//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] QCA 93
respondent. The appeal was dismissed. QCAT’s decision was not disturbed: [34]–[35].
The Court of Appeal upheld QCAT’s decision to set aside the refusal of XPR’s weapons licence application. The refusal had relied on drug offences for which a court had not recorded a conviction. The Court held that the legislation treated such a conviction as not being a conviction for any purpose, and that the licensing officer could not get around that rule by relying on the facts behind the offences. The statutory exception for information sought in some official inquiries did not apply to the licence inquiry in this case.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,210 words · generated 07/10/2026
This was an appeal about how Queensland weapons-licensing law interacts with the statutory treatment of a conviction where a sentencing court has decided not to record the conviction. The Commissioner of Police appealed from a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision that had set aside the rejection of XPR’s weapons licence application and substituted a decision granting it.
3 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
XPR applied for a weapons licence on 21 September 2021 [2]. On 5 October 2022, an authorised officer within Weapons Licensing at the Queensland Police Service rejected the application. The stated reason was that it was “not considered to be in the public interest” for XPR to hold a licence [3]. The information notice referred to drug charges which XPR had answered in court on 16 December 2021. It recorded that he had been found guilty, convicted and fined, but that the conviction was not recorded [4].
The notice said that the officer had considered XPR’s criminal history and could not be satisfied he was a fit and proper person. At the QCAT hearing, the Commissioner confirmed that the only reason XPR was considered not fit and proper was the 2021 drug offences, and did not rely on the automatic-disqualification provision in s 10B(2) of the Weapons Act [18].
XPR sought review of the refusal [5]. On 6 January 2025, QCAT set it aside and substituted a decision granting the application [6]. The Commissioner’s sole appeal ground was that QCAT had wrongly concluded that an officer applying s 10B could not consider an unrecorded conviction, or the facts and circumstances of the related offences [7].
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Boddice JA gave the principal reasons, with Mullins P and Callaghan J agreeing [1], [36]. The dispute was therefore not about whether the drug offences happened, nor about the general desirability of firearms licensing controls. It was about the legal effect of the non-recording of the conviction, and whether licensing decision-makers could take account of the conviction or its underlying facts in this particular statutory assessment.
The court’s reasoning centred on the interaction between three statutes: the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), and the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld).
The Weapons Act establishes a licensing scheme and requires an applicant to be a fit and proper person. Section 10B requires the authorised officer to consider specified matters, “among other things”, including public interest and information indicating risk to public safety or that authorising possession would be contrary to the public interest [10]. But the Court did not treat that open-ended language as overriding the separate statutory rule about unrecorded convictions.
Section 12(3)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act says that, except as otherwise expressly provided, a conviction without recording the conviction “is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose” [13]. The officer’s notice had explicitly relied on XPR’s convictions [4], [17]. The Court held that reliance was impermissible: the statutory fiction meant there was no conviction for the purpose of the officer’s s 10B assessment [25], [27].
The Court also rejected an alternative route. The Commissioner argued that the officer could consider the facts and circumstances of the offences, even if the conviction itself could not be considered. The Court held that this would still be contrary to the words and intent of s 12(3) [26]. The judgment describes the provision as intended to give an offender a right to deny having been convicted of the offence [27]. The Court thus treated reliance on the underlying circumstances as an impermissible way of circumventing the statutory treatment of the conviction in this case.
The Commissioner also relied on the exception in s 5(3) of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act. That subsection permits a request to disclose a conviction or charge, despite the protections in s 5(2), where the request is for a statutory inquiry or relevant court proceedings [16]. The Court interpreted the inquiry exception as applying only where the disclosure is relevant to, and for the purposes of, the inquiry authorised by statute [30].
Section 14 of the Weapons Act permits an officer to make inquiries or investigations about an applicant or application before deciding it [11]. The Court characterised that power as ancillary to deciding the application. Its focus is deciding the application, not conducting an independent inquiry into the applicant [31]. The conviction and its circumstances were not relevant to an inquiry of the kind contemplated by s 5(3), so that exception did not apply [30]–[32]. The result was that s 5(2)’s protection remained applicable [32].
Finally, the Court considered the structure of s 10B. It reasoned that the Act specifies convictions that matter to the fit-and-proper assessment and provides a mandatory consequence for specified convictions during the relevant period [33]. The existence of those express provisions supported the conclusion that the officer could not use a different, unrecorded conviction as a basis for refusal in this case.
