Humphreys v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 294

s 29B, s 30

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), s 3(1)(b), s 3(2),

s 10(2)(c), s 28A

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Bond [1990] HCA 33

CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43 Magarry v QPS Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378

QPS v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147

R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216

Senior Sergeant Ayscough with Acting Sergeant Bauer

• [1] Mr Humphreys is a 51-year-old grazier who has owned firearms since he was 16 years of age and held a weapons licence since it was mandatory to do so. He owns a cattle station approximately two and a half hours drive from Roma in Central Queensland.
• [2] It is not in issue that Mr Humphreys needs firearms in the course of working his cattle property. What is in issue is whether or not Mr Humphreys is a fit and proper person to possess a weapons licence.
• [3] Queensland Police decided he was not when they revoked his weapons licence on 15 February 2023. They suspected that he was a 'sovereign citizen', an adherent to pseudolaw beliefs.
• [4] In R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216, Cash QC DCJ explored pseudolaw (statements and beliefs claimed to rest on legitimate legal concepts but in fact merely the product of senseless conspiracy theories) and noted the discredited notions adherents follow are not much tolerated by the Courts:

[3] Merely setting out the argument is sufficient to show it is nonsense. It is apparent that the applicant is one of a group of people who for some years have attempted, universally without success, to avoid the operation of laws with which they do not wish to comply. The term 'organised pseudo legal commercial argument' litigants (OPCA) was coined by Rooke ACJ in Meades v Meades to describe adherents to these discredited theories. The ideas promoted by OPCA litigants emerged, of course, in the United States. They have since spread to most parts of the common law world, including Queensland. Recognising that the arguments presented by OPCA litigants are largely incoherent, if not incomprehensible, courts have been increasingly willing to dismiss their claims summarily.

(citations omitted)

• [5] Nor, as is to be expected, are so-called sovereign citizens much tolerated by police. Particularly so after the terrible, senseless murders of two police officers innocently attending a rural property at Wieambilla, Queensland for a welfare check on 12 December 2022. They were killed by individuals aspiring to sovereign citizen beliefs.
• [6] That shooting had taken place just 2 months prior to police revoking Mr Humphreys' weapons licence.
• [7] Sometime before 15 February 2023, police stationed at Mitchell were tasked to conduct an audit of weapons held by Mr Humphreys. He had been identified by Weapons Licensing Branch in Brisbane as a potential sovereign citizen.
• [8] On 15 February 2023 Senior Constable John Donaldson telephoned for Mr Humphreys to arrange it, but Mr Humphreys was away mustering. Mr Humphreys was asked to telephone back.
• [9] Mr Humphreys did, and spoke to Senior Constable Hawkey who explained that it had been Senior Constable Donaldson who had telephoned.
• [10] Mr Humphreys had ill feeling towards Senior Constable Donaldson originating from previous interactions going back some 8 years. He had made complaints about him to police superiors.
• [11] Mr Humphreys said he didn't want Senior Constable Donaldson to be one of the officers to conduct the audit. Senior Constable Hawkey said there was only one police officer besides himself available, and it was a requirement that there be two officers attending. Mr Humphreys suggested some other officer from Roma or Injune attend.
• [12] There were approximately 23 officers stationed at Roma. Roma was not a significantly greater distance away from the property than Mitchell. Injune was closest to the property.
• [13] After that conversation Senior Constable Hawkey sent an email to Weapons Licensing Branch entitled Weapons Audit - Sovereign Citizen - Darren Humphreys 10/2/1973:

Good morning

Mitchell Station has made enquiries to conduct the above weapons audit at rural property Darkwater ... Injune

today, Mr Humphreys has made contact with our station. He advised he was unavailable to conduct the audit even date due to mustering cattle.

Currently Mitchell Station is staffed by 2 officers - Hawkey/Donaldson.

Humphreys told me Donaldson has no permission to set foot on his property.

I have explained to Humphreys that 2 officers are required to complete audits in rural locations and no other officer is available.

I have also explained the audit takes about 5 minutes and outlined what we would be doing on the property.

Humphreys has remained infirm stands advising officer Donaldson will not be setting foot on his property.

This is following an incident from 2015 whereby Donaldson has attended the property for welfare checks and domestic violence matters.

Donaldson has no issue with attending to carry out the audit.

Due to nature of task (Sovereign Citizen) this information is being forwarded to weapons licensing for consideration.

Another option available as to liaise with Injune to carry out the audit. The property is in a remote location.

