Wilson v Queensland Police Service
[2010] QCAT 347
•16 July 2010
| CITATION: | Wilson v Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 347 |
| PARTIES: | Richard Scott Wilson |
| v | |
| Queensland Police Service |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR076-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 4 June 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member. |
| DELIVERED ON: | 16 July 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | The application for review is dismissed |
| CATCHWORDS : | Weapons Act; genuine reason; whether “occupation requirement for rural purposes”; Consideration meaning of “occupation”; whether sporadic work for reward in kind constitutes “occupation”. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Richard Scott Wilson self represented |
| RESPONDENT: | Senior Sergent Jones authorised officer of the respondent. |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Wilson is the holder of a firearms license which entitles him to possess category A, B & C firearms. On 8 January 2010 Mr Wilson applied to renew his firearms license.
In respect of the category C weapons, Mr Wilson said the genuine reason in support of his application is that he uses this category of weapon for about two weeks, four to five times each year, on Wandoo Station to destroy feral cattle, with infectious disease (tuberculosis and brucellosis). He also said that shooting from the helicopter assists in mustering the cattle and also discourages cattle from hiding in lantana or scrub. Wandoo Station is a large rural property near Sarina and comprises some 23,000 acres. Mr Wilson has been the only one undertaking this work at the property because he has a Category C licence. Without it, he says, it would be impossible to achieve a clean muster of the cattle on the property or control the diseased cattle.
Upon receiving and considering his application, the respondent refused to renew his license for the category C weapons because the decision maker was not satisfied that Mr Wilson had a genuine reason as the use of the category C weapon was not an occupational requirement for rural purposes within the meaning of section 11 of the Weapons Act (“the Act”).
For clarification Category C weapons include:
a) A semi-automatic ring fire rifle with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds
b) A semi-automatic shotgun with a magazine capacity of no greater than 5 rounds
c)A pump action shot gun with a magazine capacity of no greater than 5 rounds
In support of the application, a letter was produced by Mr Glen Shelly, of Wandoo Station. Mr Shelly said:
“This letter is in reference to application 09125642 and to validate that Richard Scott Wilson requires a firearm license for the control of feral animals on my property – “Wandoo”… In particular a “C” class license for the control of feral cattle.
Although Richard is not employed fulltime with me, he does receive remuneration in the effects of board, lodging and meals and at the end of the work period we negotiate payment in live cattle and or adjustment of cattle on my land. I have known Richard for a period of 15 years and in this time; he has demonstrated to me that his knowledge and safety around firearms are of paramount importance. I have no hesitation recommending Richard for the retaining of firearm license.”
There does not seem to be any dispute that Mr Wilson is a fit and proper person to hold a category C license, the only question for determination is whether he has a genuine reason for possession of a Category “C” weapon on the basis that it is “an occupational requirement, including an occupational requirement for rural purposes”. Nor is there any dispute that there is a need for control of feral and diseased animals on Wandoo.
There does not appear to be any contest either that Mr Wilson use of the category C weapon is for rural purposes. The question is whether or not this is an “occupational requirement”.
The definition of “occupation” in the Macquarie Dictionary is:
ones habitual employment; business, trade or calling; that in which one is engaged.[1]
[1] Macquarie Dictionary 5th edition
“Occupational” is also defined as;
“of or relating to occupation; of, relating to, arising from, or connected with an occupation trade or calling.”
10. Mr Wilson gave oral evidence that his regular fulltime occupation is as an equine chiropractor. This occupation, he said, causes him to travel throughout Queensland and sometimes overseas.
11. His regular occupation is interrupted, about four or five times each year for about two weeks when he goes to Wandoo to muster cattle or cull diseased cattle.
12. On any view, the work at Wandoo is not Mr Wilson’s habitual employment, business trade or calling. His habitual trade or calling is that of an equine chiropractor.
13. If Mr Wilson’s occupation was that of cattle musterer, property supervisor or rural worker on Wandoo, or he did contract work on other properties, then possession of a weapon in the C category could be said to be an occupational requirement.
14. I have been referred to Cseske v Queensland Police Service[2] where the Applicant, in that case, described his occupation as an animal handler and trainer (circus animals, injured wildlife) and therefore fulfilled the requirement of section 11(c) of the Act. The Court did give some consideration to occupational requirement and said:
“It had to be a requirement of the Applicant’s occupation that he be able to use the pistol. Moreover, the occupational requirement had to be genuine.”
[2] (2005) QCA 4466
15. The Applicant’s application was refused by Queensland Police because he had not used the weapon in his capacity as a freelance animal trainer and handler in the previous 3 years. It was therefore held that he did not have a genuine requirement.
16. This case is a little different to Mr Wilson’s situation in that Mr Wilson does in fact use the weapon, and for the purposes for which it is used, it would be an occupational requirement. However, the difficulty here is that, can it be said that shooting on Wandoo is Mr Wilson’s “occupation”, and therefore the need for a licence is a genuine requirement.
17. I accept that Mr Wilson is rewarded for his time and effort in controlling feral and diseased cattle but this reward is in kind rather than actual payment of money consistent with the notion of occupation. There is no formal arrangement for payment, in kind or otherwise, that one might expect to see between a professional shooter or contract musterer. If such a commercial relationship existed and there was identifiable reward then this could constitute an occupation, even on a part time basis. The current arrangement is suggestive of relationship between Mr Wilson and Mr Shelly that is of a casual nature, friendship based.
18. The Weapons Act is framed so that possession of firearms is a privilege rather than a right. The principle objects of the Act are:
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.[3]
[3] Weapons Act section 3.
19. The objects of the Act are achieved by prohibiting certain weapons, establishing a licensing and registration system and ensuring persons who wish to have possession of weapons demonstrate they have a genuine reason[4].
[4] Supra section 4.
20. Limitations on those persons who may be licensed are those who fall within section 10 of the Act. In addition, section 11 identifies those reasons that are said to genuine reasons.
21. Therefore, for Mr Wilson to be granted a license there must be evidence to satisfy the decision maker that his reason for possessing the category C weapon is an occupational requirement and here for rural purposes.
22. As I have found that his occupation is truly that of an equine chiropractor, it is difficult to contend that he also has another occupation which is the culling of feral and diseased cattle, and also assists in the mustering of cattle.
23. The purpose of section 20 of the QCAT Act is for the Tribunal to produce the correct and preferable decision. It does so by hearing and reviewing the decision, here of the authorised officer of the respondent, by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. Having done so, then section 24 permits the Tribunal to confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or return it to the decision maker.
24. I have considered the evidence and in particular the evidence of Mr Shelly, however I have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that it Mr Wilson’s need for a licence is as a consequence of an occupational requirement within the meaning of section 11 of the Act, therefore the application must be dismissed.
2
0
0