The judgment does not set out a comprehensive account of the prior law or identify a line of conflicting authorities. Its contribution is a statutory interpretation ruling on the provisions before the Court.
Before the appeal was decided, QCAT had concluded that s 12(3) prevented an authorised officer applying s 10B from considering unrecorded convictions or the facts and circumstances of the related offences [19]–[22]. The Commissioner challenged that conclusion, arguing that the officer could obtain information about charges under the weapons-licensing inquiry power and take it into account in assessing public interest [23].
After the Court of Appeal’s decision, that QCAT interpretation stood. The Court confirmed that an officer could not rely on the unrecorded convictions themselves [25] and could not substitute reliance on the facts and circumstances of those offences in the circumstances of this case [26]. It also held that s 5(3) did not provide a disclosure route for the licence inquiry at issue [30]–[32].
The decision does not say that all information about an applicant’s history is irrelevant to weapons licensing, or that s 10B’s public-interest considerations have no wider operation. Its conclusion is narrower: the statutory treatment of an unrecorded conviction prevented reliance on that conviction and its underlying offence circumstances in this application. The Court also identified specified convictions under s 10B as relevant to the fit-and-proper assessment and noted the mandatory consequence attached to those specified convictions [33].
Callaghan J’s brief concurrence emphasised that any different view of the Weapons Act’s legislative intent was a matter for Parliament to address [37]. That observation did not alter the Court’s conclusion that QCAT had made no error.
At [25], Boddice JA said reliance on the conviction was impermissible because of “the clear terms of s 12(3) of the PSA and the legislative intent of that provision”. In plain English, the officer could not treat the court’s decision as an ordinary conviction when the sentencing court had not recorded it.
At [26], the Court addressed the proposed distinction between the conviction and the underlying events. It held that relying on the facts and circumstances of the offences, while avoiding the label of conviction, would still contradict the provision’s words and intent. The point was not simply how the officer described the information. The issue was whether the information was being used to achieve an outcome inconsistent with the statutory protection.
At [27], the Court explained that the conviction was “taken not to be a finding of guilt, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court”. In ordinary language, the statutory rule required the licensing assessment to treat the conviction as not existing for the purpose in question. The Court acknowledged that this involved a statutory fiction, but considered it intentional.
At [31], the Court said that s 14’s inquiry power focuses on “deciding the application and not on the inquiry or the investigation”. This explains why the power to make inquiries did not itself establish that any information an officer could discover was legally available for use in the fit-and-proper assessment. The information and inquiry still had to fit within the governing statutory limits.
At [32], the Court concluded that s 5(3) did not apply and that, under s 5(2), an applicant could not be required or asked to disclose the unrecorded conviction in this context. This links the disclosure protection in the rehabilitation legislation with the statutory inquiry provisions.
At [34], the Court stated the result directly: QCAT made no error in finding that the convictions and the facts or circumstances of the offences could not be considered. This was a conclusion about the application before the Court, not a general statement that every matter concerning an applicant’s history is excluded from weapons licensing decisions.
The decision is most directly relevant where a weapons licence decision-maker relies on a conviction that was not recorded under Queensland sentencing law. In this case, the information notice expressly relied on drug offence convictions, and the Commissioner confirmed in QCAT that those offences were the sole reason for the fit-and-proper finding [17]–[18].
It is also relevant where a decision-maker attempts to avoid the effect of an unrecorded conviction by relying instead on the circumstances of the offence. The Court expressly considered that alternative and rejected it on the facts and statutory framework before it [26]–[27].
The decision addresses the interaction between a statutory inquiry power and restrictions on disclosure. It may therefore be relevant where an agency argues that a general power to inquire under an Act makes an otherwise protected conviction relevant or disclosable. Here, the Court found that the s 14 inquiry was ancillary to the licence decision, and that the conviction was not relevant to an inquiry within s 5(3) [30]–[32].
The judgment’s facts also include the Commissioner’s decision not to rely on the automatic-disqualification provision in s 10B(2) [18]. The Court’s analysis should therefore be read in that setting. It does not decide a case in which a specified recorded conviction triggers the express statutory disqualification described in s 10B.
The decision does not establish that every kind of information about past conduct is excluded from every statutory decision. Its reasoning concerns an unrecorded conviction and the related offence circumstances, in an assessment under s 10B of the Weapons Act, with the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act also in play.