• [14] Senior Constable Hawkey spoke to Weapons Licensing Branch later that day to clarify the email.
• [15] The response from Weapons Licensing Branch was to revoke Mr Humphreys' weapons licence.
• [16] The supporting statement of reasons for the decision to revoke his licence stated Mr Humphreys was not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. The particulars given in support of the decision were as follows:

On 15 February 2023 you were contacted by Acting Sergeant Christopher Hawkey of the Mitchell Police station who was making enquiries to arrange for a Weapons storage compliance inspection and Firearms audit at you (sic) nominated storage address of ...

You advised that you were currently unavailable due to mustering cattle.

You stated that Senior Constable John Donaldson of the Mitchell Police Station was not allowed to set foot on your property.

It was explained to you that two Police officers are required to complete Weapons storage compliance inspections and Firearms audits in remote areas and that no other officers were available to complete the task.

You remained firm in your stance that Senior Constable Donaldson would not be setting foot on your property.

You are advised that Senior Constable Donaldson has a lawful right to enter upon your property to conduct Weapons storage compliance inspections and Firearms audits by virtue of Section 19 "General power to enter to make enquiries, investigations or serve documents" of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 [PPRA].

You are further advised that in refusing to allow Senior Constable Donaldson to enter upon your property you are obstructing Senior Constable Donaldson in the performance of his duties, which is an offence under Section 790, "Offence to assault or obstruct a Police Officer" of the PPRA.

The possession and use of firearms in Queensland is a privilege, not a right and your privileged to possess and use weapons is subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety. A licensee is subsequently required to abide by the laws in force in Queensland as a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Whilst freedom of speech and of political belief is recognised, you have expressed sentiment that the government, Justice systems and law enforcement of this country have no lawful authority. This implies that you fail to recognise the laws as being legitimate.

I am satisfied that there is risk to public interest should you not intend to comply with the laws of this state. As you have repeatedly and explicitly expressed your refusal to comply with the laws of this state, I am satisfied you are no longer a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

• [18] Two weeks later, on 28 February 2023, three officers, Senior Constable Hawkey, Sergeant Smith and Senior Constable Donaldson attended at Mr Humphreys' property to serve the notice of revocation of weapons licence and to seize his weapons.
• [19] They all wore body armour and two of them carried assault rifles. The weapons were located in two gun safes and taken away.
• [20] Mr Humphreys has applied to the Tribunal to review the decision.

• [21] Police said at hearing that they were not authorised to disclose to the Tribunal the basis upon which they had profiled Mr Humphreys as a sovereign citizen.
• [22] In result there is no evidence adduced by police showing he ever held or espoused pseudolaw beliefs prior to 15 February 2023, or holds those views currently.
• [23] He has no traffic history. He has no criminal history.
• [24] The hearing of this review is a rehearing on the merits. The Tribunal decides the matter on the basis of all evidence before it. Relevant evidence coming to light or occurring subsequent to the decision may also be considered.
• [25] Weapons Licensing contend that Mr Humphreys obstructed police by refusing to allow them to enter his premises for the weapons audit. It is submitted that his objection to Senior Constable Donaldson entering his property was unjustified and disproportionate to the interactions he had had with that officer previously.
• [26] They say his behaviour on the day of service of the notice of revocation of his licence and seizure of his weapons was argumentive and obstructive and he was generally difficult with police. Further, when seizing the weapons, they found him to be in breach of a number of storage requirements.
• [27] Finally they submit he was argumentive on the telephone when speaking to a client services officer at Weapons Licensing some months after the seizure of weapons.
• [28] The claim that Mr Humphreys is a sovereign citizen was not pursued by police at hearing.
• [29] In passing I note that save for the telephone conversation on 15 February 2023, the allegations about him acting in a way that was obstructive, argumentative and generally unhelpful with police rely on interactions with police subsequent to his weapons licence being revoked.

