events were approximately ten (10) years prior to the revocation of his license that preference for his own interests was displayed again on 22 January 2020 when he preferred the commercial interests of his real estate business to his obligations to safely secure his rifle and ammunition in the gun safe at his residence.
The evidence establishes that there is a Domestic Violence Order in 2011 with multiple breaches of that Order occurring shortly afterwards. While that Order was made more than 10 years ago, nevertheless the Tribunal is satisfied that those facts and circumstances are matters to be taken into account in any decision involving whether his license should be revoked.
So far as the public interest is concerned, the applicant says he is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. He contends that the Authorised Officer should have been satisfied that he will not repeat any of his actions and that the general community will have confidence that he will not repeat his firearm offences again.
The applicant says he is of high character and reputation as has been evidenced by a number of matters including that he is approximately 53years of age and has had a long-standing involvement in the Rural Fire Service which resulted in his been granted an Australian Day Award and a letter of support from the then New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, for his contribution and service to the NSW Bushfires 2019 – 2020. He also has multiple character references which been supplied in the course of the Tribunal Hearing.
QPS contends that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. It is contended that they are entitled to revoke his firearms licence as they were satisfied that;
(a)the applicant had contravened a condition of the firearms licence;
(b)the applicant was charged on 22 January 2020 with
(i)      unlawful possession of weapons in category D/LH/R; and
(ii)      that he failed to securely store small arms ammunition and power device cartridges and firearms in different parts of a secured area;
(iii)      to which he pleaded guilty and was fined $350
(c)that the applicant was a respondent to a Domestic Violence Protection Order made on 9 March 2011 and was then charged in April 2011 with a breach of that Order which resulted in his being found guilty and fined $500.00. In determining whether it is in the public interest for a person to retain a licence Authorises Officer takes into consideration criminal history and all available information.
QPS submits that the Weapons Act 1990 does not list factors an Authorised Officer must take into account when deciding whether it is in the public interest to issue or refuse a licence. QPS refers to case law stating the principles that apply the public interest requirement and various examples of human conduct which is accepted for good order of society and the well-being of the public. It also submits that the assessment of whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence was discussed in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond by Toohey and Gaudron JJ where they stated;[11]
the expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.
[11](1990) HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11 at p.56.
The context in these proceedings is whether the applicant is a “fit and proper person” for a licensed firearm. With the issue of a firearm’s licence, an individual has to comply with the principles and objects of the Weapons Act 1990 which require;[12]
(a)weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;
(b)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;
(c)the object is to prevent the misuse of weapons; and
(d)ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.
[12]Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 3 & 4.
A close friend of the applicant has provided a reference dated 25 January 2021 which states the applicant to be of strong and sound character, a hard-working farmer and real estate agent, a dedicated volunteer in the Rural Fire Service and a devoted father and loving son. The applicant’s friend says that he is extremely confident of the applicant’s ability to handle and store firearms in accordance with the Queensland Weapons Act. That reference while very praiseworthy of the applicant does not deal with the failure to properly store and secure his rifle on 22 January 2020 or his choice to prefer his commercial interests to obligations under the Weapons Act.
Another friend with a professional and personal relationship with the applicant has provided an undated reference stating that the applicant is a strong advocate of gun safety and the friend says he would have made comment to the applicant if he had ever seen inappropriate storage, transporting or use of the firearms. His only comment in respect of the charges against the applicant from 22 January 2020 is to say the applicant expressed his remorse for making these errors of judgement. While it is not possible to predict whether such breaches of obligations under the Weapons Act 1990 will, or will not, occur in the future, the evidence nevertheless demonstrates in 2011 and again in 2020 the applicant showed his disposition for the advancement of his own interests in preference to his legal obligations.
The applicant is registered as the holder of six (6) weapons kept on a rural area of 63.16 ha. That locality appears to be subdivided into a number of small landholdings some of which have slightly more land area than the applicant’s property. There is a significant community interest to be considered in the immediate area of his property and in the wider community area. It is necessary to have regard to the safety of individuals within those communities. Those individuals would not necessarily have confidence in persons within that community area who are licensed to have firearms but who have demonstrated that on occasions they exercise an option in favour of their own preferences and needs over and above their obligations under the law including the need to securely store firearms in a secured manner.
The Tribunal in weighing up any entitlement of the applicant to a firearms licence and the public interest in that context is not satisfied that the applicant’s interests should be preferred over the public interest of individuals in his community.
The Tribunal finds, for the reasons set out above, that in the facts and circumstances set out above, it is in the public interest the applicant should not have his firearms licence returned to him.

Conclusions

The Tribunal is satisfied in terms of section 29(1)(b) and (c) for the reasons set out above that;
(a)the applicant has been convicted of an offence against a law in force in Queensland involving the use, carriage, or possession of a weapon; and
(b)the applicant has contravened a condition, participation condition or special condition of the licence; and
(c)the facts and circumstances set out above establish a proper basis for the Authorised Officer to exercise the discretion under s 29 of the Weapons Act to issue a Notice of Revocation dated 25 March 2021, to revoke the applicant’s licence.

The Tribunal is satisfied in terms of section 29(1)(d) for the reasons set out above that;
(a)the evidence does not establish that there is any mental or physical fitness of the applicant preventing him from being the holder of a licence in terms of section 10B(1)(a) of the Weapons Act;
(b)the evidence does establish that a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued for release conditions imposed against the applicant in terms of section 10B(1)(b) of the Weapons Act;
(c)the evidence does establish that it is in the public interest for the applicants licence be revoked in terms of section 10 B(1)(d) of the Weapons Act;
(d)that in respect of (b) and (c) above, the facts and circumstances set out above establish a proper basis for the Authorised Officer to exercise the discretion under s 29 of the Weapons Act to issue a Notice of Revocation dated 25 March, 2021, to revoke the applicant’s licence.
That by reason of the matters found by the Tribunal in respect of s 29 of the Weapons Act above, the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence in terms of the Weapons Act.
For the reasons set out the above, the Tribunal confirms the decision of the Authorised Officer to issue a Notice of Revocation dated 25 March, 2021 to revoke the applicants licence. The Tribunal dismisses the Application to review a decision filed on 22 April 2021.