The supplied judgment contains no information about later court decisions or subsequent treatment of Commissioner of Police v XPR. It was delivered on 3 June 2025 [case heading], so the text itself records only the Court of Appeal’s disposition and reasoning on that date.
The judgment refers to R v Beissel [1996] QCA 488 in recounting the reasoning set out in the licensing officer’s notice [17]. The Court of Appeal does not analyse or adopt that authority as part of its own reasoning in the supplied text. Its reasoning instead turns on the statutory provisions in the three Acts and the application of those provisions to the notice and proposed grounds of appeal.
For research purposes, later treatment cannot be inferred from this judgment alone. The decision supplies no later citations, appellate history, or account of how another court has applied its interpretation. Any statement about subsequent treatment would require sources beyond the judgment provided here.
The judgment resolves the appeal on the facts and statutory provisions before it, but the text leaves some boundaries unaddressed. One is how the reasoning applies where the licensing officer relies on material that is not a conviction or the facts and circumstances of the offence underlying an unrecorded conviction. The Court decided the case presented to it; it did not define every category of information that may be considered under s 10B.
A related question is how the statutory inquiry exception operates in other settings. The Court held that the conviction was not relevant to, or sought for the purposes of, the kind of inquiry contemplated by s 5(3) in this licence application [30]–[32]. It did not set out a complete test for when a conviction or charge would be relevant to another statutory inquiry.
The judgment also does not explore how the result would differ where an application involves one of the specified convictions in s 10B(2), or where the decision-maker relies on a different statutory provision expressly addressing unrecorded convictions. It notes that the Commissioner did not rely on s 10B(2) in QCAT [18] and explains the significance of specified convictions under s 10B [33], but does not decide other possible statutory configurations.
Finally, the judgment records Callaghan J’s observation that Parliament could provide a different answer if the interpretation did not reflect its view [37]. That does not identify whether Parliament would amend the legislation, nor what form any amendment might take. The decision’s operative conclusion remains that, under the provisions as applied in this case, QCAT made no error and the appeal was dismissed [34]–[35].
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
Source: Queensland Judgments (Supreme Court Library Queensland) (www.queenslandjudgments.com.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93
PARTIES: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE / (appellant) / v / XPR / (respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 439 of 2025 QCAT No 493 of 2022
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2025] QCAT 1 (Mellifont J and Member Olding)
DELIVERED ON: 3 June 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 19 May 2025
JUDGES: Mullins P, Boddice JA and Callaghan J
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – GENERALLY – 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 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 in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) – where QCAT ordered that the decision be set aside and be substituted with a decision granting the respondent’s application for a weapons licence – where the applicant appeals the QCAT decision – whether QCAT erred in finding that when an authorised officer is applying s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990, regard cannot be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded, or the facts or circumstances of those offences / Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld), s 4, s 5 / Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(3) / Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B
COUNSEL: M D Nicolson for the appellant / The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS: QPS Legal Unit for the appellant / The respondent appeared on his own behalf
MULLINS P: I agree with Boddice JA.
BODDICE JA: On 21 September 2021, the respondent made an application in the approved form for a weapons licence.
On 5 October 2022, an authorised officer within Weapons Licensing at Queensland Police Service (QPS) issued a notice of rejection of the application. The reason for rejection was that it was “not considered to be in the public interest that [the respondent] hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons”.
The accompanying information notice recorded that the respondent had, on 16 December 2021, attended court to answer charges under the Drugs Misuse Act in respect of which he had been found guilty, convicted and fined with the conviction not recorded. In considering whether to grant the respondent a firearms licence, the authorised officer had determined that, having regard to the circumstances “including your criminal history in relation to your previous offending I could not be satisfied that you are a fit and proper person to be issued with a licence”.
On 16 November 2022, the respondent filed an application to review that decision in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).
On 6 January 2025, QCAT ordered that the decision be set aside and be substituted with a decision granting the respondent’s application for a weapons licence.
The applicant appeals that decision. The sole ground of appeal is that QCAT erred in finding that when an authorised officer is applying s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (WA) to assess the suitability for a weapons licence application, regard cannot be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded, or the facts or circumstances of those offences.
Relevant legislative provisions
The WA establishes an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms. Under that scheme, each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence must demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm. A licence may be issued, renewed, endorsed, or altered only by an authorised officer.
