Knowles v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCAT 64

Explosives Regulation 2017 (Qld) reg 99

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 13, s 24

Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Dangerous Goods) Regulations 2018 (Qld) reg 104, reg 106

Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2021 (Qld)

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 10

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) reg 94

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321

Phillips v Woolcock [2002] QDC 035

Stower v Smart [2007] QDC 4

Scott v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330

Stretton v Queensland Police Service [2018] QCATA 37

[1] On 28 November 2024 the respondent made a decision revoking Mr Knowles's category A and category B firearms licences. Mr Knowles has applied to review the decision.

What led to the decision to revoke Mr Knowles's weapons licence?

[2] The first in the series of events leading to the decision by the respondent to revoke Mr Knowles's weapons licences occurred on 25 November 2024 when Mr Knowles was driving his utility from Toowoomba to his home on the Gold Coast. It is not contentious that Mr Knowles had, in the tray of the utility, a quantity of ammunition. It is also not contentious that, while Mr Knowles was driving the vehicle in Toowoomba, a quantity of the ammunition fell from the tray of the utility onto the roadway. Mr Knowles returned to pick up the ammunition. A member of the public notified the Queensland Police Service about the event. Mr Knowles continued travelling to his residence on the Gold Coast. It is not contentious that police subsequently attended at Mr Knowles's home where unsecured ammunition in boxes was identified in the tray of the utility. The ammunition was seized by the police. A determination was made by the respondent that Mr Knowles had failed to store the ammunition as required by the Explosives Act 1999 (Qld) and regulation. The respondent determined that Mr Knowles was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and a decision was made to revoke the two firearms licences held by Mr Knowles.

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('WA')

[3] A decision to revoke a weapons licence is a reviewable decision.[1] A person aggrieved by a decision may apply to QCAT to review the decision.[2] The Tribunal is required to make the correct and preferable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[3]

[4] The object of the WA is to prevent the misuse of weapons.[4]

[5] The principles of the WA are found in s 3(1):

(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.

[6] How the object of the WA is to be achieved is found in s 4:

(a) prohibiting the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and automatic and self-loading shotguns except in special circumstances; and

(b) establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms; and

(c) requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and

(d) providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for -

(i) licences authorising possession of firearms; and

(ii) the acquisition and sale of firearms; and

(e) ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.

[7] A weapons licence may be issued to an individual only if the person, inter alia:

(a) has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which it is to be authorised by the licence;[5]

(b) is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.[6]

[8] Section 10B(1) of the WA sets out the matters that must be considered in deciding or considering whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person:

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

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

(c) whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and

(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.

[9] In Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,[7] Toohey and Gaudron JJ stated:

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. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.

...

The question whether a person is fit and proper is one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration.[8]

[10] The meaning of a 'fit and proper person' to hold a weapons licence has been the subject of extensive tribunal consideration. In Stretton v Queensland Police Service,[9] the Appeal Tribunal succinctly stated the meaning of the words:

A licensee who is a fit and proper person in the context of the Weapons Act must have an appreciation of their responsibilities and must discharge them. Conversely, a licensee who lacks a proper appreciation of those responsibilities or does not discharge them is not, or may be adjudged to not to be, a fit and proper person.[10]

[11] At the commencement of the hearing the solicitor for Mr Knowles raised an objection to the admission of evidence of Acting Sergeant Austernin relating to body cam footage recorded by officers attending at Mr Knowles's residence on 5 December 2024. It was acknowledged by Mr Fergusson for the respondent that a copy of the recording had not been provided to Mr Knowles or his solicitor, nor had the recording been provided to the Tribunal as part of the respondent's s 21(2) material.[11] This was a breach of procedural fairness. I therefore decided to exclude from consideration the evidence of Acting Sergeant Austernin insofar as the evidence arose out of the body cam footage. Mr Fergusson declined to seek an adjournment of the hearing to enable the material to be disclosed to Mr Knowles.

[12] The Queensland Police Service ('QPS') relies upon three principal matters to support the contention that Mr Knowles is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence:

(a) The incident involving the ammunition falling from the utility;

(b) Discrepancies in the details of weapons appearing on weapons licences held by Mr Knowles and the actual weapons in the possession of Mr Knowles;

(c) The practices adopted by Mr Knowles in storing weapons.

[13] As noted earlier in these reasons, the circumstances giving rise to the decision to revoke Mr Knowles's weapons licences are not contested by Mr Knowles. The ammunition in question consisted of seven boxes of shotgun cartridges, each box containing 250 cartridges and a further broken box containing an estimated 250 cartridges, being a total of 2,000 cartridges. The QPS says that this incident raises two distinct issues. Firstly, Mr Knowles failed to secure the ammunition in his vehicle with the result that the ammunition fell from the vehicle. Secondly, after retrieving the ammunition and driving home Mr Knowles left the ammunition in his vehicle in the driveway of his home. Mr Knowles does not seek to diminish or otherwise excuse his conduct in failing to properly store the ammunition.

