GSA v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 62

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10B

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 94 ALR

Moye v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2017] QCAT 79

Mr Neuendorf of Robert Bax and Associates, Solicitors

[1] On 11 July 2024 the applicant applied to the respondent for a weapons licence for Category A and B weapons. The genuine reason he gave for the license was for sports or target shooting. He is a member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.

[2] The respondent rejected his application on 21 November 2024. The grounds for rejection were that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence as is required by s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ("the Act") because he failed to make full disclosure of mental health issues in the application, he was alleged to be experiencing in February 2017. The mental health issues arose out of the breakdown of a relationship which ultimately resulted in police obtaining a domestic violence protection order against the applicant.

[3] The s 21(2) documents filed by the respondent include records of two domestic violence protection orders made against the applicant in 2017 and 2019 in relation to two separate aggrieved individual females, including the one above. There are statements by those two aggrieved persons concerning the making of those orders.

[4] There is also a charge of dishonesty/stealing as a servant for which no conviction was recorded in March 2019. A traffic history has been produced for offences, mainly speeding, between 2015 and 2020. Both the charge and the traffic history have marginal relevance but are not of sufficient seriousness to render him not a fit and proper person, and were not relied on in the rejection notice.

[5] On 19 December 2024 the applicant filed an application to review the decision of the authorised officer. As this is a review of the respondent's decision to reject the applicant's application for a weapons licence, section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ("QCAT Act") requires me to make the correct and preferable decision by way of a rehearing on the merits.[1] That is to have regard to the evidence filed by both parties and also the further evidence given at the hearing. It is not the function of the Tribunal to identify error or mistake in the original decision but to look at all of the surrounding circumstances, as has often been said, "stand in the shoes of the decision maker, and make another decision afresh".

[6] The issuing of a weapons licence to an individual is governed by the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld). The granting of a licence is not as of right and is subordinate to the need to ensure public safety. This is achieved by the imposition of strict conditions on the possession of weapons, their storage and carriage.[2] Section 10B of the Act provides that an individual must be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. It sets out those matters that can be taken into account, but it is not exhaustive. Relevantly here:

(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

[7] The respondent submits that the term "fit and proper person" must be considered in all the circumstances of the case, and the context in which it is used in the Act.[3] Also the public interest must be considered by having regard to the objects of the Act, in particular public safety.[4]

[8] To appreciate the seriousness of the domestic violence protection orders under the Act, s 10B(5)(b) provides a person is deemed not to be a fit and proper person if within the relevant period:

a domestic violence order, other than a temporary protection order, has been made against the person

[9] The section is not directly applicable here because the relevant period of five years had expired since the making of the last protection order on 29 March 2019. To be clear the fact that there was admitted conduct involving the need for protection orders remains relevant to this review despite it not being relied upon specifically in the rejection notice.

[10] Therefore, the question for determination in this review application is whether, in all the circumstances, the applicant is a fit and proper person to be issued with a weapons licence. The specific matters to be considered are the applicant's failure to disclose mental health issues in this application and the circumstances of the domestic violence orders, and, to a lesser extent, his traffic history.

[11] The applicant was born in 1997. He left school in 2014, grade 11, and started working. In 2016 he commenced working with the Queensland Ambulance Service ("QAS") during which time he completed further studies. He continued in this employment until 2019. After leaving this employment he moved into aviation and study for a Bachelor of Aviation.[5] Unfortunately, the flight school to which he was attached went into liquidation (or bankruptcy) and he took it no further. During this time he engaged in various occupations to pay his way. He has listed the employment in the statement he has filed in the Tribunal. He applied for employment with Border Force but could not take up a position because he would have to immediately relocate which was impractical at the time. In the past four years he has been doing part-time work as a mortician supplemented with casual work. The applicant has opportunities to return to the QAS, upon application and also Border Force.

[12] In or about 2019 he commenced a relationship with his current partner. I accept the relationship is permanent and on a sound footing. They have two children, a boy aged around one and a girl aged three. This is confirmed by statements from the applicant's partner's mother, who speaks highly of the applicant. As does her grandfather.

[13] Had it not been for the orders made under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), the likelihood is that the applicant's application for a weapons licence would not have been rejected.