Section 10(2) of the WA provides that a licence may be issued to an individual, only if the person satisfies specified requirements. Relevantly, one of those requirements is that the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
Section 10B sets out the matters that an authorised officer must consider “among other things” in deciding or considering whether the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Section 10B provides:–
“Fit and proper person—licensees
10B****Fit and proper person—licensees
In deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, an authorised officer must consider, among other things—
the mental and physical fitness of the person; and
whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and
whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and
(ca) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates—
the person is a risk to public safety; or
that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and
the public interest.
However, for the issue, renewal or revocation of a licence, a person is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence if, in Queensland or elsewhere within the relevant period—
the person has been convicted of, or discharged from custody on sentence after the person has been convicted of, any of the following offences—
an offence relating to the misuse of drugs;
an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence;
an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon; or
a domestic violence order, other than a temporary protection order, has been made against the person.
Also, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, a licensed dealer is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence unless each associate of the person is a fit and proper person to be an associate of a licensed dealer.
A person is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence if the person is prevented by an order, other than a temporary protection order, of a Queensland court or another court outside Queensland from holding a licence or possessing a weapon.
In this section—
relevant period means—
for the issue or renewal of a licence—the 5 year period immediately before the day the person applies for the issue or renewal of the licence; or
for the suspension or revocation of a licence—the 5 year period immediately before the date of the suspension notice under section 28, or a revocation notice under section 29, is given for that suspension or revocation.”
“Inquiries into application
14****Inquiries into application
Before the application is decided, an officer in charge of police or authorised officer with whom an application for a licence is lodged may—
make an inquiry or investigation about the applicant or the application; and
require the applicant to give the officer further information the officer reasonably needs to be satisfied about the applicant’s identity or physical or mental health including—
in relation to the applicant’s physical health—a report from a doctor about the applicant’s physical health; and
in relation to the applicant’s mental health—a report from a doctor or psychologist about the applicant’s mental health; and
inspect the secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence; and
supply, for this section, information or a document relevant to the applicant’s identity to an officer or member of a State or Commonwealth police service; and
require the applicant to display an adequate knowledge of the safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapons the possession of which is to be authorised under the licence; and
make a report about the applicant or the application; and
make the recommendation about the application the officer thinks appropriate.
If an authorised officer suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the applicant’s stated identity is false, the authorised officer may require the applicant to provide an identifying particular to verify the applicant’s identity.
The applicant is taken to have withdrawn the application if, within a stated reasonable time, the applicant—
refuses to provide the information reasonably required under subsection (1)(b); or
refuses to allow the inspection under subsection (1)(c); or
fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2).
If information about the applicant’s mental health given under subsection (1)(b) is provided in a doctor’s or psychologist’s report, an authorised officer may—
make information in the officer’s possession available to the doctor or psychologist; and
ask the doctor or psychologist to provide a further report.
The authorised officer may make the information available only if the officer considers, on reasonable grounds—
the doctor or psychologist was not aware of the information; and
the information may influence the doctor’s or psychologist’s opinion about the applicant’s mental health.
The authorised officer must also advise the applicant of the information being supplied to the doctor or psychologist.
The authorised officer may make the information available under subsection (4) despite the provisions of any other Act.
Unless the authorised officer considers that it is currently required for the investigation of an offence, the authorised officer must, after deciding the application—
return to the applicant any identifying particular obtained in the course of inquiries into the application; and
destroy any record or copy of the identifying particular.
Information required to be supplied under this section may be used only to decide the application or to investigate or prosecute an offence and must not be disclosed for any other purpose.
In this section—
applicant includes, for a body, an individual nominated by the body for endorsement on the licence as the body’s representative in the conduct of its business or affairs.”
The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (PSA) provides for the recording or non-recording of a conviction. Relevantly, a discretion may arise to record or not record a conviction under certain sentencing options, such as fines, probation orders and community service orders. No discretion arises in the case of imprisonment.
Section 12 of the PSA sets out the consequences of the non-recording of the conviction. Relevantly, it provides:–
“(3)Except as otherwise expressly provided by this or another Act—
a conviction without recording the conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose; and
the conviction must not be entered in any records except—
in the records of the court before which the offender was convicted; and
in the offender’s criminal history but only for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).
