Sukaserm v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing - [2025] QCAT 389

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Sukaserm v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 389

PARTIES:

LATANA SUKASERM

(applicant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR140-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

29 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDERS:

The decision of the Respondent made on 1 February 2023 to refuse a weapons licence to the Applicant is upheld and the application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – FIT AND PROPER PERSON – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW –– where the respondent made an application for a weapons licence – where an authorised officer within Weapons Licensing at Queensland Police Service issued a notice of rejection of the application on the basis that it was not considered to be in the public interest – where the authorised officer had regard to the respondent's criminal and traffic offence history and determined that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to be issued a weapons licence – where the respondent filed an application to review that decision where police identified the applicant as not a fit and proper person to hold an occupational gun licence – where proposed use by weapons to reduce feral animals on indigenous native title rural land by indigenous person–where matters stated in or in connection with his application for the licence were false or misleading – significance of making false statements when applying for a licence – where demonstrated lack of understanding of the requirements for safe storage of weapons

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld)
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), s 3(1)(b), s 3(2),

s 10(2)(c), s 11, s 28A

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld)

Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld)

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), s 3(1)(b), s 3(2),
s 10(2)(c), s 11, s 28A

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld)

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33
BIL v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150
CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43
Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93
Humphreys v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 294
Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378
Queensland Police Service v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147

Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330

XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

T Fergusson, QPS

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant made an application dated 22 August 2021 for the issue of a firearms licence pursuant to the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’).
On 1 February 2023, an officer within Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) rejected the application. The reasons given for rejection were that it was considered by the authorised officer that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) as he had stated in or in connection with his application for the licence a false or misleading matter and it was not considered to be in the public interest that he hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons.

The relevant law and whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence

By s 3(2) of the Act, the object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. By s 3(1) of the Act, the principles underlying the Act are 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 and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons.
Relevantly, section 4 of the Act provides:
The object of this Act is to be achieved for firearms by—
(a)     prohibiting the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and automatic and self-loading shotguns except in special circumstances; and
(b)     establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms; and
(c)     requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and
(d)     providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for—
(i)licences authorising possession of firearms; and
(ii)the acquisition and sale of firearms; and
(e)     ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.
By s 10(2)(e) a licence may only be issued to and held by an individual if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and by s 10(2)(f) of the Act has a reason mentioned in section 11 to possess the weapon or category of weapon.
Section 10 of the Act also provides that a licence may only be issued to an individual if the person has, under section 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence and has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence.

