Gilbert v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 164

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10(2), s 10B(1), s 11, s 15, s 24, s 29

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11

Balderson v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 223

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (No 2) [1995] IRCA 540; (1995) 131 ALR 657

Cormack v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing Unit [2015] QCATA 115

DPP v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] 1 VR 63

Lamble v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing

[2018] QCAT 201

Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28

[1] By notice dated 2 February 2024 given pursuant to s 29(d) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (the "Weapons Act"), the respondent revoked the applicant's firearms licence number 26612778 citing the reason that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence due to it not being in the public interest (the "original decision").

[2] On 4 March 2024, the applicant applied to the tribunal to review the original decision.

The Scheme of the Weapons Act

[3] The system for licensing weapons in Queensland is established by the Weapons Act. Under s 3(2), the object of the Weapons Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. The principles underlying the Weapons Act in s 3(1) are that:

(a) weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety; and

(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.

[4] Under s 4(d), the object of the Weapons Act is to be achieved by providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for licences authorising possession of firearms.

[5] Under s 10(2)(a)-(g), a person is only entitled to a licence if they satisfy all of the following requirements. The person is:

(a) an adult or qualifies for a minor's licence;

(b) has, under s 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence;

(c) has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence;

(d) is not prevented by the Weapons Act or another Act or by an order of a Magistrates Court or another court from holding the licence;

(e) is a fit and proper person to hold a licence;

(f) has a reason mentioned in s 11 to possess the weapon or a category of weapon; and

(g) resides only in Queensland.

[6] Under s 4(c), the object of the Weapons Act is to be achieved for firearms by requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm. The list of reasons set out in s 11 include:

(a) sports or target shooting;

(b) recreational shooting;

(c) an occupational requirement, including an occupational requirement for rural purposes, or the collection, preservation, or study of weapons.

[7] In order to decide whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, s 10B(1) mandates that the decision maker consider, among other things:

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

(b) a conviction for a relevant offence[1] (whether spent, not recorded, quashed or set aside) and any information about the circumstances of the relevant offence to which the authorised officer has access;

(c) a charge for a relevant offence (whether withdrawn, discharged or struck out) and any information about the circumstance of the charge to which the officer has access;

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

(e) whether the person has made a statement, knowing it to be false or misleading, in the application under consideration;

(f) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information 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

(g) the public interest.

[8] Under s 15(3), in deciding the application, the authorised officer may consider anything at the officer's disposal.

[9] Under s 24, it is a condition of each licence that a licensee, within 14 days, advise an officer in charge of police of the happening of an event listed in subsection (2) and the particulars of the change the officer reasonably requires. An example of an event requiring notification to police is a change in reason for possessing or using a firearm. Under s 34, there are penalties for contravening a condition of a licence.

[10] Under s 29(1)(d), an authorised officer may revoke a licence if the authorised officer is satisfied that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold licence. The matters for consideration when making such a decision are the matters set out in section 10B of the Weapons Act.

[11] At the hearing, the applicant submitted that:

(a) The original decision maker erred in the consideration of s 10B(1) of the Weapons Act by taking into account two convictions for offences committed on 4 November 2023 and 20 December 2023 (neither of which were recorded) for driving a motor vehicle while relevant drug is present; and

(b) Notwithstanding the (recorded) conviction on 2 May 2024, the applicant is still a fit and proper person and it is not against the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence.

(a) It is not in the public interest for a person who admits to using Methylamphetamine and using Methylamphetamine to keep awake whilst kangaroo shooting at nighttime to have possession of a weapon or hold a weapons licence. Also, using a weapon under the influence of Methylamphetamine is an offence against the Weapons Act;

(b) After receiving notice of revocation of his firearms licence, the applicant committed an offence on 2 May 2024 of using Methylamphetamine whilst driving his vehicle;

(c) The applicant's reasons for holding a firearms licence is recreational shooting and shooting club. The applicant has never informed an officer in charge of police, as required by s 24(2)(b) of the Weapons Act, that he is using firearms for an occupational purpose.

[13] At hearing, the respondent relied on the conviction on 2 May 2024 but did not seek to support the original decision by reliance on the two convictions mentioned above that were not recorded. I have had regard to that approach taken by the respondent in these reasons.

[14] The purpose of a review is to produce the correct and preferable decision, following a fresh hearing of the matter on its merits.[2] The Tribunal considers the matter afresh, making its own decision, based on the evidence before it and according to law. In essence, in its review jurisdiction, the tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision-maker for the decision reviewed and makes its own decision.

[15] The meaning of "fit and proper" at common law is explained in the case of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33, 36:

It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. ... whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is it likely to occur, whether it can be assumed it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur.

[16] The standard to apply in respect of being "fit and proper" that adheres to the object of the Weapons Act is explained in Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 as follows:

The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that [the applicant] would not pose a risk to public safety if he had access to firearms.

The Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the [Weapons] Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk.

[17] The relevant provision in s 10B(1) that was the subject of the hearing is paragraph (g) and whether, for public interest reasons, the applicant is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence. I have considered all the evidence and the provisions of s 10B(1)(a) - (g). I am satisfied that the "public interest" in paragraph (g) is the element of s 10B(1) in issue in this matter.

[18] The purpose of the references to "public interest" in s 10B(1) is to ensure that private interests are not the only matters taken into account; to make clear that the interests of the whole community are matters for the tribunal's consideration and to amplify the protective nature of the legislation.[3] The meaning of "public interest" includes the standards of human conduct tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society as a whole and for the well-being of its members.[4] The public interest is a broad concept in which the interests of the community are considered having regard to the principles and object of the Weapons Act.[5]

[19] The applicant gave evidence to the tribunal in an affidavit in which he stated that he:

(a) had completed the humane shooting test for commercial macropod harvesting on 14 September 2019;

(b) completed the commercial wildlife harvesting course in November 2019;

(c) had been issued certification from Safe Food Queensland for Meat Wild Animal Harvesting in January 2020;

(d) was issued a harvesting licence by the Department of Environment and Science initially until 30 December 2020 and then renewed until 31 December 2025;

(e) has not had a traffic infringement since the appearance in the Southport Magistrates Court;

(f) has never been the subject of domestic violence proceedings;

(g) has never been accused of, or convicted of, offences of dishonesty;

(h) has never been accused of, or convicted of, an offence against the Weapons Act;

(i) completed the Roads and Traffic Education Programme on 2 September 2024;

(j) attended counselling in May 2024;

(k) used his firearms for commercial purposes and that the harvesting of feral animals and macropods supplemented his income. The applicant produced remittance advices over a four-month period from 21 June 2023 to 26 October 2023 showing payment for shooting conducted often during the working week of Monday to Friday and after working as a concreter during the day;

(l) has since rehabilitated from the person he was during the period November 2023 to May 2024.

[20] In his affidavit, the applicant also referred to the presence of protective factors:

(a) since his last offence he now receives the support of a new partner, and that he shares custody of a one-year-old daughter; and

(b) that he continues to maintain full time employment as a concreter and contract harvester to provide for himself and his family.

[21] The applicant also stated in his affidavit that he had great respect for the regulations and conditions for the use of firearms and that being issued with a licence is a privilege and not a right.

(a) stated that his reason for holding a weapons licence is to get rid of wild and feral pests on properties, which turned into a commercial money making venture;

(b) acknowledged that he did not inform the police of the change in reason - which contradicts his statement in the affidavit where he says that he has great respect for the regulations and conditions for the use of firearms;

(c) said that he had been shooting commercially since about 2019;

(d) stated that his drug use was due to being in a dark place and in a bad relationship. He admitted to using Methylamphetamine by smoking it regularly. He said that he smoked it: "a few times a day if that", "once a day", "not every day, some days I would not have it and some days I would when I needed it";

(e) said that he had undergone counselling to get away from his drug use;

(f) said that he had support from his parents and that a child with his current partner is "on its way". His mother and partner were sitting in the tribunal room during the hearing.

[23] The applicant relies on the case of Balderson v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 223 ("Balderson") and submitted that it was mainly for the similarity in the antecedents. When asked, the applicant explained the offence of 12 May 2024 by saying that he was still in the previous "toxic relationship" when it occurred and until seeking counselling. He said that he is now in a healthier position. In Balderson, there is no suggestion that the applicant possessed or used firearms while under the influence of drugs and this is a significant distinguishing feature. The facts of this case and Balderson are materially different. I do not place any weight on this submission by the applicant.

[24] As to when more specifically he used Methylamphetamine, the applicant's initial evidence in cross-examination was that it was "before I'd drive home from shooting or whenever I was tired". During re-examination, this evidence was modified to state that he used Methylamphetamine "more to get home". When questioned further by Mr Fergusson about his drug use, the applicant admitted to taking Methylamphetamine in the course of shooting. The following is the exchange between the applicant and Mr Fergusson during the hearing:

Mr Fergusson: Did you ever use Methylamphetamine whilst out kangaroo shooting - what was your response to that?

Applicant: Yes

Mr Fergusson: so you admit to using Methylamphetamine whilst in possession of a firearm?

Applicant: Yes, it is on the paper

Mr Fergusson: No, I am asking you sir, is that correct?

Applicant: Yes

[25] Having regard to the above admission and to the statements that he used Methylamphetamine "whenever I was tired" and "more to get home", I am satisfied and find that the applicant used Methylamphetamine while in the course of shooting.