(3A)Despite subsection (3)(b), the conviction may be entered in a record kept by a department, a prosecuting authority or the offender’s legal representative if it is necessary for the legitimate performance of the functions of the department, prosecuting authority or legal representative.
A conviction without the recording of a conviction—
does not stop a court from making any other order that it may make under this or another Act because of the conviction; and
has the same result as if a conviction had been recorded for the purposes of—
appeals against sentence; and
proceedings for variation or contravention of sentence; and
proceedings against the offender for a subsequent offence; and
subsequent proceedings against the offender for the same offence.
If the offender is convicted of a subsequent offence, the court sentencing the offender may disregard a conviction that was ordered not to be recorded but which, under subsection (3)(b)(ii), is entered in the offender’s criminal history.”
The Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) (CLROA) provides periods after which certain convictions need not be disclosed by a person. Sections 4 and 5 provide limitation on the non-disclosure of convictions or charges.
Section 4 provides:
“Construction of Act
This Act shall be construed so as not to prejudice any provision of law or rule of legal practice that requires, or is to be construed to require, disclosure of the criminal history of any person.
This Act shall be construed so as not to relieve any person from a responsibility that rests on the person to disclose his or her criminal history in connection with seeking admission to or offering himself or herself for selection for any profession, occupation or calling prescribed by regulation.
This Act shall not be construed to prohibit or hinder the provision by any person of particulars of the criminal history of any person to a Crown prosecutor, a police prosecutor or other person prosecuting upon a charge of an offence with a view to those particulars being disclosed to the court in the event of the defendant being convicted.”
“Matter excluded from criminal history
It is declared that a conviction that is set aside or quashed and a charge are not part of the criminal history of any person.
A person shall 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 part of the person’s criminal history or of the criminal history of another person or a charge made against the person or another person.
Subsection (2) does not apply where the requirement or request to disclose a conviction or charge therein referred to is made—
for the purposes of an inquiry being conducted pursuant to authority conferred by or under an Act; or
in criminal or civil proceedings before a court if the fact of the conviction or charge is relevant to an issue in the proceedings or the court has granted permission for the requisition or request to be made.”
QCAT decision
“Checks conducted by this office in relation to your criminal history have revealed the following:
I note that on the 16th December, 2021, you attended the Cairns Magistrates Court to answer to Drugs Misuse Act charges, namely Producing Dangerous Drugs and Possession Dangerous Drugs. I note that you were found guilty, convicted and fined with the conviction not recorded.
I considered R v Beissel [1996] QCA 488; (1996) 89 A Crim R 210
Principle applied: A person who has been convicted of a criminal offence has a criminal conviction, whether or not it is formally recorded, and that being so, the court should not in my opinion lend its aid to attempts to conceal that fact. It is no part of this court’s function to minimize the seriousness of these offences with a view to influencing a government instrumentality to disregard or overlook the offences.
I also considered the concept of fit and proper person and the public interest.
Under Section 10B(2) of the Act, it is an automatic disqualification for five years if an applicant has been convicted of a Drugs Misuse Act offence with the conviction recorded.
Section 10B(1) of the Act states:
In deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a license, an authorised officer must consider, among other things —
(d) the public interest.
You are advised that the conviction of offences, whether recorded or not, relating to charges for traffic or criminal is a consideration in deciding whether you are a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
Having regard to the circumstances including your criminal history in relation to your previous offending I could not be satisfied that you are a fit and proper person to be issued with a licence.
I considered that it was not in the public interest or in accordance with the principles and object of the Act to issue a licence.”
QCAT recorded that at the hearing the applicant confirmed that the sole reason for the respondent not being a fit and proper person to hold a licence, was because of the 2021 drug offences referred to in that notice. Further, the applicant did not rely on s 10B(2) of the WA.
QCAT found that by reason of s 12(3) of the 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, in applying s 10B of the WA. 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. If Parliament intended that there be further exceptions, it could have created those exceptions either in the PSA, or in the WA, but had not done so.
QCAT further found that the reference in s 10B of WA, 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. It did not do so expressly or by necessary implication. To hold otherwise would be to impermissibly traverse the prohibition which flows from s 12(3) of the PSA.
QCAT held that when applying s 10B of the WA, 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.