[14] By reg 44(1) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulation 2021 (Qld), a person who drives a light vehicle must ensure a load on the vehicle is secured in a way that makes it unlikely to fall or be dislodged from the vehicle and is restrained using an appropriate method. The Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Dangerous Goods) Regulations 2018 (Qld), inter alia, prescribe the obligations of persons involved in the transport of dangerous goods by road. Weapons cartridges are dangerous goods.[12] By reg 104(1) a person who loads dangerous goods for transport in or on a vehicle must do so in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Australian Dangerous Goods Code ('ADG Code'). By reg 106(1) a person must not drive a vehicle transporting dangerous goods if the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the goods or their packaging have not been loaded or stowed, or are not restrained, in accordance with chapter 8.1 of the ADG Code.

[15] While Mr Knowles is remorseful about the 25 November 2024 incident and does not seek to diminish the seriousness of the event, it is relevant to note that he does not offer an explanation as to how he came to have improperly stored and transported ammunition in his vehicle. This aspect troubles me. One would expect an individual with the experience of Mr Knowles in handling weapons and ammunition to have a thorough understanding of the obligations imposed upon him when transporting ammunition and to have proffered at least some explanation about how the events on 25 November 2024 came to pass.

[16] Some time was spent at the hearing regarding the discrepancy between the weapons in the possession of Mr Knowles and the weapons recorded on his licence. The evidence of Mr Knowles may be summarised as follows. Mr Knowles is not engaged in the import and export of weapons although he has from time to time exported weapons to, and imported weapons from, New Zealand for personal use. Weapons appeared on Mr Knowles's licence that were no longer in his possession. When this discrepancy was brought to his attention by the QPS, Mr Knowles provided the QPS with correct details within a week. Mr Knowles acknowledged that a number of these weapons were in the possession of interstate weapons dealers and that he was unable to explain how the weapons came to be in the possession of the dealers. Mr Knowles stated that 'these go back to probably about 12 to 14 years ago'.[13] When asked at the hearing how guns on his licence came to be in New South Wales Mr Knowles said that he would have sold the weapons and 'sent them through from a dealer to a dealer.'[14] Mr Knowles said that he had made a mistake on one occasion when selling a weapon to an individual (absent a dealer) and had not repeated the mistake. Mr Knowles acknowledged that all gun sales were required to be transacted through a dealer. Mr Knowles also gave evidence about the sale and purchase of a weapon on a like for like basis which involved one weapon being removed from his licence and a similar weapon being entered on to the licence. Mr Knowles stated that the weapon sold had been removed from his licence however the weapon acquired had not been recorded. Mr Knowles said that this arose from an error on the part of the QPS. No evidence was adduced by the QPS to the contrary. I accept the evidence of Mr Knowles.

[17] The evidence of Mr Knowles was that he is a keen gun collector and has a valuable gun collection. The weapons are stored in a vault at Mr Knowles's home. Mr Knowles was asked at the hearing whether he holds a collector's licence. Mr Knowles said he does not. The QPS concedes that there is no requirement for Mr Knowles to hold a collector's licence. Mr Knowles was also questioned at the hearing about the construction of the vault. There is no issue that the vault has been properly constructed.

[18] Mr Knowles concedes a failure on his part to properly store weapons in the vault. This failure relates to bolts not being removed from weapons. Regulation 94(2) of the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) provides that a person who possesses a weapon must, when the weapon is not in the person's physical possession, store it unloaded in a locked container complying with sub-regs (5) and (6) of reg 94, with the weapon's bolt removed or its action broken. Mr Knowles acknowledges the legislative requirement to remove the bolt from a stored weapon. Mr Knowles explains his failure to remove the bolts from the weapons as being attributable to having multiple guns with similar actions and his concern about putting the incorrect bolt into a weapon, which he says can be dangerous. Mr Knowles does not seek to excuse his actions and understands that he should have had a better system for placing and labelling the bolts.

[19] Mr Knowles also addressed the issue of the storage of ammunition in the vault. By reg 99(2)(b) of the Explosives Regulation 2017 (Qld) small arms ammunition (which is an explosive) must not be stored in a secure area in which a firearm is stored unless the explosive and the firearm are stored in different parts of the secured area and there are different keys required to access the different parts of the secured areas in which the explosive and the firearm are stored. In his written submissions Mr Knowles says that he was aware the QPS would be attending his residence following the incident on 25 November 2024 and had placed the box of ammunition which had fallen from his vehicle in the vault to be available for inspection. No other ammunition was stored in the vault. Mr Knowles acknowledges that he should not have placed the box of ammunition in the vault.

[20] In Phillips v Woolcock,[15] McGill DCJ said the following in relation to the exercise of the discretion to revoke a weapons licence:

The object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons: s.3(2). The discretion given in s.29 must be exercised with reference to that objective, no other considerations being specified by the legislation. All the Magistrate was concerned with was the mental fitness of the licensee, and he ought to have been considering whether there was some aspect of his mental state which gave rise to some real risk of misuse of weapons by him. A propensity to display violence towards others might well lead to such a conclusion, but merely getting angry occasionally (not accompanied by violent behaviour to others) in my opinion is too remote and does not give rise to a logical concern about the fitness of the licensee because of a propensity to misuse weapons.[16]

[21] In Stower v Smart,[17] Skoien SJDC stated:

Then the proper exercise of a discretion would require the learned Magistrate to evaluate the evidence of the character of Stower. It was quite unchallenged that he has had a blameless past, had held and holds responsible positions, is not a violent man, has had an exemplary past so far as his use of firearms is concerned, that he offered an immediate apology to Brown, that there is no suggestion of bad blood between them such as might lead him to wish to harm Brown.