• [30] Mr Humphreys had found a message for him when he returned home asking him to call Mitchell police. Mr Humphreys did and spoke to Senior Constable Hawkey. The caller "John" was identified as Senior Constable Donaldson, and Mr Humphreys was advised that he would be one of the officers attending for a weapons audit. Mr Humphreys objected to his involvement in the audit.
• [31] Police say Mr Humphreys' objection was unjustified and disproportionate to the previous interaction between them and it shows or suggests he is not a fit and proper person to own a weapons licence.
• [32] Mr Humphreys submits that to understand his objection one must know what his previous interactions with Senior Constable Donaldson had been. That seems reasonable.
• [33] Mr Humphreys had separated from his de facto wife ('partner') in 2012. There were two children of the relationship. In 2016 Mr Humphreys sought equal care of the children. The partner refused and (according to Mr Humphreys) responded by filing a private application for a domestic violence protection order. She obtained a temporary order but he successfully resisted a permanent order, with the temporary order lapsing when the partner discontinued the application. The partner had relied on the temporary order to restrict Mr Humphreys' visitation rights for the children. The matter was subsequently pursued in the Family Court and the Family Court ordered the parties have equal shared care of the children.
• [34] Mr Humphreys solicitor states in a statement of evidence filed in these proceedings that the Family Court examined the temporary protection order made but found the partner had no real concern about the children's safety or welfare in Mr Humphreys' care. The Family Court made orders in terms sought by Mr Humphreys and those orders and arrangements remain current.
• [35] It was Mr Humphreys' perception that Senior Constable Donaldson had sided, without reason, with his partner during the domestic violence proceedings.
• [36] After the separation Senior Constable Donaldson had telephoned him to say the partner's sister would be attending the property the following day to collect personal items for the partner. Mr Humphreys said the partner could come but not the sister. The sister came the next day regardless and refused to leave. Mr Humphreys says he was forced to telephone Policelink and the operator told her to go. At hearing, Mr Humphreys said the Senior Constable had threatened him that if he caused any trouble and didn't allow the sister onto the property, Mr Humphreys would be the one that he'd be coming after.
• [37] He says the next interaction occurred after his partner applied for the protection order. Senior Constable Donaldson had contacted him by telephone to demand he come to Mitchell Police Station to be served with the application. He refused because at the time he was some 800 kilometres away. According to Mr Humphreys, Senior Constable Donaldson became irate and threatening and said words to the effect 'I will testify against you in the DVO proceedings if you don't come to Mitchell'. The matter was resolved with an officer from Inglewood Police Station serving him with the documents the following day.
• [38] Then some years later Senior Constable Donaldson came to his home on a welfare check. Mr Humphreys claims the Senior Constable knew at the time he was not there. Senior Constable Donaldson entered his house and telephoned Mr Humphreys from the home and Mr Humphreys asked him to leave but he refused to go.
• [39] That last interaction prompted Mr Humphreys to make a complaint to Roma Police about Senior Constable Donaldson. In support of that claim Mr Humphreys offers an email dated 11 November 2019 from an Inspector of police at Roma making mention of it and asking for particulars. There is also an email response from Mr Humphreys saying the particulars had already been given to both the Inspector's predecessor and to the Inspector under reply.
• [40] Mr Humphreys says that subsequently he received a telephone call from a police officer, he cannot recall the name, and was told that he would no longer have to have any dealings with Senior Constable Donaldson. He heard nothing more concerning his complaints or from Senior Constable Donaldson until 15 February 2023.
• [41] Senior Constable Donaldson had little recall of these interactions. He had only vague recollection of the domestic violence application by Mr Humphreys' partner. He said he had not been lead officer on that matter. He couldn't recall telling Mr Humphreys to travel to Mitchell to be served with documents.
• [42] He did remember the welfare check at the house. He had been let into the property by people there. He had explained to Mr Humphreys on the telephone that they (police) were concerned about his mental health. They needed to work out where he was and so they continued a telephone conversation with him despite being told to leave.
• [43] He says he knew that Mr Humphreys had made a complaint after that, but thought it was directed at the other officer with him at the time who was senior. He said he did not know the particulars of the complaint. He had never been officially told not to talk to Mr Humphreys.
• [44] Mr Humphreys said in his statement of evidence that he told Senior Constable Hawkey during the telephone discussion about his prior dealings with Senior Constable Donaldson and his filing a complaint about Senior Constable Donaldson which remained unresolved and that it was on that basis that he didn't want him on his property.
• [45] In giving evidence, Senior Constable Hawkey said he told Mr Humphreys that he would enquire if someone else was available from Injune Police Station. He had done that but was told there was only one man available there, meaning he was not available for the audit. Senior Constable Hawkey did not telephone Mr Humphreys back about the result of that enquiry. Rather he contacted Weapons Licensing. He agreed with Counsel for Mr Humphreys that the conversation with Mr Humphreys had been left on the basis that he would make an enquiry with Injune Station.
• [46] Mr Humphreys said he responded to a comment by Senior Constable Hawkey during the telephone conversation that Mr Humphreys was preventing police from doing their job, 'bring a busload of police out here and I'll put a morning tea on for you but I don't want Donaldson here'.
• [47] Senior Constable Hawkey also agreed with Counsel that the objection voiced was not to police coming onto his property, but to the presence of Senior Constable Donaldson.