[14] At the time of making the first protection order in 2017 the applicant had been in a two year relationship with the aggrieved person[6] who I will refer to as Joan (a pseudonym), for the last six months they had lived together. In February 2017 the relationship broke down and in the following March, the applicant contacted Joan and made threats to her about assaulting a friend of hers and that he was going to self-harm, and commit suicide, by driving into a tree.

[15] After this phone call, Joan called her sister who told her that the applicant had come to her house, again threatening self-harm and was walking around her yard. Joan then contacted the police. When she called her sister back the applicant answered the phone and starting verbally abusing her with obscene words. Eventually the police arrived.

[16] Thereafter the protection order was subsequently made on 18 April 2017.

[17] Following the breakdown of the relationship with Joan the applicant commenced a relationship with Kate (a pseudonym) in about October 2017. The relationship did not last long. By early 2018, Kate says that the applicant was engaging in controlling behaviour and overbearing. Arguments occurred and on one occasion when in the car, the applicant threated to kill himself and swerved the car to the right and Kate had to grab the steering wheel and steer it back onto the lane of traffic. The vehicle stopped with Kate in a very distressed state. There were subsequent self-harm threats made by the applicant culminating in the protection order made on 29 March 2019.

[18] It is relevant to note that neither of the complainants alleged any physical harm perpetrated by the applicant.

[19] Although the protection orders were made, without admission by the applicant, he does not contest the substance of the behaviour alleged against him. He concedes that he had difficulty dealing with the breakdown of the relationships and other conduct based on his immaturity at the time. Looking back at this conduct, he is embarrassed he behaved so poorly and is remorseful that the aggrieved persons were exposed to stress and fear of his conduct.

[20] Although he admits he made threats of suicide, he believes this was just a way to seek emotional support in the circumstances of the breakups. However, apart from threats, he denies any actual and serious attempt to take his own life.

[21] Since these events, he has matured and is now in a stable relationship. He has generally been in employment and now, together with his partner, has the responsibility of caring for two young children. This is referenced in the report of Dr Donna Eshuys, Clinical Psychologist, who has provided a medico-legal report to the Tribunal, discussed below.

[22] The applicant admits to not disclosing his emotional state at the time of the making of the application for a licence. He did not consider there were mental health issues, but rather behavioural issues resulting from the breakdown of the relationship. He did not seek medical or other treatment during this period to deal with his emotions.

[23] Emotional distress or grief resulting from a change of personal circumstances does not necessarily translate into a mental health issue. As there has been no treatment or diagnosis it is not surprising he answered "no". I would also observe that the question is somewhat ambiguous. An applicant is asked whether treatment has been received for "psychiatric or emotional problems". As he has not been "treated" he has truthfully answered the question. Also by including "emotional" with "psychiatric" it would suggest that emotional would be more than the usual everyday emotions people experience in stressful situations. The emotional problems must be of such significance that treatment is warranted. That is not what occurred here.

[24] The applicant's truthfulness is demonstrated by his fulsome answer to the question about a domestic violence order.

[25] I find that the applicant did answer the question about his mental health honestly and find that it was not false or misleading.

[26] As for the traffic offences, as I indicated they are mostly low-level offences up to 2020. The most serious is a speeding offence in that year resulting in four demerit points. There has been no offending for the past six years. This history is not a disqualifying factor.

[27] The application for review is supported by references from a number of acquaintances.[7] They all speak highly of the applicant.

[28] The applicant's partner's grandfather has known the applicant for about seven years. He has not observed any anti-social behaviour. He commented that the applicant has a strong work-ethic and gets on well within the family. He is well liked. He considered that the applicant has not exhibited any signs of mental health issues.

[29] The applicant's partner's mother has commented in a similar fashion. She stated that during the time she has known the applicant he has never shown any signs of aggression or violence. He is a "well balanced" and caring individual.

[30] A third referee expressed similar views about the applicant's character and the stability of the relationship he is now in with his partner for seven years. He observed that the applicant has maintained full-time employment. He is aware of the licence application and considers that given his knowledge of the applicant and the absence of any signs of aggression, he can see no apparent reason why he would not be a responsible weapons licence holder.

[31] All references are of a similar vein speaking to his good character and acknowledging that he would not be a risk to the community if he held a weapons licence.