[26] The applicant also admits to taking Methylamphetamine before driving home after shooting. Taking the drug for the purpose of driving on a public road is a risk factor for public and individual safety because a person has reduced control over their actions; and it shows a disregard for the need of firearms licence holders to comply with the law. Furthermore, in this situation, the applicant must have been in possession of a firearm and affected by Methylamphetamine when loading the firearm into his vehicle to drive home and then unloading it from the vehicle at home for safe storage.

[27] Section 59 of the Weapons Act provides a penalty for having physical possession of, or use of, a firearm while under the influence of a drug. Also, one of the principles of the Weapons Act is the imposition of strict controls on the possession of weapons and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons.

[28] I place a lot of weight on the evidence of the applicant's possession and use of a firearm and driving his motor vehicle, whilst affected by a drug.

[29] It is clear from the evidence that the applicant has displayed a disregard for legislation and this disregard is relevant to considerations under s 10B(1):

(a) public and individual safety is at risk when persons affected by a drug possess or use weapons. There is the risk of misuse of the firearm presented from a person's lack of control of their actions. There is also the risk the firearm might not be secured after use. The object of the Weapons Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.

(b) the applicant has admitted to using his licence for an occupational requirement (of commercial shooting) when not licensed for that reason. I place weight on this consideration.

[30] I also place a lot of weight on the fact that the applicant was convicted on 2 May 2024 of driving while a relevant drug was present, the drug being Methylamphetamine. This conviction was recorded. The conviction is significant due to the seriousness of the offence and also for the fact that the offence was committed after the applicant had his licence revoked and after he had lodged his review application in the tribunal on 4 March 2024. The applicant has continued his disregard for legislation notwithstanding the revocation of his firearms licence and notwithstanding his application to review the original decision in the tribunal.

[31] Even though the applicant attended counselling, I do not place much weight on the counselling because there is no report from a counsellor setting out what was covered in the sessions and the results thereof. In questioning, the applicant said that he did not receive any coping tools from those sessions.

[32] I have had regard to the evidence of the applicant in paragraphs [19] and [20] above. I do not place any weight on the training, certificates etc, set out in paragraph [19](a) to (d) above because they occurred well before the revocation of the firearms licence and do not bear upon his current fitness. There are however aspects of the evidence that are favourable to the applicant in terms of assessing whether he is a fit and proper person. He has no domestic violence orders against him nor is he involved in proceedings; he has no history of dishonesty; he has attended counselling and says he has since rehabilitated from the person he was during the period November 2023 to May 2024. He also has the support of family and is in full time employment. I place some weight on this evidence and which was not contested by the respondent. The respondent did challenge the efficacy of the counselling but not the fact that it occurred.

[33] However, the considerations favourable to the applicant are clearly outweighed by the adverse factors, namely that the applicant:

(a) displayed a general disregard for the law and the Weapons Act as outlined above;

(b) was affected by Methylamphetamine while in possession of and using a firearm, and also while driving a motor vehicle on a public road;

(c) used a firearm for a reason that had neither been notified to the police or approved;

(d) was convicted of an offence on 2 May 2024; and

(e) continued his disregard for the law by offending two months after lodging his review application in the tribunal.

[34] For these reasons, I find that it is not in the public interest for the applicant to hold a firearms licence. Having regard to the standard to be applied in assessing whether a person is fit and proper to hold a licence, I am not satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety if the applicant were given access to a firearm.

[35] I therefore find that the correct and preferable decision is that the decision of the respondent made on 2 February 2024 to revoke the applicant's firearms licence number 26612778 under the Weapons Act is confirmed.

[36] In relation to the impact of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (the "HRA"), I consider that the HRA applies in this matter and potentially impacts the applicant's human rights, including under s 24 which provides that all persons have the right to own property alone or in association with others and that a person must not be arbitrarily deprived of the person's property.

[37] However, having regard to the principles and object of the Weapons Act, the fact that the object is to be achieved for firearms by providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for licences authorising possession of firearms, I find that the applicant's human rights have not been limited to an extent and in a manner that is not reasonable and justifiable.[6] In so finding, I have had regard to the significance of the purpose of the limitations imposed by the Weapons Act such as:

(a) The principle contained in s 3(1)(a) that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety;

(b) The principle contained in s 3(1)(b) that 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;

(c) The object of the Weapons Act to prevent misuse of weapons.

[38] The decision of the respondent made on 2 February 2024 to revoke the applicant's firearms licence number 26612778 under the Weapons Act is confirmed.

[1] "relevant offence" is defined in schedule 2 to be one that involves (a) the carriage, discharge, possession, storage or use of a weapon; or (b) involves the use or threatened use of violence...."

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

[3] Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (No 2) [1995] IRCA 540; (1995) 131 ALR 657.

[4] DPP v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] 1 VR 63.

[5] Lamble v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2018] QCAT 201, [16] (Member Traves).

[6] See Weapons Act ss 3, 4(d); HRA s 13.