Section 11 of the Act lists the "genuine reasons" for possessing a weapon in Queensland, which are necessary to obtain a weapons licence. These include as genuine reasons, sports or target shooting, recreational shooting, an occupational requirement (including for rural purposes), the collection, preservation, or study of weapons, and any other reason prescribed by regulation.
The term ‘fit and proper’ is not defined but the Act does require that certain things be considered, and amongst them is the public interest. The phrase ‘fit and proper person’ in the context of the weapons legislation has been considered by the Tribunal in light of the discussion as to the meaning of that expression by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 (‘Bond’) where it was said at [36]:
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.
In Magarry v QPS Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 (‘Magarry’) the Tribunal considered the description of the meaning of fit and proper person set out in Bond. The learned Senior Member observed that the Act does not list the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether it is in the public interest to revoke a licence, but the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act.
In Magarry, the Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Magarry’s renewal of his firearms licence and revoke his collector’s licence in far more serious circumstances than those arising in the matter before me.
The Senior Member’s decision was confirmed on appeal in QPS v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147 (‘Magarry’). In the reasons on appeal Cullinane AM QC Judicial Member said as follows:
[26] The Act provides for a licensing regime. Section 10B provided for the considerations on any application for the grant renewal etc of a licence. In deciding whether a person is or is any longer fit to hold a licence consideration must be given to the mental and physical fitness of the person, whether there is a risk to public safety and the public interest. Consideration of the concept of “fit and proper person” is found in cases such as Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321.
[27]    The Tribunal approached the matter on the basis of the principles set out in Stower v Smart (2007) QDC 4.
[28]    I, with respect agree that these principles represent the approach which gives proper expression to the principles of the Weapon Act 1990.
[29]    These are as follows:
(a)It is of extreme importance to bear in mind the object of the Act which is stated in s 3(2) to be “to prevent the misuse of weapons”.
(b)The proper exercise of discretion would require the Magistrate to evaluate the evidence of the character of Stower.
(c)The proper exercise of discretion would then lead to the questions “in these circumstances is there any real prospect of Stower misusing his weapons so that his licence should be suspended? Is his right to possess firearms a real risk to public and individual safety?”
[30]     Here the Tribunal has carried out an exercise which involves weighing the considerations militating in favour of and against the Respondent but bearing in mind that all other considerations are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.
In Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634 it was said in relation to examining the historical behaviour of an applicant that:
It is well established on the authorities that irresponsible, uncontrolled, antisocial or behaviour constituting a risk to public safety does not have to be limited to the subject matter of, in this case, the renewal application. Such behaviour exhibited in other areas of an Applicant's interaction with those about him or her may determine whether that person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence applied for.
I adopt and apply those principles to the facts here.
At the time he made his online application for the licence some four years ago, the Applicant had had a significant history of committing admittedly, relatively minor criminal offences, but a considerable history of recorded traffic offences, both in respect of offences for which he was directly charged and required a court appearance, but also where he was issued with traffic infringement notices.
At the ninth page of the online application, which was done online with the assistance of another person, he was asked “have you in Queensland or elsewhere ever been charged with any offence, this includes any traffic and/or criminal offence(s) that resulted in a Court attendance? (Please tick yes even if you were charged but not convicted or a conviction was not recorded).” He answered "Yes" and provided as the details "Failing to stop at a stop sign approximately 15 years ago”.
That question, even if properly answered, would not be particularly informative to someone conducting a review as to whether he was a fit and proper person because it would not necessarily reveal traffic or criminal history, but merely whether a person had been charged and it would not indicate whether a person was convicted. Indeed, they may well have been acquitted or the charges not proceeded with.
When the Applicant answered that question he did not in fact, properly, respond to it because not only did he not mention offences, for which he was required to attend court, except for allegedly failing to stop at a stop sign approximately fifteen years ago, but he failed to identify a very significant number of other court attendances which had in fact resulted in convictions over time. It was also false because he was not convicted of failing to stop at a stop sign approximately 15 years ago. The incident occurred he was referring to occurred in 2007, where he was driving whilst disqualified and when the police saw him driving decided to follow him with the siren operating, but the Applicant accelerated heavily to escape the police and then sought to hide the vehicle in a car port. He was charged and convicted with failing to stop a motor vehicle and fined, as well as convicted of disqualified driving.
One of the stated matters that was considered as relevant to the refusal of the licence was that the conviction of offences, whether recorded or not, relating to charges for criminal and traffic offences was a consideration in deciding whether he was a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
The Respondent submits that this lack of candour and honesty in relation to his history is indicative that he is not a fit and proper person and that he does not comprehend the significance of these convictions. The reasons for refusal of his application listed a full criminal and traffic history which included many matters where no conviction had been recorded.
Considering convictions for offences, whether recorded or not, and treating a failure to disclose that unrecorded convictions as relevant must now be considered in error having regard to what the Court of Appeal decided recently in Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93 (‘XPR’). The Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) (‘CLRO Act’) provides periods after which certain convictions need not be disclosed by a person. Sections 4 and 5 provide limitations on the non-disclosure of convictions or charges.
In in XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1 this Tribunal found that by reason of s 12(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (‘PSA’), the facts and circumstances of an offence in respect of which a court exercises jurisdiction not to record a conviction, could not be taken into account because the legislative regime of the PSA is intended to protect an individual from the stigma attached to a conviction where a sentencing judge or magistrate decided no conviction should be recorded, apart from specific exemptions such as court records, later criminal proceedings and the legitimate performance of the functions of specified authorities.
QCAT further found that the reference in s 10B of the Act to the authorised officer being able to take into account "other things", was not sufficient to operate as a further exception to the operation of s 12(3) of the PSA. QCAT held that when applying s 10B of the Act, regard could not be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction had been recorded, or to the facts and circumstances of those offences. Section 5(2) of the CLRO Act specifically provides that a person should not be required or asked to disclose, and if so required or asked, shall not be obliged to disclose for any purpose, a conviction that is not recorded. That provision was a further protection for the rehabilitative intent of s 12(3) of the PSA.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision and found:
[84] It is clear that the PSA establishes a legislative regime which is intended to protect an individual from the stigma attached to a conviction in respect of which a sentencing judge or magistrate decided no conviction should be recorded. It would be a curious result indeed if parliament intended that no record of a conviction is to be maintained (other than for sentencing and appeal purposes) but a licensing authority that happens to know about it is free to draw upon its own records regarding the facts of the conviction and the facts and circumstances leading to the conviction.
[85] Rather, what parliament has done is to create a prohibition on the recording of nonrecorded convictions, apart from specific carve outs (that is, the courts record, later criminal proceedings and for the legitimate performance of the functions of the department, prosecuting authority or legal representative). If parliament intended for there to be further exceptions, it could have created further exceptions, either in the PSA or in the legislation being applied. It has not done so.
[86] We do not consider that the reference in section 10B to being able to take into account “other things” is sufficient to operate as a further exception to the operation of section 12(3). It does not do so expressly, and it does not do so by necessary implication. To hold otherwise would be to impermissibly traverse the prohibition which flows from section 12(3) of the PSA. In this regard, we agree with the observations made in Grobler v Queensland Police Service.
[87] We therefore conclude that when applying section 10B, regard can not be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded, or the facts and circumstances of those offences.
Since s 5(2) of the CLRO Act specifically provides that a person should not be required or asked to disclose, and if so required or asked, shall not be obliged to disclose for any purpose, a conviction that is not recorded, in my view it is erroneous to treat the failure to disclose such offences as lacking candour or insight.
That is not however the end of the matter since I must decide on proper material whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
His listed traffic history shows he has a long history of driving motor vehicles whilst being disqualified from driving. In the twenty-one years that he has held a driver's licence he has been disqualified from driving for six and a half years in that period and that has mostly occurred because he has driven whilst disqualified. That shows a significant disregard for other road users and the licensing system that requires drivers to be licensed and otherwise authorised to drive on public roads.
In 2006, he was convicted of two offences, one of which was unlicensed driving, and the other was using an unregistered vehicle. He was also convicted a few months later in the same year of more disqualified driving. Four months later, in 2007 he was again convicted of disqualified, and again in February 2008. I accept his evidence that he was going through a difficult period at that time in his life and that these events occurred long ago. But that is not the end of it, because in 2004 and more recently in 2017 he was convicted of low range drink driving offences and received further disqualifications from holding a driver’s licence.
Even since applying for this weapons licence he has received two convictions based upon infringement notices issued to him for speeding. The most significant of these is one that which occurred only two months ago where he was followed by a police vehicle which tracked him as travelling at 118 kilometres per hour on a road which for its entirety had an eighty kilometre per hour speed limit. It was a road with which he was very well familiar because it was the road to his home outside Rockhampton and it was a relatively short road and he would have been well familiar with the speed limit across its length. He says that exceeding the speed limit by 38 kilometres per hour was an oversight that occurred because he was driving an unfamiliar vehicle which was more powerful than the one he was used to. That may be how he came to be travelling so fast however it does not explain how he could have exceeded the speed limit by so much on a short length roadway with which he was so well familiar. At best one could describe this as reckless and showing a lack of insight and judgment. His propensity to demonstrate a lack of judgement in complying with his legal responsibilities is a relevant matter.
His relevant listed criminal history, that is where a conviction was recorded, involves two offences, both of which occurred some two decades ago and are therefore not necessarily indicative of his present character or commitment to abiding the law. One was a liquor related offence which is in my view of no significance. The other, was that mentioned above in 2007, where he was driving whilst disqualified and when the police saw him driving decided to follow him with the siren operating, and he failed to stop, instead he accelerated heavily to escape the police and then sought to hide the vehicle.

