Harris v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 151

Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93

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

Richmond v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing Branch [2016] QCAT 243.

Rogers v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing Branch [2024] QCAT 306

[1] On 11 June 2024, the Respondent revoked the Applicant's Firearms Licence on the basis that the Authorised Officer was satisfied that the Applicant was no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence due to it not being in the public interest ("the Decision").

[2] The basis for the revocation was set out in the Information Notice and Statement of Reasons. In summary, the Respondent noted that:

(a) On 8 June 2024, the Applicant was charged with the following offences:

(i) 1x Fail to store small ammunition in a secured area.

(ii) 1x Possession of unregistered firearms.

(iii) 1x Prohibition on possession of magazine for particular category B weapons.

(b) For those offences, the Applicant was offered and received an adult caution.

(c) On 15 May 2024 the Applicant was offered and accepted a drug warning for the following offences:

(i) 1x Possess dangerous drug.

(ii) 1x Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used.

(d) In 2017, the Applicant was charged with drink driving over the high blood alcohol limit and was fined $950 and disqualified from driving for eight months as his blood alcohol concentration was 0.156%.

[3] By way of Application to review a decision filed on 25 June 2024 ("the Application"), the Applicant seeks a review of the Decision.

[4] I heard the matter on 27 February 2026 and reserved my decision.

[5] At the hearing, the Applicant sought to rely upon his Application, as well as a statement of evidence filed in the Tribunal on 9 June 2025.

[6] The statement of evidence can be described as comprehensive. It included a six-page statement from the Applicant, material about a Queensland Traffic Offenders Program that the Applicant completed, a psychologist report dated 16 May 2025, and character references.

[7] The Applicant also gave oral evidence at the hearing.

[8] In summary, the Applicant has held a Category A & B firearms licence for a period of approximately 20 years. He uses his firearms for recreational shooting on rural land, as well as sport/target shooting.

[9] The Applicant joined the army in or around 2000 as a solider. He says he spent two stints in the army. In between those stints the Applicant worked for the Australian Federal Police as a Protection Officer. In this position he was required to carry a firearm everyday.

[10] The Applicant was deployed to East Timor in 2001, and says he was part of an army trial for a new drug that he developed side effects from. He was meant to be on deployment for six months, but returned home within three months due to the side effects.

[11] Upon his return, the Applicant sought assistance from other veterans, a psychologist and his general practitioner. During that time he was prescribed anti-depressants from his general practitioner for a period of six months.

[12] The Applicant was discharged from the army in 2011 and returned to live in Townsville.

[13] The Applicant admits that he should have disclosed his prior medical history, and is unsure why he did not do so when making his application for a firearms licence.

[14] The report from the psychologist was thorough and provided detail about the Applicant's mental health history, and current state.

[15] In the report, the psychologist states that she was advised by the Applicant that he has never used illicit drugs, apart from the use of cannabis between December 2023 until March 2024. This cannabis use was said to be for management of the Applicant's back pain and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder like symptoms. He had not consumed alcohol for 18 months prior to the assessment.

[16] As part of the psychologist report, the Applicant undertook a HCR-20 Violence Risk Assessment. A score of 30 or above is often associated with a high risk of violence. The Applicant scored 3, which placed him in the low-risk category of future violence.

[17] The psychologist stated in her report that the Applicant is also not a current and immediate risk of suicide. He was said to have had good insight, is finally secure, has good support networks, stable living arrangements and is not expressing any levels of distress (among other factors).

[18] Finally, the report states that the Applicant displays insight and fully acknowledges his prior misjudgements and he understands the responsibility of holding a firearms licence.

[19] Turning to the Applicant's traffic history. The Applicant stated that he accepted his traffic history dated 5 August 2024. The Applicant's traffic history shows regular entries of speeding (largely instances of at least 13km/h and not more than 20km/h), as well as three instances of driving over the prescribed limit. Two of those entries are minor and date back to 1994-5. The entry the subject of the Decision is more serious. As to that entry, the Applicant says that he simply made the wrong decision. The Applicant accepted a plea of guilty and expressed remorse.

[20] The Notice of Adult Caution came about on 15 May 2024 when the Queensland Police Service ("QPS") attended the Applicant's premises in relation to matters relating to his brother. At the time the Police attended, the Applicant was found to be in possession of a small amount of cannabis and a pipe.