QCAT considered that the provisions of the CLROA supported that conclusion. Section 5(2) 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 purposes, a conviction that is not recorded. That provision was a further protection for the rehabilitative intent of s 12(3) of the PSA. Whilst it was subject to express prohibitions under s 9A of the CLROA, licensing under the WA was not one of them. Further, to allow an authorised officer to take into account a not recorded conviction, would be inconsistent with the prohibition in s 9(1) of the CLROA in respect of spent convictions.
Consideration
The applicant submits that QCAT erred in its interpretation of s 10B of the WA. The approved form for the WA seeks from an applicant various pieces of information, including information as to whether or not they have been charged with an offence. That information was properly sought by the authorised officer, who is authorised to conduct an inquiry pursuant to s 14(1)(a) of the WA. As such, the facts and circumstances relating to a charge could be considered by an authorised officer in determining whether it would be contrary to the public interest for an applicant to possess a weapons licence, pursuant to s 10B(1)(d) of the WA.
That submission cannot be accepted for two reasons.
First, the information notice provided by the authorised officer to the applicant, records that it was the conviction of the offences which was the consideration relied upon by the authorised officer, in deciding that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Reliance upon the conviction was impermissible. The clear terms of s 12(3) of the PSA and the legislative intent of that provision meant there was no conviction.
Second, even if the authorised officer had sought to rely on the facts and circumstances of the respondent having produced dangerous drugs and possessed dangerous drugs, absent the fact of conviction, the authorised officer would have acted contrary to the clear words and intent of s 12(3) of the PSA.
As QCAT observed, the respondent’s conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose. The effect of s 12(3)(a) of the PSA was that the conviction is taken not to be a finding of guilt, or the acceptance of a plea of guilty by a court. Whilst s 12(3) may create a statutory fiction, it was the intention of the legislature that an offender have a right to deny ever having been convicted of the offence.1
In QCAT, the applicant did not seek to rely on s 5(3) of the CLROA. However, at the hearing of the appeal the applicant contended that the authorised officer was entitled to receive information about the applicant’s conviction, even though it was not part of his criminal history, as the requirement or request to disclose it had been made for the purposes of an inquiry being conducted by the authorised officer, pursuant to the authority conferred by s 14 of the WA.
Section 5(3) of the CLROA was inserted into the Act by amendments introduced under the Commissions of Inquiry Act and Other Acts Amendment Act 1988. The explanatory notes provide that the amendment to s 5 was for the purposes of removing the protection afforded by s 5, in respect of orders or requests to disclose made for the purposes of a statutory inquiry and in relation to civil or criminal proceedings where the conviction or charge is relevant.
Conclusion
Orders
The appeal be dismissed.
CALLAGHAN J: I agree with Boddice JA.
If his Honour’s conclusion about the legislative intent of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) does not represent Parliament’s view then its remedy is straightforward. There was no error made by QCAT and the appeal should be dismissed.
Second Reading Speech CLROA p 4111. ↩
Commissioner of Police
XPR [2025] QCA 93
The appeal was dismissed. QCAT’s decision was not disturbed: [34]–[35].
A consideration of the terms of s 5(3), supports a conclusion that its operation is limited to circumstances where a requirement or request to disclose the conviction or charge is relevant to and for the purposes of the inquiry being conducted, pursuant to the authority conferred by or under an Act. The inquiry as to the conviction and its circumstances is not relevant to a determination of the public interest by an authorised officer who is considering whether an applicant for a weapons licence is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.
The expression “make an inquiry or investigation” in s 14(1)(a) of the WA provides for the authorised officer to ask a question or seek further information about the applicant or the application which is ancillary to the purpose of deciding the application. In other words, the focus of the provision is on deciding the application and not on the inquiry or the investigation. Section 14 specifies information which may be sought, namely, information the officer reasonably needs to be satisfied about the applicant’s identity or physical or mental health, as well as inspecting relevant storage facilities and as to adequate knowledge as to safe practices. Nothing in the terms of s 14 supports a conclusion that a requirement that an applicant disclose a conviction, which is not a conviction for any purposes, pursuant to s 12(3) of the PSA, is for the purpose of an inquiry to consider the application.
In those circumstances, s 5(3) has no application and under s 5(2) an applicant for a weapons licence shall 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 part of the person’s criminal history, or a charge made against the person.
That conclusion is consistent with the legislative intent of the WA, which is that it is only specified convictions which are relevant to the determination of whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. In the event that the applicant has one of those specified convictions, there is a mandatory determination that the applicant is not a fit and proper person, for a specified period.