Service of the revocation notice and seizure of weapons 28 February 2023

• [48] On 28 February 2023 three police officers came to Mr Humphreys' property to serve notice of revocation of his weapons licence and to seize his weapons.
• [49] Weapons Licensing say Mr Humphreys was argumentive and obstructive and generally being difficult with police. Further, when seizing the weapons, they found him to be in breach of storage requirements.
• [50] There is body camera footage available from all officers concerned, Senior Constables Hawkey and Donaldson and Sergeant Smith. All were stationed at Mitchell.
• [51] The footage shows a nervous, agitated, even fearful Mr Humphreys principally voicing an objection to the presence of Senior Constable Donaldson.
• [52] Mr Humphreys can be seen walking out from a shed on his property suddenly confronted by three police officers wearing body armour and two of them carrying assault rifles, including Senior Constable Donaldson. Mr Humphreys was told to stand still and not to move. The presence of Senior Constable Donaldson on his property with an assault rifle clearly disturbed him. He kept Senior Constable Donaldson in view. It seemed clear from the footage that it was not the presence of police on his property or the service of the revocation notice causing Mr Humphreys greatest distress, or even the seizure of his firearms, but the presence of Senior Constable Donaldson.
• [53] Whilst maintaining an objection to Senior Constable Donaldson's presence (at least up to the time that he read the information statement supporting the revocation notice) Mr Humphreys was otherwise generally compliant with police directions.
• [54] It is noteworthy that when he was reading the revocation information statement, presumably the passage stating that Senior Constable Donaldson had a lawful right to enter upon his property to conduct a firearms audit, Mr Humphreys commented to Senior Constable Hawkey and Sergeant Smith 'I wasn't advised that he had a lawful right to enter my property'. Senior Constable Hawkey standing next to him at the time did not respond to that remark.

• [55] The storage breaches came to the attention of police after Mr Humphreys' licence had been revoked, when the weapons were being seized.
• [56] Senior Constable Hawkey states that there were two firearms in an unlocked box (safe). One firearm had its bolt fitted. There was ammunition in the rifle's magazine seated in the firearm. There was other ammunition in the safe. The ammunition should have been stored separately to the firearms.
• [57] Mr Humphreys says he had already started his work day and he had opened the safe earlier that morning. He says he prepared two weapons for use that day. Ammunition had been placed with the rifles preparatory to use. The gun safe was unlocked, none of the weapons were loaded but one had both bolt and magazine fitted. He concedes there was also some loose ammunition in the gun safe, but it was in the context of preparing the weapons for use.
• [58] Police say these breaches show Mr Humphreys is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Indeed, storage failures alone have been determinative of a decision about the suitability or otherwise of a person to hold a weapons licence. That being said, Mr Humphreys was not charged with any storage offences.
• [59] It is unclear whether police were entitled to seize the weapons at the time of service of the revocation notice. The revocation notice itself was prepared by Weapons Licensing Branch in Brisbane.
• [60] By s 30 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) a revocation notice must direct the licensee to surrender weapons held under the licence in a way prescribed under subsection (4) or (5) at or by a reasonable time.
• [61] Subsection 4 is relevant and provides :

A weapon to be surrendered under a suspension or revocation notice may be surrendered by delivering it to any police officer.

• [62] The revocation notice here required Mr Humphreys to surrender his weapons 'by delivering the weapon(s) to the police officer serving this notice on you immediately'.
• [63] There are circumstances where the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('the Act') provides for immediate delivery up of weapons on service of a revocation notice. Section 28A permits immediate confiscation where the licensee is named as a respondent in a domestic violence order, police protection notice or in release conditions.[1] None of those circumstances applied here.
• [64] Given the specific and narrow circumstances for which the Act makes express provision for immediate seizure of weapons, it is questionable whether a broad brush power such as subsection (3) requiring a person given a suspension or revocation notice to comply with the directions in the notice, suffices.
• [65] Regardless, that was the thing required of Mr Humphreys, to immediately hand over his weapons to Senior Constable Hawkey, and that is what he did, and in doing so the storage breaches came to light.