I accept that he may well be now reformed in terms of his propensity to engage in such reckless behaviour, however the recent incident of speeding well over the speed limit when driving to his home suggests he still has an inadequate understanding of the responsibilities of holding a licence and the requirements to abide by the law.
Attached to his statement to this Tribunal is a character reference from his direct supervisor at the mine where he works. The reference rather reads like a reference for an employment role, and makes no reference to it being in support of an application to hold a weapons licence. It suggests he is a loyal and dedicated employee, has good interpersonal skills and a safety-oriented approach. The Respondent takes no issue with what is said in that report but it does not however resile from its position that he has not shown himself to be a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
He wants to be able to go hunting with other traditional owners to reduce feral animal numbers and prevent damage to the land which is an honourable enough purpose, however, it is not as if he is the only person who has the capacity to do this. I gained the clear impression that this was really about his capacity to hunt with his friends on the station. No part of that activity would be in any way associated with him deriving his income, which he does working on a mine site west of Rockhampton.
I accept that he is generally a person of good character and the two criminal convictions and traffic history mainly occurred more than a decade ago. Were those the only issues, they would not have been enough to persuade me that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. The QPS submits that the criminal history in and of itself is indicative that he is a character who has been shown to be unwilling to follow strict licencing regimes, and indeed seek to thwart his being detained in circumstances where he had committed driving offences. I am not prepared to find on the evidence that he is presently unwilling to follow strict licencing regimes.