[21] During an interview with the Police, the Applicant was cooperative, and advised that the last time he smoked cannabis was six to eight weeks ago.

[22] During the visit by the QPS to the Applicant's property on 15 May 2024, it was discovered that the Applicant had stored a shotgun in a timber sideboard, that was not attached to the floor or frame of the house. The Applicant's evidence was that he was given this firearm by a friend's girlfriend who was in a DV situation and they knew that the Applicant was a weapons licence holder and could store the gun. The Applicant took possession of the shotgun at least a month or two before the QPS attended on 15 May 2024.

[23] The Applicant stated that he had full intentions of handing the firearm in under the Amnesty Agreement but had not done so.

[24] Finally, the Applicant noted his unblemished criminal history.

[25] At the hearing, the Respondent sought to rely upon the material filed in accordance with section 21 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

[26] The Applicant was cross-examined by the Respondent at the hearing. The cross-examination largely related to the QPS visit to the Applicant's property on 15 May 2024.

[27] During the visit, the Applicant disclosed to the QPS that there was an unsecured firearm in his room. It was a rifle that was sitting on his bed. The Applicant stated that he had taken it out to clean it, and when asked why he did not secure it, the Applicant stated that he was only briefly stepping out to use the bathroom (that was in another area of the house). The Applicant, under cross-examination, stated that his brother was present within the property at the time that the firearm was on the bed, and that he did not consider his brother to be a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

[28] During this visit, the QPS also found six (6) magazines with a thirty (30) round capacity. The Applicant stated that he purchased these from a firearms dealer and at the time of the QPS attending the property, the magazines were loaded.

[29] The Applicant conceded that he was only licenced to own ten (10) round magazines and stated that he knew it was an offence to hold a magazine with a capacity that exceeded ten (10) rounds.

[30] The Applicant also stated that he owned 12 weapons prior to them being seized.

[31] The Applicant also admitted to having unsecured ammunition located within the property, including .223 ammunition hanging in webbing in the cupboard.

[32] The Respondent argued that the Applicant had been in possession of high-capacity weapons since 2011 when he left the army. This was with reference to a metal thirty (30) round magazine that the Applicant took from his time in the army, and stated it was found in the bottom of his trunk when he returned from service.

[33] The Applicant had a shotgun for at least one month prior to the QPS visit and failed to declare it and properly store it.

[34] The Respondent argues that this was not an aberration, but rather demonstrated a course of conduct since 2011.

[35] Section 3 of the Act sets out the principles and objects of the Act.

[36] It states that the principles underlying the Act are as follows:

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

(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.

[37] The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.[1]

[38] In deciding or considering the suspension or revocation of a weapons licence under the Act, the authorised officer must consider, among other things:[2]

(a) The mental and physical fitness of the person.

(b) If the authorised officer is aware the person has a conviction for a relevant offence, including a conviction that is spent conviction, a conviction that has not been recorded or a conviction that has been quashed or set aside.

(c) If the authorised officer is aware the person has been charged with a relevant offence, including a charge that has been withdrawn, discharged or struck out.

(d) Whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular.

(e) The public interest.

[39] In essence, section 10B of the Act provides that an individual must be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

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

[41] I have approached my decision with regard to two main features of this Application, firstly, the matter of the charges relating to the possession of cannabis and the pipe, and secondly, the weapons offences.

[42] In relation to the possession of cannabis and pipe charges ("the Drug Matters"), I stated during the hearing that I was unlikely to apply much weight to this. The reason for this is twofold.

[43] The Drug Matters appear as the first entries on the Applicant's Queensland Person History on 15 May 2024. Prior to that, the Applicant had no other entries. Given the relative minor nature of those matters, I am not of the view that a single entry for possession of cannabis and a pipe would exclude someone from being treated as a fit and proper person. The Applicant stated in his evidence that he had not used that drug for some six to eight weeks before being charged with those offences on 15 May 2024, and that it was used to self-medicate for back pain and PTSD like symptoms. There was no evidence before me that suggested that the Applicant had a history of drug use.

[44] As a segue from that point, I should note that no convictions were recorded for those offences. Instead the Applicant's Queensland Person History notes that he only received a drug warning.

