Forbes v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 65

[1] On 2 June 2025, the Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing Branch ('the police') rejected Mr Forbes' application for a firearms licence. On 26 June 2025, Mr Forbes applied to the tribunal for a review of that decision. I conducted a hearing of the application on 2 February 2026, and these are my reasons for my decision.

[2] Mr Forbes gave oral evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Fergusson. He provided four written character references from friends who attested to his good character.

[3] The police rejected Mr Forbes' application on the basis that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('Weapons Act').

[4] Mr Forbes has a lengthy traffic history, beginning in December 2008, when he was 17 years of age. The traffic history includes numerous speeding offences and a variety of other offences over the years including, for example, unlicensed driving in 2012 and in 2011 using a vehicle with plates belonging to another vehicle.

[5] Since 2020, Mr Forbes was fined for speeding offences on 2 January 2021, 10 November 2021, 5 September 2023, 4 October 2023, and 6 December 2023 (despite receiving a demerits warning letter on 1 November 2023).

[6] His most recent offence (speeding) was committed in June 2024 at a time when he had taken a "good driving behaviour option" which was in place for the period 1 February 2024 to 31 January 2025. The last entry on his traffic record is that he was placed on a special hardship order restricted licence from 21 August 2024 to 20 February 2025. It appears that Mr Forbes has not incurred any further traffic offences since that time.

[7] The police submit that Mr Forbes' traffic history establishes a failure to comply with the licensing scheme relating to driving, and is relevant to whether Mr Forbes can be trusted to comply with the weapons licensing scheme. Mr Fergusson submits that Mr Forbes' inattention while driving is relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.

[8] The police further contend that Mr Forbes is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence because he has shown inadequate attention to detail in his application for the weapons licence. He answered "No" to a question asking whether he had been charged with any offence, including any traffic offence or criminal offence, that resulted in a court attendance. That answer was incorrect. Further, he indicated that he was the owner of the property where he intended to use weapons to cull feral animals. In fact, the property is owned by his brother.

[9] Mr Forbes told the tribunal that it was only when faced with the real prospect of losing his driver's licence that he understood the potential impact on his life, and since then he has put in place strategies to ensure that he does not commit any further offences. For example, Mr Forbes stated that he now uses cruise control and pays careful attention to road signage.

[10] Mr Forbes confirmed that he had provided incorrect information on his application. He stated that he did not intend to be dishonest in his application, but that filling in forms is not a strong suit for him.

[11] Mr Forbes states that he does have a strong commitment to safety, demonstrated by his safe use and storage of a speargun which he uses for fishing. Further, Mr Forbes stated that he is employed in the mining industry where safety standards are strictly enforced. He advised that he works around an 800 tonne machine and complies with all safety rules due to his understanding of the catastrophic consequences if they are breached.

[12] Mr Forbes stated that his solicitor had advised him to undertake a Queensland Traffic Offenders Program (QTOP). He stated that he found that the course focused primarily on drug and alcohol use, and so was of little benefit to him as he does not drink and drive, and does not use drugs.

[13] In relation to his traffic history, Mr Forbes accepted the Tribunal's suggestion that he was a slow learner, but that he had finally learned his lesson.

[14] The legislation was set out and summarised in the recent Tribunal decision of Perkovic v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 453. I agree with the member's summary of the legislative position and will respectfully adopt it in paragraphs [15]-[18] below.

[15] The object of the Weapons Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.[1] Weapon possession and use are 'subordinate to the need to ensure public safety and individual safety'.[2] A licence under the Weapons Act may be held only by a person who is a fit and proper person to hold the licence.[3] If the police are satisfied that a licensee has ceased to be a fit and proper person, they may revoke the person's licence.[4]

[16] Certain types of offending, such as offending involving violence or a weapon, preclude a person from holding a weapons licence for a five year period because the person is deemed not to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence during that period.[5] Such offending after the five year period, and other types of offending at any time, doubtless may be taken into account in determining whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Matters that must be considered are set out in section 10B(1) of the Weapons Act:

(1) 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 -

(a) the mental and physical fitness of the person; and

(b) whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and

(c) 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 -

(i) the person is a risk to public safety; or

(ii) that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and

(d) the public interest.

[17] A useful survey of authorities was recently undertaken by the tribunal in Willingham v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing.[6] In that case the tribunal considered that a significant question is whether the safety of the public or the individual would be at risk if the individual was to possess and use weapons. Relevant considerations include character and public confidence in the administration of the licensing system.

[18] The tribunal in a review proceeding must conduct a fresh hearing on the merits, with the aim of producing the correct and preferable decision.[7] The tribunal may confirm, amend or set aside the decision under review.[8] If the tribunal sets aside the decision, it may substitute a new decision or it may return the matter to the original decision-maker for reconsideration, with the directions that the tribunal considers appropriate.[9]

[19] Mr Fergusson for the police submits that Mr Forbes is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence because:

(a) he repeatedly failed to comply with the driver licensing scheme, so the community cannot have confidence he will comply with the weapons licensing scheme;

(b) he has a very long traffic history with numerous offences;

(c) while he has not been charged with any traffic offences since mid-2024, there is no guarantee that he has permanently changed his ways. He was not charged with any offences in 2022, but returned to offending in the following years; and

(d) he has demonstrated an ongoing pattern of carelessness and inattention, both in his driving history and in completing his application, which raises concerns as to whether he will pay proper attention to the exacting requirements for the storage and use of a firearm.

[20] Mr Forbes has driven his motor vehicle for many years in a way which demonstrates a disregard for the road rules and has placed himself and members of the public at risk.

(a) He has implemented strategies to prevent future traffic offences. He is aware that losing his licence will mean losing his employment at the mines and would place his family in financial peril.

(b) Apart from his traffic history he is a responsible person. This is demonstrated by his responsible position at work where safety is a very high priority, and his careful and responsible use of a speargun.

(c) The incorrect answers which he provided on his application for a weapons licence were as a result of errors on his part rather than an attempt to deceive the police service.

[22] Mr Forbes' lack of attention to detail raises concerns as to whether he is able to comply with all requirements of the Weapons Act. There is no suggestion that Mr Forbes is a violent person, but the police raise a valid concern that Mr Forbes might not fully comprehend or implement the very strict licencing requirements contained in the legislation. I accept that a failure to store weapons correctly, for example, increases the risk of them being unlawfully accessed and stolen. The police may not become immediately aware of such a failure to comply, magnifying the risk.

[23] On balance, I find that Mr Forbes does understand the gravity of the responsibility of a firearms licence holder, and that he will comply with licencing requirements. I find further that Mr Forbes does not pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of himself or others if allowed to possess a firearm. Holding a weapons licence would not, on balance, conflict with the public interest or undermine confidence in the system of weapons licensing.

[24] Mr Forbes is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

[25] The correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decisions under review and to send the matters back to the police for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that Mr Forbes is a fit and proper person to hold the relevant licence.

[1] Weapons Act s 3(2).

[2] Ibid s 3(1)(a).

[3] Ibid s 10(2)(e).

[4] Ibid s 29(1)(d).

[5] Ibid s 10B(2), (5).

[6] [2024] QCAT 361.

[7] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20.

[8] Ibid s 24(1).