Young v Queensland Police Service - [2010] QCAT 629

CITATION: Young v Queensland Police Service
Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 629

PARTIES: Darryl Varloy Young

v

Queensland Police Service
Weapons Licensing Branch

APPLICATION NUMBER:   GAR290-10

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:     1 November 2010

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Sean Barry, Member

DELIVERED ON: 8 December 2010

DELIVERED AT:      Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application is allowed.

2. Pursuant to section 24(1) (c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act the decision of the Respondent dated 6 August 2010 is set aside and it is directed that the Respondent renew the Applicant’s firearm licence no 12207860.

CATCHWORDS : Weapons licensing; consideration of correct test for Tribunal to apply in hearing an application; meaning of ‘fit and proper person’; principles and objects of the Weapons Act 1990 considered ; meaning of ‘term of imprisonment; whether serving a term of imprisonment should exclude a person from renewing a weapons licence.
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT:
Darryl Varloy Young represented himself

RESPONDENT: Queensland Police Service
Weapons Licensing Branch represented by Senior Sergeant Cavanagh
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1]    This is an application to review the decision of the Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch to refuse the renewal of a weapons license, previously held by the Applicant.
[2]    The substance of the Applicant’s application to review, in the words of his application are:
‘I would like the Tribunal to over turn the rejection notice as I have not broken any laws to stop me having a gun licence … there is no were (sic) in the laws of the gun laws that I have broken to stop me having a gun licence ... I need my gun licence for my business. I hope the Tribunal over turns the decision so I can have my licence.’

[3] Not surprisingly, the Respondent for its part in its material filed with the Tribunal argues the decision previously made to refuse the renewal of the weapons license should be upheld and the Applicant not be the holder of a weapons license.

Factual background
[4] The applicant first applied for a Weapons Act licence on 14 February 1992. A Shooters Licence was issued to him on 21 May 1992. On 18 March 1998, the licence was cancelled and a Firearms License was issued on 19 March 1998, with an expiry date of 17 March 2005. On 25 April 2005 the licence was renewed, with an expiry date of 18 June 2010. On 2 June 2010, the Applicant lodged an application to renew his licence.

[5] On 6 August 2010 the authorised officer from the Queensland Police Service signed a 'Notice of Rejection of Application to Issue or Renew Licence. The reasons quoted for the rejection in that notice are:
'It is not considered to be in the public interest that you hold a license authorising the possession of weapons.

It is considered by the Authorized Officer the you are presently not a fit and proper person to hold a license under the

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Young v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QCAT 629
Decision Date: 8 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant in this case, Mr Young, sought a review of a decision made by the Respondent, the Queensland Police Service, to refuse his application to renew his firearm licence. The dispute was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the Respondent had correctly applied the relevant statutory test when deciding not to renew Mr Young’s firearm licence. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine if the Respondent had correctly interpreted the meaning of ‘fit and proper person’ as required by the Weapons Act 1990. The Tribunal also needed to consider whether serving a term of imprisonment should categorically exclude a person from being considered a ‘fit and proper person’ for the purposes of renewing a weapons licence.

The Tribunal examined the principles and objects of the Weapons Act 1990, as well as relevant case law, to ascertain the correct test to apply in such matters. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not correctly applied the statutory test, as they had failed to sufficiently consider the principles and objects of the Weapons Act 1990. The Tribunal found that the term ‘fit and proper person’ required a holistic assessment of the applicant, taking into account their character, conduct, and circumstances. The Tribunal also found that serving a term of imprisonment did not, by itself, exclude a person from being considered a ‘fit and proper person’ for the purposes of renewing a weapons licence. Instead, the Tribunal held that each case must be considered on its own merits.

Based on the above findings, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Respondent and directed them to renew Mr Young’s firearm licence. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of correctly applying the statutory test and considering the principles and objects of the Weapons Act 1990 when making decisions about the renewal of weapons licences. The Tribunal also noted that the decision to refuse a licence renewal should not be made lightly and should only be exercised in cases where there is a clear and compelling reason to do so. The Tribunal’s decision provides important guidance for both applicants and decision-makers in weapons licensing matters in Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is allowed.

2. Pursuant to section 24(1) (c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act the decision of the Respondent dated 6 August 2010 is set aside and it is directed that the Respondent renew the Applicant’s firearm licence no 12207860.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

PARTIES:	Darryl Varloy Young
v
Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch

APPLICANT:	Darryl Varloy Young represented himself
RESPONDENT:	Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch represented by Senior Sergeant Cavanagh