• [66] Finally, Weapons Licensing claim Mr Humphreys was argumentative when speaking to a client services officer employee of Weapons Licensing when he telephoned asking whether a reconsideration of the decision to revoke his licence had been decided.
• [67] The client services officer says Mr Humphreys became increasingly agitated and 'cranky' and refused to accept that his matter would not be reconsidered that day and she told him to telephone back the following day.
• [68] This, it is suggested, shows Mr Humphreys' generally argumentive behaviour when dealing with police.
• [69] Sergeant Smith from Mitchell Police Station had arranged a telephone discussion between Mr Humphreys and an officer from Weapons Licensing in Brisbane to talk about a possible reconsideration of the revocation. That, presumably amicable discussion, had occurred. Two days later, on 22 June 2023, he telephoned for the same officer to enquire whether the revocation had been reconsidered. The client services officer told him the officer was not available and to telephone the following day. Mr Humphreys was not available the following day however, a Friday, because he had a meeting with representatives of the local council. He had applied to the Tribunal for a stay of the revocation decision but the stay had been refused. If there was no reconsideration he faced the expense of solicitors and further proceedings in the Tribunal.[2]
• [70] What resulted was unfortunate. The client services officer advised the weapons licensing officer the next day that Mr Humphreys had arranged a meeting with a 'counsellor'. Instead of pursuing reconsideration of the decision to revoke his licence, the officer wrote to Mr Humphreys asking him to provide police with information regarding his treatment and a health report from his 'counsellor'.
• [71] The client services officer conceded at hearing she could have been mistaken about Mr Humphreys meeting with the council rather than a counsellor.

Is Mr Humphreys a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence?

• [72] The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.[3]
• [73] The principles underlying the Act are that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety,[4] and 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.[5]
• [74] By s 10(2)(c) a licence may only be issued to an individual if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
• [75] The term fit and proper is not defined but the Act does require certain things to be considered, amongst them the public interest.
• [76] The phrase 'fit and proper person' in the context of the weapons legislation has been considered by the Tribunal in light of the explanation offered in respect of that expression by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Commission v Bond [1990] HCA 33 ('Bond'):

The expression "fit and proper person", standing alone, carries no precise meaning. 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. 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 that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur.[6]

• [77] In Magarry v QPS Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 ('Magarry') the Tribunal considered the explanation of the meaning of fit and proper person set out in Bond. The learned Senior Member observed that the Act does not list the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether it is in the public interest to revoke a licence, but the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act.[7]
• [78] In Magarry, the Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Magarry's renewal of his firearms licence and revoke his collector's licence in far more compromising circumstances than arise in the matter at hand.
• [79] Mr Magarry had committed storage breaches, possessed detonators for which he held no licence, possessed an unregistered silencer and rendered operable an otherwise inoperable Steyer semi-automatic rifle and used it to go pig shooting. In respect of the Steyer, he was asked to present the rifle at a police station but instead he removed the operable parts and threw them in a river and the barrel into an open paddock - and then lied to police about that.
• [80] What was determinative however was that the behaviour of Mr Magarry was accepted as being out of character and the result of post-traumatic stress disorder suffered from tortuous experiences endured by him as a police officer.
• [81] The Senior Member's decision was confirmed on appeal.[8] On appeal Cullinane AM QC Judicial Member said this:

[26] The Act provides for a licensing regime. Section 10B provided for the considerations on any application for the grant renewal etc of a licence. In deciding whether a person is or is any longer fit to hold a licence consideration must be given to the mental and physical fitness of the person, whether there is a risk to public safety and the public interest. Consideration of the concept of "fit and proper person" is found in cases such as Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321.

[27] The Tribunal approached the matter on the basis of the principles set out in Stower v Smart (2007) QDC 4.

[28] I, with respect agree that these principles represent the approach which gives proper expression to the principles of the Weapon Act 1990.

[29] These are as follows:

(a) It is of extreme importance to bear in mind the object of the Act which is stated in s 3(2) to be "to prevent the misuse of weapons".

(b) The proper exercise of discretion would require the Magistrate to evaluate the evidence of the character of Stower.

(c) The proper exercise of discretion would then lead to the questions "in these circumstances is there any real prospect of Stower misusing his weapons so that his licence should be suspended? Is his right to possess firearms a real risk to public and individual safety?"

[30] Here the Tribunal has carried out an exercise which involves weighing the considerations militating in favour of and against the Respondent but bearing in mind that all other considerations are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.

