Stretton v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch
[2014] QCAT 57
•17 February 2014
| CITATION: | Stretton v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2014] QCAT 57 |
| PARTIES: | Trevor James Stretton (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR018-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Member Hughes |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 February 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The Application to stay the decision to suspend Trevor James Stretton’s weapons licences is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Weapons – application to review decision to suspend weapons licences – application for stay – impact on business – character – lack of evidence – offences directly contrary to principles and object of Weapons Act – public safety Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 22 Delonga v. Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 206 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this Application about?
Mr Trevor Stretton is a grazier who ultimately wants the Tribunal to review and set aside the Queensland Police Service’s decision to suspend his firearms licence, concealable firearms licence and collector’s licence.
Until the Tribunal reviews QPS’s decision, Mr Stretton has applied to the Tribunal to stay the decision.
The QPS opposes Mr Stretton’s application to stay the decision.
Why does Mr Stretton want a stay?
Mr Stretton claims that the decision to suspend his licences adversely affects his business because he is unable to protect his livestock from wild animals. His property is 500 acres with 300 cattle. He claims that wild dogs have killed three calves and two cows.
Mr Stretton adds that he does not pose a risk to public safety. He notes that he has no criminal convictions and has held a firearms licence since 1994 and a pistol licence since 1967. He adds that he is a “respected member of his community”, serving on committees including the Kilcoy Race Club, The Cattle Council of Australia and the Cattlemen’s Union of Australia.
What does the Queensland Police Service say?
The QPS claims that the suspension is warranted because Mr Stretton has been charged with multiple offences involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon and because of their gravity, it is not in the public interest for Mr Stretton to retain his licence.
The QPS claims that 98 restricted weapons were located on Mr Stretton’s property, including assault rifles, shortened shotguns, pistols and silencers. The QPS also claims that Mr Stretton unlawfully stored a .44 magnum revolver while it was loaded.
The QPS adds that Mr Stretton can hire pest contractors or ask his neighbours to assist with the animals on his property.
What does the law require?
The Tribunal may order a stay of a reviewable decision only if it is desirable having regard to the interests of any person whose interests may be affected, submissions by the decision-maker and the public interest.[1]
[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 22(4).
Mr Stretton claims that his business has been adversely affected by being unable to protect his livestock. However, he has not provided any details of the duration and frequency of any alleged attacks. Although he claims wild dogs killed three calves and two cows, he provides no evidence of when these attacks occurred and the level and number of attacks prior to the suspension of his licences.
Mr Stretton has also not adduced any evidence of other measures he has considered or taken or their viability to prevent attacks. He does not explain why the retention of his firearms licences is the only reasonable measure he could adopt to prevent the alleged attacks.
Although Mr Stretton also refers to his membership of important rural organisations, he adduces no supporting evidence of his good character.
It is therefore difficult to assess Mr Stretton’s character or the impact of the suspension on Mr Stretton’s business in the absence of any material (other than one page of submissions from his solicitors) to support his application.[2]
[2] Delonga v. Queensland Building Services Authority [2011] QCAT 206 at paragraph [5].
Moreover, the public interest is paramount:
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.
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.[3]
[3] Palmer v. Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 149 at
paragraphs [15] and [16].
The principles underlying the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) subordinate weapon possession to the interests of public safety and strict controls.[4] Mr Stretton has been charged with offences against the Act. Although these alleged offences are yet to be proven, they are directly contrary to these principles and strike at the core of the object of the Act – to prevent the misuse of weapons[5]:
It is clear that the Parliament has identified that persons charged with offences against the Act can have their licences suspended despite the general presumption of innocence.[6]
[4] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 3(1).
[5] Ibid 3(2).
[6] Peacock v. Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 102
at paragraph [10].
In the absence of any supporting evidence from Mr Stretton, I am not satisfied that his character and the alleged impact of the suspension on his business outweigh the public interest as enunciated in the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). The alleged offences, if proven, are a direct threat to public safety.
I am therefore not satisfied that the balance of convenience favours a stay given the lack of supporting material provided by Mr Stretton and the significant public safety concerns.
The application for a stay is therefore dismissed.
What are the appropriate Orders?
The appropriate Order is that the Application to stay the decision to suspend Mr Stretton’s weapons licences is dismissed.
0
3
2