[45] To that end, I have adopted the decision of Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93 whereby Boddice JA stated that regard cannot be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded, or to the facts or circumstances of those offences.[5]

[46] The Court of Appeal in that case took the view that the intent of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) was that only specified convictions are relevant to the determination of whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.[6]

[47] I therefore apply little weight to the Applicant's offences relating to the possession of cannabis and a pipe.

[48] What is of more concern in this matter is the Applicant's offences under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), and his repeated disregard for his obligations and responsibilities as a weapons licence holder.

[49] Section 4(c) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) provides that it is an object of the Act that each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence is required to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm.

[50] In this case, the Applicant owned twelve (12) firearms at the time they were seized. The Applicant also owned six (6), thirty (30) round high-capacity magazines (which he admitted he knew was an offence).

[51] In addition to that, the Applicant was in possession of an unregistered shotgun that was stored in a wooden sideboard that was not fixed to the floor or walls. The Applicant also had ammunition stored in webbing in a cupboard.

[52] The Applicant also left a rifle on his bed, unsecured, and within the control of his brother who he described as someone who was not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

[53] When reaching this decision, I have considered a number of authorities.

[54] The Applicant has referred me to the decision of Avenell v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 496 ("Avenell"), specifically paragraph [31] that states that:

The fact that he has failed to comply with the requirements of properly securing his weapons and ammunition as required by the Weapons Act is of concern but for that he has been punished.

[55] The case of Avenell dealt with a single instance of a rifle being placed in an unsecured cupboard in a shed outside the property.

[56] I find that the circumstances in this case are more serious than Avenell. Here, the Applicant stored an unregistered shotgun in a wooden cupboard, had a rifle on his bed, owned six high-capacity magazines, of which some where loaded, and ammunition in webbing in a cupboard, all while his brother was within the property, and described as a someone who was not fit and proper to hold a weapons licence.

[57] The Applicant has also referred me to the matter of Richmond v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing Branch [2016] QCAT 243 ("Richmond"). The case of Richmond concerned one instance of a failure to secure a firearm, which resulted in a third party using it to take their own life.

[58] The Tribunal in Richmond contrasted the Applicant's conduct against that in CAT v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licencing Branch [2015] QCAT 264 ("CAT"). The Tribunal in Richmond found that the breaches in that case were far less serious than those of CAT, which included having multiple unregistered weapons, possession of weapons outside the category of the licence which was held, and domestic violence matters.

I find there is no evidence before me to establish that Mr Richmond knew or should have known that the risk of leaving the Rifle at his son's home unsecured was greater than the risk of leaving it in an 'average' residence unsecured.[7]

[60] I contrast that statement to this matter where the Applicant here stated on cross-examination that he knew his brother was not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, but yet still left a rifle unsecured on the Applicant's bed, as well as a shotgun in a wooden cupboard and ammunition unsecured in the house.

[61] I do find that the Applicant's conduct in this matter is more serious than that in Richmond, but much less serious than in CAT.

[62] I agree with the Respondent that this is not an aberration, but rather a protracted history of either forgetting the requirements under the Act, or a disregard for them.

[63] The Applicant's conduct in that regard has been going on since as early as 2011 when he returned from the army in possession of a high-capacity magazine.

[64] Finally, I have considered the case of Rogers v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing [2024] QCAT 306. The Tribunal in that case confirmed the decision under review on the basis that the applicant failed to be aware of or comply with the conditions of his licence. The Tribunal stated that the applicant was either unaware of the conditions and obligations, or was unconcerned with them.[8] Which I find is conduct and behaviour similar to the Applicant in this case.

[65] In making this decision, I have had particular regard to the principles and object of the Act.

[66] Based on the Applicant's history of owning high-capacity magazines, without the appropriate licence, as well as leaving multiple weapons unsecured in his house, ammunition in webbing in a cupboard, all whilst having his brother (unfit to hold a weapons licence) present in the house, the Applicant has demonstrated a disregard for his responsibilities and obligations under the Act.

[67] I find that based on that, and the reasons above, the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, and I confirm the Respondent's decision of 11 June 2024.

1. The decision of the Respondent of 11 June 2024 is confirmed.

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

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

[5] Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93, [34].

[7] Richmond v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing Branch [2016] QCAT 243, [43].

[8] Rogers v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing [2024] QCAT 306, [71].