• [82] As stated, there is no evidence showing Mr Humphreys has ever held or espoused pseudolaw beliefs. He has no adverse traffic history, nor any criminal history.
• [83] In respect of the telephone conversation of 15 February 2022, Senior Constable Hawkey conceded that the objection voiced by Mr Humphreys was not about police generally coming onto his property, but the presence of Senior Constable Donaldson.
• [84] I find that the conversation was left in hiatus with the possibility that Senior Constable Hawkey would try to find another officer from Injune to accompany him on the audit.
• [85] When Mr Humphreys was handed the notice of revocation of licence by police, body worn camera footage showed him reading the information statement attached fairly carefully. He then commented, apparently when he read that Senior Constable Donaldson had a lawful right to enter onto his property, that he had not been advised about that during the telephone conversation with Senior Constable Hawkey. I accept that statement about right to enter was not made or at least not made clearly to him at the time of the conversation. I conclude from that and his demeanour captured on body camera footage when realisation came to him about the Senior Constable's right of entry, that he had opposed allowing the police officer onto his property because he thought he had the right to do that under the law.
• [86] I accept Mr Humphreys as a truthful witness. His evidence was frank and open without apparent colouring to put himself in good light where not deserved. He is a man who works the land, far from people. He seems forthright in his speech, perhaps to the point of being considered abrupt.. His evidence of complaint made to police about Senior Constable Donaldson is confirmed by an email. His solicitor has acted for him for a number of years and offers that he is a man of good character.
• [87] I accept that, from Mr Humphreys' perspective, he had had prior dealings with Senior Constable Donaldson which were significant and negative, sufficient to lead him to make complaint about the Senior Constable. I make no findings about the validity of the complaints.
• [88] I also accept Mr Humphreys' evidence that after making complaint he had been advised by a police officer that he would not have to have further dealings with the Senior Constable, though what was meant by the officer when making such broad brush comment is unclear.
• [89] I have viewed the body camera footage from 23 February 2023. It shows Mr Humphreys compliant with the directions of the police that day, though he was clearly agitated given the presence of three officers, all wearing body armour and two carrying assault rifles.
• [90] I find there was no refusal by Mr Humphreys to police entering his property on 23 February 2023. His vocalised source of disquiet concerned rather the presence of Senior Constable Donaldson. That opposition also faded away however after he read the notice of revocation statement stating that Senior Constable Donaldson had a right to enter. Rather than viewing his refusal to allow Senior Constable Donaldson onto his property as obstruction and his conduct generally argumentive and difficult with police, I conclude it showed instead an element of naivety on his part in relying on the earlier vague advisory by police that he would no longer have to have dealings with Senior Constable Donaldson.
• [91] The suggested storage offences are perhaps a cloud cast over consideration whether Mr Humphreys is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Whilst I accept Mr Humphreys' evidence that he had 2 weapons ready for use on his property on the day, I am not persuaded that he was not guilty of storage offences, at least on a technical level. The circumstances involved however, that the weapons were located in gun safes, that Mr Humphreys is a grazier on a remote property who uses weapons as a day to day tool in his business and that police did not charge him with any storage offences, I take into account.
• [92] As far as the complaint that he was 'cranky' and agitated when speaking to the client services officer and that that shows his generally argumentive behaviour when dealing with police, that offers small assistance and little bearing in determining his fitness to hold a weapons licence. A person may be rude and speak abruptly but still be fit to hold a weapons licence.
• [93] Generally I do not find Mr Humphreys was obstructive, meaning to cause deliberate difficulty and delay, in his dealings with police.
• [94] I do not consider he holds the State or the laws of the State in low regard. Indeed his pursuit of a complaint against Senior Constable Donaldson utilising the police service itself to do that, and then, perhaps naively, relying on the broad brush promise about not having to have further dealings with Senior Constable Donaldson, suggests rather a firm belief on his part about due process and the rule of law.
• [95] Finally I note, and give weight, to the fact that Sergeant Smith, the officer in charge of Mitchell Police Station and one of the officers who served the revocation notice on 23 February 2023, expresses no concern for the return to Mr Humphreys of his licence and weapons.
• [96] Taking all these factors into account, I determine Mr Humphreys is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. I determine it is not against the public interest if he holds a weapons licence or has access to weapons. I do not consider he constitutes a risk to the public going forward.

• [97] Mr Humphreys is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. The decision to revoke his weapons licence should be set aside. His weapons should be returned to him.

[2] Exhibit 1 page 37 - On 4 July 2023 Mr Humphreys appealed the decision of the Tribunal refusing a stay.

[7] Magarry at [24]; see CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43, [22].

[8] QPS v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147.