Does the Applicant have an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage, and maintenance of weapons?

It is submitted for the Respondent that it should be inferred that he could not be trusted to comply with the strict firearms regime for use and storage of weapons.
The principles underlying the Act are specified to be 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 and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons. A proper understanding of the requirements for the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons is therefore a feature to be considered in deciding if a person is fit and proper to hold a licence.
Sadly, during his evidence before this Tribunal he indicated that he clearly did not have a sufficient understanding of the responsibilities associated with holding a firearms licence and being committed to hold firearms. One of the matters that he was told at the sixth page of his application for the licence was that he must have access to a secure storage facility regardless of whether or not he possessed weapons and was required to disclose the address at which that storage facility existed.
He was required to have such a facility, which was a container which met the requirements in Part 19 Division 1 the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) which is headed “How and where weapons must be stored”. Section 86 of the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) contemplated a vault or gun safe for storage having a solid steel or timber construction, which was securely fixed and locked. When he answered this question as to whether he had a secure storage facility in the affirmative, he said he thought it meant a room or a cupboard. In my view, it is not generally a prudent course to grant weapons licences to persons who are either ignorant of the requirements for secure storage and answer questions about where that secure storage is to be found, in a way that is uninformed and recklessly so.
He is required to give a genuine reason, that is to indicate that he will use the weapons for an approved purpose. In that regard he has identified sports or target shooting. Many persons who engage in hunting of feral animals associate with a sports or target shooting association and that if a genuine reason is shown then he would be eligible for a licence which would permit hunting of feral animals even though one need not specifically indicate that as one of the genuine reasons.
In my view, it is significant that the Applicant’s intended use of these weapons on traditional Aboriginal land does not reveal an understanding of the extent to which a weapon could be used on any such land. He initially seemed to think that he could do so on any traditional land but eventually conceded that he could only do so on the Station with the approval of the Station Operator and could not do so in national parks or other places even if the lands were traditional Aboriginal lands.
As I have said, section 10 of the Act provides that a licence may only be issued to an individual if the person has, under section 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence and has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence. I am cognisant of the importance of the object of the Act which is as stated in s 3(2) to be to prevent the misuse of weapons. I am not persuaded that he presently does have an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of weapons or has access to secure storage facilities for a weapon although that is something he could undoubtedly attend to and then potentially re-apply for his licence.

Neither party referenced the significance of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which commenced on 1 January 2020. In deciding this Application, and like applications, I am acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity.[1] I accept that a decision under the Act impacts the Applicant’s rights. I do not consider that a decision to refuse him a licence is incompatible with human rights as the limitations on those rights are reasonable and justifiable.
[1]Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330; BIL v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150.
Taking all these factors into account, I determine that the Applicant presently is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. I determine that it is not in the public interest for him to hold such a weapons licence or have access to weapons.
The decision to refuse a weapons licence is upheld. The application for review is dismissed.