From considerations such as those the proper exercise of discretion would then lead to the questions: "In those 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?" While it may be right to say, as Her Honour did, that the public interest had priority, public interest is best served by a proper application of the provisions of the Act.[18]

[22] The seriousness of the incident on 25 November 2024 is evident. The failure by Mr Knowles to properly secure and transport ammunition constitutes a serious lapse of judgement. As I have earlier observed, I am troubled by the failure by Mr Knowles to explain how he came to transport the ammunition in such a way that it was not only not secured, but fell from the tray of his utility.

[23] The failure by Mr Knowles to properly store weapons in the vault at his home by removing the bolts also constitutes a lack of judgement albeit, in my view, of a less serious nature than the 25 November 2024 incident. It should be noted that the weapons were stored in a vault and there is no suggestion that the vault was not secure. The storage of the ammunition in the vault may be explained by Mr Knowles's intention to assist the QPS knowing that the ammunition would be inspected.

[24] As to the discrepancy between the weapons held by Mr Knowles and those weapons recorded on his licence, the evidence about this issue was less than clear. The evidence of Mr Knowles went some way to explain the discrepancy. It seems that at least some of the matters raised by the QPS go back a number of years. Overall, I do not consider the evidence to point compellingly to a conclusion that Mr Knowles has acted inappropriately.

[25] The incidents to which I have referred do not, in my view, lead me to conclude that Mr Knowles's right to possess firearms is a risk to public and individual safety. I reach this conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, Mr Knowles displays insight into his failure to comply with the various statutory requirements relating to the possession and sale of weapons. I accept that Mr Knowles is extremely remorseful about the 25 November 2024 incident and its consequences. I have earlier observed that Mr Knowles offers no explanation as to how the ammunition came to be stored in the vehicle in such a manner that the box of ammunition could fall from the tray. Having said this, I accept that the 25 November 2024 incident was an isolated event. There is certainly no evidence of any similar event occurring. I accept that Mr Knowles is also remorseful about his failure to properly store weapons in the vault with the bolts removed. It is relevant however that the vault is an extremely secure storage facility and the risks of mischief arising from the breach were minimal. The storage of the ammunition in the vault is explained by Mr Knowles. His evidence that the ammunition relating to the 25 November 2024 incident was the only ammunition stored in the vault was not challenged. Nor was the explanation given by Mr Knowles about why the ammunition was in the vault. The risk of mischief arising out of the storage of the ammunition in the vault was also minimal. Finally, there is the evidence regarding the sale by Mr Knowles of weapons. I accept the evidence of Mr Knowles about these matters. The evidence certainly does not support a finding that Mr Knowles has engaged in a pattern of conduct regarding the sale of weapons that was in breach of his statutory obligations.

[26] Mr Knowles had, before the decision under review, held firearms licences for approximately 18 years. Until the 25 November 2024 incident and its aftermath, Mr Knowles had not received any warnings or been charged with any contraventions relating to the use and storage of weapons. I accept the evidence of Mr Knowles that he understands the importance of the safe use and storage of weapons. Support for this can be found in the fact that Mr Knowles undertook the construction of the secure storage vault at his home no doubt at not inconsiderable expense. I accept the evidence of Mr Knowles that he has a lifelong interest in collecting weapons and that he has been deeply adversely affected by the decision to revoke his firearms licences.

[27] Taking all of these matters into consideration I do not consider that Mr Knowles's right to possess firearms constitutes a risk to public and individual safety. I find that Mr Knowles appreciates his responsibilities regarding the possession of weapons and, with the exceptions identified in these reasons which I consider are isolated, has discharged those responsibilities. I find that Mr Knowles is a fit and proper person to possess a firearm.

[28] I have considered the application of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). In deciding this Mr Knowles's application the Tribunal is acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity.[19] I have interpreted statutory provisions, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is compatible with human rights.

[29] The decision to revoke Mr Knowles's firearms licence is set aside.

[1] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 142(1)(e) ('WA').

[2] Ibid s 142(2).

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

[4] WA (n 1) s 3(2).

[5] Ibid s 10(2)(c)

[6] Ibid s 10(2)(e).

[7] [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321.

[9] [2018] QCATA 37.

[10] Ibid [37] (Member Paratz and Member Traves).

[12] Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Dangerous Goods) Regulations 2018 (Qld) regs 7, 32, sch 3 (definition of 'dangerous goods'), (definition of 'dangerous goods list'); National Transport Commission, Australian Dangerous Goods Code (at 1 October 2024) r 3.2.3.

[15] [2002] QDC 035.

[17] [2007] QDC 4.

[19] Scott v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330.