GBG v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 82

Brunton v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR091-24, 23 October 2025

Graham v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR694-24, 10 October 2025

Lee v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR711-23, 18 September 2025

Marchant v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 71

[1] GBG[1] held a Firearms Licence issued under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('the Act').

[2] He was issued with a Revocation Notice on 12 October 2023 by the Weapons Licensing branch of the Queensland Police Service ('Weapons Licensing') directing him to surrender his licence and every weapon he held to the Police Officer serving the Notice.

[3] The Revocation Notice noted the reasons for the revocation as being:

The Authorised Officer is satisfied that you are no longer a fit and proper person to hold your licence due to it not being in the public interest.

[4] GBG filed an Application to review a decision in the Tribunal on 13 November 2023.

[5] I heard the matter on 17 October 2025, and reserved my decision.

[6] GBG gave oral evidence at the hearing and was cross-examined. He did not call any other witnesses.

[7] Weapons Licensing did not call any witnesses, and relied upon its filed material.

[8] GBG made oral submissions at the conclusion of the hearing. Weapons Licensing also made oral submissions.

[9] In the course of their submissions, Weapons Licensing referred to there being possible previous unreported decisions of the Tribunal which considered the issue of an adverse decision as to fitness having been made solely having regard to the licence holder's traffic history.

[10] I invited Weapons Licensing to file any further unreported decisions which were relevant to the matter with the Tribunal, and give a copy to GBG, within a week. No further unreported decisions were provided.

[11] Weapons Licensing provided an Information Notice and Statement of Reasons together with the revocation notice dated 12 October 2023.

[12] The reasons referred to GBG's traffic history as follows:[2]

I note your previous traffic history that you have been convicted of Drive without due care and attention or Drive without reasonable consideration for other persons using road or place, and did drive (motor vehicle/tram/train/vessel) over general but under high alcohol limit and did drive (motor vehicle/tram/train/vessel) over general but under high alcohol limit holder of learner, probationary or provisional license. I note you were disqualified for each offence.

I further note that your Queensland Driver Licence has been subject to disqualification seven times and suspended eight times since 2006. Further, since 2006 you have accumulated 44 demerit points.

I note that on the 11/01/2022 you were sent a warning letter by Weapons Licensing, upon the issue of your new weapons license, that any further offences (including traffic) will result in a review of your suitability of your weapons licensing.

(Warning letter extract reproduced)

I note your Queensland Driver's License was further disqualified until 04/04/2023 for the offence of Driving of motor vehicle without a driver licence demerit points (Qld Lic) and the offence of Did drive over general alcohol limit but not over the middle alcohol limit and fined $450 and $400 for each offence respectively.

When determining if a person is a fit and proper person to retain a licence, in the public interest, an Authorised Officer must have regard to all information available.

Taking into consideration your serious, extensive, and continuous traffic offence history and your apparent disregard for the laws of the state, I have determined that it is not in the public interest for you to continue to hold a firearms licence.

As such, your licence is now revoked.

[13] Weapons Licensing filed the TORUM traffic record of GBG.[3] It runs from 16 December 2011 to 16 March 2025 and comprises five pages. The matters all resulted in monetary enforcement orders (SPER). These related to matters such as speeding, using mobile phone, failure to wear a seatbelt, permitting use of an unregistered vehicle, and failure to display L plates.

[14] The full traffic record of GBG was also filed.[4] It runs from 16 December 2011 to 5 October 2023. The more significant matters are:

Drive ETC - M/V - over general but not over Mid A/Limit

Drive ETC - M/V - over general but not over High A/Limit

drive/attempt put in motion/in charge M/V under influence liq ( [21] Traffic history alone can establish that an individual is not fit and proper person to hold a weapons license.[9] However, in this case although there were two earlier drink-driving charges in 2004 and 2007, the traffic history subsequent to that and until the first recent drink-driving charge is unremarkable, and have no connections with the use of his firearms licence.