[32] Then there is the comprehensive report of Dr Eshuys. The report records the events surrounding the application for the domestic violence and protection orders referred to above. The applicant provided an explanation, consistent with the objective facts from the police records, although he was a little vague about some of the allegations.

[33] The applicant underwent a number of psychometric tests which included anger management, risk of violence, risk of suicide and responses to a number of questions put to him by Dr Eshuys. She included a checklist of relevant historical issues and provided a risk rating (Historical, Clinical, risk Management - Risk of Violence). She commented on the results as follows:

The [applicant] scores very low across the HCR-20 domains. The only minor concerns are the historical (past relationship instability, DVOs, one fraud, and childhood trauma exposure). These are outweighs by current protective factors: long-term stable relationship, parenting role, stable employment, not substance us, no mental illness, strong insight, reflective maturity, and prosocial values. Overall Risk Judgement: Low risk of future violence.

[34] She assessed the risk of suicide and concluded that he demonstrates "no current suicidal intent or behaviour". She concluded:

It is my opinion, based on his clinical assessment, his past history, current functioning, Mental State Exam and the results of psychometric measures, that the [applicant] does not endorse any of the most important personal risk factors for estimating the current and immediate risk. Overall Suicide Risk: low/negligible.

[35] She did not consider he was at any risk to the public, particularly noting he has no history of violence towards others. She finally considered the level of risk associated with the applicant having a weapons licence.

The significant change in Mr GSA's circumstances was his earlier transition from unstable, short-term, toxic relationships in early adulthood to a long-term, supportive partnership with his fiancée, as well as his role as a father to two young children. This change markedly reduced his risk profile. He now demonstrates adaptive coping strategies, stable employment, and responsibility toward his family. His prosocial role within his family and community, combined with his abstinence form alcohol and drugs positions him as low-risk category. The likelihood of recurrence of past difficulties is minimal, and his present circumstances are protective. However, should his current circumstances significantly change, for example were he to experience a relationship breakdown or other major stressor, the overall risk profile would remain relatively low. It is important to note that the context today is markedly different. Mr GSA is now more mature, demonstrates insight and reflective understanding of past behaviours, and has developed adaptive coping strategies such as engaging in motorbike riding, practical activities...and seeking heathy outlets for stress.

[36] Having considered all of the information gathered, bearing in mind that there remained the contested factual issues about the allegations made in the application for the DVO, Dr Eshuys opined:

Given [the applicants'] continued stable mental state, his unremarkable scores on the psychometric testing, his prior attendance in counselling and treatment as needed, his improved self-awareness and adequate stress management, and his very low risk score on the risk measures above, it is my opinion that he poses at very low risk to himself, others and the community. I do not consider there to be any real prospect of [the applicant] misusing his weapon should his weapon licence be reinstated therefore, it is my opinion that he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence and exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms.

[37] It is evident by this report that the applicant recognises that he acted irrationally in his youth and has made a major change in his approach to life. The report is helpful in determining the correct and preferable decision as required by s 20 of the QCAT Act.

[38] The applicant recognises he reacted inappropriately in relation to the breakup of two relationships in the past. He accepts he made suicidal threats and has frightened and caused distress to his girlfriends at the time. Since then, he has matured and has been in a stable relationship for some seven years.

[39] The ground for rejection of his application for a weapons licence is not substantiated. However, I have had to give consideration to the domestic violence and protection orders made despite those not being a ground of rejection. His conduct at that time was serious and automatically deemed him not to be a fit and proper person under the Act for a period of five years. However, he has used that time to reflect, mature and control his emotions.

[40] The report from Dr Eshuys together with the favourable references, support my view that the applicant does not present a risk to himself or the public. Considering all of the evidence objectively I have come to the view that the correct and preferable decision is that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. I propose to set aside the decision of the authorised officer and instead there will be a decision that the applicant be issued with a weapons licence for category A and B firearms for sport and recreational purposes.

[41] Under s 159 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), publication of any information that is likely to identify a person or witness involved in a proceeding under that Act is prohibited. As one of the main issues in this case involved the making of orders under that Act I propose to make a non-publication order pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the QCAT Act.

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

[2] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 3.

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

[4] Moye v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2017] QCAT 79, [36].

[5] The detail of this is vague and taken from his statement and the report of Dr Eshuys.

[6] Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) s 21(1).

[7] I don't propose to name them for privacy reasons.