Shaxson v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch

In the matter of Shaxson v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch, the applicant, John James Shaxson, sought to appeal the decision of the respondent, Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch, to deny his application for a Category H weapons licence. Mr Shaxson, a primary producer with experience in trapping feral animals, applied for the licence to humanely euthanase trapped feral dogs on his 604-hectare rural property. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Mr Shaxson had a genuine occupational requirement for a concealable weapon, specifically a handgun, to trap and euthanase feral dogs.

The court examined the evidence presented by Mr Shaxson, including the rough and inaccessible terrain of his property, the difficulties he faced in carrying his current rifle, and his belief that a handgun would be more effective and safer. The court also considered documents provided by the respondent that recommended the use of smaller calibre rifles and shotguns for euthanasing trapped dogs. The court concluded that while Mr Shaxson's current weapons licences and permitted weapons were adequate for his occupational needs, his preference for a handgun did not establish a necessity for it. The court found that the difficulties he experienced with carrying his rifle could be addressed by alternative methods and that the potential for ricochet was not a valid reason to require a handgun.

The court ultimately confirmed the decision to refuse Mr Shaxson’s application for a Category H licence, finding that he did not demonstrate a necessary occupational requirement for a handgun. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that weapon possession is subordinate to public and individual safety, and Mr Shaxson's current weapons were sufficient to meet his occupational needs.