[41] The Member considered the application of the phrase 'fit and proper person' as referred to by the High Court as follows:[10]

[26] It has been repeatedly said and adopted in this Tribunal that the phrase 'fit and proper person' is to be considered in light of what the High Court said in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[11] that:

It takes its meaning from its context and 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 will not occur or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur.

[42] The Member noted that it was likely that the licence would not have been revoked on the basis of the traffic offences alone:[12]

[27] Mr Marchant has had significant and intensive training in the use of firearms, both concealable and non-concealable. The QPS argue that by reason of this training his conduct shows a disregard for the regulatory regime and therefore he is not fit and proper. However, this must be balanced against the reasons the offending conduct and the steps he has taken to address his behaviour. He has taken appropriate steps to get help which has been beneficial and provided him with greater insight into his conduct. Furthermore, had it not been for the offences under the Weapons Act, it is unlikely any action would have been taken to revoke his licence just because of the traffic offences. In respect of the seriousness of breaches of the Weapons Act, Mr Marchant's offences are at the lower end. This is reflected in the amount of the fine imposed by the Magistrates Court and also that no conviction was recorded. This addresses the nature of the activity that brought him to the attention of the QPS.

[43] The Member concluded that, taking all those matters into account, the correct and preferable decision was to set aside the decision to revoke the holder's licence.

[44] In the 2025 unreported decision in Graham[13] the Member found that in the circumstances of that case a poor traffic history could result in a finding of not being fit and proper.

[45] In her decision the Member considered the facts and the specific matters that led her to find that Mr Graham was not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence were as follows:

(a) The weapons license sought included the use of a concealed pistol in public.

(b) The significance and recency of the traffic history. Mr Graham had 59 demerit points in total but had accumulated 36 demerit points between 2021- 2023. Nearly all of 2024 he was suspended so there had only been less than 12 months with his licence that he had demonstrated free of traffic infringements.

(c) He committed seven traffic infringements in 2023 alone including repeat mobile phone infringement and driving more than 20km over the limit. He also had a driving offence of more than 30km over the speed limit in late 2022.

(d) Mr Graham provided limited evidence about his good character. He didn't provide a statement, only attached exhibits being his security licence, his current traffic history, confirmation of a traffic offenders course (which was mandatory to get his licence back) and a character reference that he later withdrew as the witness was on bail for money laundering.

(e) Mr Graham showed limited insight into his traffic history. He provided no real explanation for his extensive and repeat breaches of the road rules other than to state he didn't know he had been caught as his mail was going to a PO Box so he got multiple infringements at the same time. He also stated that he was young and that the offences all happened where the speed limit had been reduced for road works - explanations I did not accept as most offences occurred after he turned 30.

[46] In the 2025 decision in Lee[14] the decision to revoke the firearms licence of the holder was confirmed by the Tribunal. The reasons of the original decision maker were summed up in the Statement of Reasons given to the holder as follows:

I note advice received your driver's licence has recently been disqualified as of the 24/07/2023. As a result of this information, a review of your offence history was conducted.

I note that your firearms licence was issued to you in 2018. Since being issued with firearms licence, you have accumulated 21 demerit points. Further, I note that in less than a four-year period, your drivers licence has been subject to 3 suspension periods and two disqualification periods.

I note that on 18 April 2023 you were charged with Driving without a licence demerit points and Stopping on a red traffic light - stop line. The charges were finalised on 8 May 2023 in the Emerald Magistrates Court. You were convicted and fined for the offences and disqualified from driving by court order, for a period of 6 months.

I note that around eight weeks later, on 29 June 2023, you were intercepted driving and charged with Driving of motor vehicle without a driver's licence disqualified by court order. The charge was finalised on 27 July 2023 at the Emerald Magistrates Court. You were convicted and fined for the offence and disqualified from driving by court order for a period of 2 years.

When determining if a person is a fit and proper person to retain a licence, in the public interest, an Authorised Officer must have regard to all information available.

Taking into consideration your serious, extensive, and continuous traffic offence history and your apparent disregard for the laws of this State, I have determined that it is not in the public interest for you to continue to hold a firearms licence.

As such, your licence is now revoked.

[47] In the 2025 decision in Brunton[15] the application to review the decision to revoke the firearms licence of the holder was dismissed. The Member noted that the holder had a criminal history dating from 2005 to 2017 for offences which included anti-social behaviour, drug offences and attempted arson of a breast clinic, and that a domestic violence order was made naming him as a respondent in 2006.

[48] The Member also noted that Mr Brunton had a lengthy and concerning traffic history accumulating some 40 demerit points from the age of 17 in 1999, a period of some 19 years, and had accumulated a further 41 demerit points over approximately four years after being warned by the Queensland Police Service that any further offences (including traffic offences) would result in a review of his suitability to hold a firearms licence and described the traffic offences and conduct as follows:[16]

[12] The offending since the issue of the warning included serious matters including:

a) driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle

b) driving whilst unlicensed

c) drink-driving

d) failing to stop at red lights

e) driving whilst using a mobile phone on several occasions in quick succession

f) demerit points suspensions, and

g) further unlicensed driving for which a conviction was recorded culminating in a six-month disqualification up to 12 September 2023 (shortly prior to the revocation of his firearms licence)

[13] This conduct indicates a reckless disregard for public safety and for the laws with which society expects all to comply.

[14] It is not in the public interest for a weapons license to be issued a person exhibiting such conduct.

[49] The firearms licence of GBG was revoked solely on the basis of his traffic history.

[50] The cases that I have referred to, and particularly Marchant, indicate that the mere existence of traffic infringements or offences, even numerous, are unlikely to be sufficient on their own to establish that the person was not 'fit and proper' to hold a firearms licence.

[51] I consider that there would have to be an element of serious conduct in the traffic history that would lead to a conclusion that the holder's behaviour, lack of insight, lack of respect for law, or refusal to obey the law, was sufficient to lead to a conclusion that as a matter of public safety, the person was not 'fit and proper' and should not hold a weapons license.

[52] GBG does have an extensive traffic offence history, but this has to be put in the context of his travelling very extensive distances in the course of his employment. The nature of those offences was largely at the lower end of traffic infringements. The serious offences of drink-driving occurred while he was a young man, and the 2023 drink-driving offence was a low range offence close to the bottom of the range.

[53] I take into account that GBG holds responsible positions in the drilling and mining industries, which are heavily regulated as to safety considerations, and that he has due regard to such provisions.

[54] GBG has not been charged with any offences in relation to his handling of weapons, and there has been no criticism of his handling of them. I accept that he has always handled weapons in a safe and proper way, and that he has a valid reason to seek a firearms licence for use on his farm as well as being a sporting shooter.

[55] I consider that the conduct and history of GBG is distinguishable from, and quite different to, that of the licence holders in Graham, Lee and Brunton where licence revocations were upheld.

[56] I do not consider that the traffic offences indicate that GBG does not have good regard for the law generally, or indicate any specific reason for concern as to his owning and handling firearms.

[57] I note that the procedure for revoking his license appears not to have been properly followed, and it is unexplained why he was not given an opportunity to show cause after being given a warning notice before having his licence revoked, which has led him to incur considerable legal expenses, and be deprived of use of his firearms for a considerable time.

[58] I do not consider that it is established that GBG is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

[59] I therefore consider that the decision to revoke his firearms licence should be set aside, and order accordingly.

[1] As this matter contains reference to an incident where a child was present, the name of the applicant has been de-identified, so that the child is not identified.

[2] Information Notice Statement of Reasons 12 October 2023.

[4] Section 21 documents, filed 15 December 2023, pp 29-34.

[5] Graham v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR694-24, 10 October 2025 ('Graham').

[6] Lee v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR711-23, 18 September 2025 ('Lee').

[7] Brunton v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR091-24, 23 October 2025 ('Brunton').

[8] Marchant v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 71 ('Marchant').

[9] The Member here cited McVie v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 491.

[11] [1990] HCA 33, [36]; Also Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378.

[13] Graham v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR694-24, 10 October 2025.

[14] Lee v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR711-23, 18 September 2025.

[15] Brunton v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing (unreported), GAR091-24, 23 October 2025.