Lamble v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2018] QCAT 201

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

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657

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

Vega Vega v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCAT 328

Acting Sergeant Paz Landim, Queensland Police Service

[1] On 16 October 2017 a decision was made to suspend Stephen Lamble's Firearms Licence on the alternative bases that:[1]

• (a) he had been charged with an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence; and

• (b) an authorised officer was satisfied he may no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

[2] A person aggrieved by a decision to suspend a licence is entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.[2]

[3] Mr Lamble filed an application to review that decision on 19 October 2017.

[4] Mr Lamble applied for a firearms licence on 27 June 2017. His stated reason for possession and use of weapons was for sports or target shooting.[3] Weapons licensing records indicate one weapon was registered to Mr Lamble.

[5] On 13 October 2017 late at night Mr Lamble went to a neighbouring property armed with two Global kitchen knives. He was angry at the noise emanating from the premises and went to the rear open door to the residence and started yelling 'Shut the Fuck Up'. There were three people present at the residence at the time. Mr Lamble was met by two teenagers at the door, a male and female. They asked Mr Lamble to leave immediately or they would call the police. Mr Lamble continued to yell. The witnesses asked Mr Lamble why he had the knives to which he replied words to the effect, 'I've dealt with people like youse (sic) before and I'm going to deal with you again'. Police were contacted and attended the premises where Mr Lamble was questioned and later transferred to the Pine Rivers Watch House where he was subsequently charged.

[6] Mr Lamble stated to police that he had armed himself just in case the occupants of the house had gone to arm themselves. Mr Lamble confirmed this during cross-examination at the Hearing, stating that the knives were for his protection and that he had taken them as a form of self-defence.

[7] On 18 December 2017 Mr Lamble was convicted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court of trespass and of going armed so as to cause fear. In each case a penalty was imposed but no conviction recorded.

[8] Mr Lamble's licence was suspended on 16 October 2017.

[9] The purpose of the Tribunal's review is to produce the correct and preferable decision, following a fresh hearing of the matter on its merits.[4] The Tribunal considers the matter afresh, making its own decision, based on the evidence before it and according to law. In essence, in its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision-maker for the decision reviewed and makes its own decision. On review, the tribunal may confirm or amend the decision; set the decision aside and substitute its own decision; or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with or without directions.[5]

[10] The entitlement to own and use firearms is regulated by the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('the Act').

[11] Section 3 sets out the principles and object of the Act:

(1) The principles underlying this 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.

(2) The object of this Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.

[12] Under s 28 a licence may be suspended, relevantly, if the officer is satisfied that the licensee has been charged with an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence.[6] In such a case the licence is suspended until the proceeding for the charge ends or the suspension is lifted by an officer.[7]

[13] A licence may also be suspended if the officer considers, on reasonable grounds, that the licensee may no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.[8] In this case, the suspension continues until the earlier of the following days:

• (i) the day the authorised officer is satisfied the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and lifts the suspension;

• (ii) the day 30 days after the licence is suspended.[9]

[14] Section 10B(1) provides that in determining whether a person is fit and proper the following matters, among other things, must be considered:

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

(b) whether a domestic violence order has been made... 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

[15] The expression 'fit and proper person' is not defined in the Weapons Act. It is a term commonly used in statutes and necessarily 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.[10]

[16] The matters which must be taken into account in considering whether a person is no longer fit and proper to hold a licence, include the public interest. The public interest is a broad concept in which the interests of the community are considered having regard to the scope and purpose of the relevant legislation.[11]

[17] It is a term of wide import which has been said to embrace matters, among others:

...of standards of human conduct... tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be for the good order of society and for the well being of its members.[12]

[18] The term 'public interest' in the context of weapons licensing should therefore be applied in the context of the object of the Weapons Act which is to prevent the misuse of weapons.[13] In furtherance of this object, public and individual safety are to take precedence over weapon possession and use.[14] These purposes are achieved, in part, by strict requirements for licensing.[15] Accordingly, when considering the public interest in the context of weapons licensing, individual and public safety are important factors to be taken into account.

[19] In this case, as the proceeding for the charge has ended and 30 days has expired since the licence was suspended, the suspension has ended irrespective of the ground relied upon.

[20] The preliminary issue arises as to whether, in circumstances where the decision is spent, there is jurisdiction to review it.

[21] In my view the suspension decision remains reviewable. The application for review of the decision to suspend has been brought in the Tribunal. It was properly made. The Tribunal remains, as a matter of jurisdiction, seized of that matter.[16] I note also that there may be utility for an applicant in proceeding with a review despite the period of suspension having ended. It is conceivable, for example, that a person in

Mr Lamble's position may want to be able to say, assuming the review is successful, that he or she has never had their licence suspended.

[22] I turn to consider whether the correct and preferable decision is to suspend

Mr Lamble's firearms licence.

[23] I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to consider that Mr Lamble may no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence.

[24] The incident which involved him "'taking the law into his own hands'" by trespassing on his neighbour's property and confronting them while brandishing two knives indicates that he is capable of conduct which constitutes a threat to the safety of the public. This threat would, in my view, be exacerbated were he to be in possession of a firearm.

[25] Mr Lamble was provided with the opportunity during cross-examination to express remorse or contrition for his actions however, did not do so. Instead, Mr Lamble insisted he was in the right and that it was reasonable for him to have gone there armed as he was, despite acknowledging that his conduct would have been intimidating.

[26] Mr Lamble said during the Hearing that the catalyst for him going next door with knives was the noise coming from the property. The noise was that produced by 3 teenagers playing music while having a few drinks. While I acknowledge that noise of that type can cause stress to neighbours it does not justify or excuse Mr Lamble's conduct.

[27] I note that Mr Lamble has not committed any other like offences. I have also taken into account a character reference written by Mr Simon Lee dated 6 May 2018. That reference, however, refers to a Stephen Andrews. Mr Lamble was not able to provide an explanation as to why that was the case. Indeed, on a number of occasions when questioned by the Tribunal Mr Lamble gave odd or confused responses. Mr Lee said in his reference that he had known 'Stephen Andrews' since September 2016 when he came to work in Brisbane as a mechanic for the referee's client at Supatec Automotive. He said that Stephen had not been violent, aggressive or abusive in the time he has known him and has been working for him for the past two months in bond cleaning jobs for tenancies.

[28] Mr Lamble also provided a statement filed 16 May 2018. It provides:

As Stephen Andrew Lamble, not STEPHEN ANDREW LAMBLE AGENT IN COMMERCE. I refuse to have my common law rights stripped from me. And feel, that the very nature of which the state of Queensland behaves, is highly unconstitutional.

Is it Queensland, or is it the BRIGALOW CORPORATION? Doesn't it feel like there is no crown at all? Well anyway, one thing you need to understand is that gun ownership is a right not a privilege. Not one you control, never has never will. A right protected in the constitution for the Queens (sic) subjects. We are a common law country. Not a civil and statute law country. And the sooner this corrupt ADMINISTRATION, gets it through their heads. Peace might return to the state of Queensland. A Government is legally constituted under the crown. Where an ADMINISTRATION is a FRAUD.

...

[29] The Statement continued in a similar vein for a further two paragraphs. It did not address the issue of whether Mr Lamble was a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. Indeed, Mr Lamble provided no evidence to the Tribunal, apart from the character reference, that he was 'fit and proper'. Although there is no formal onus of proof on either party, Mr Lamble clearly has a practical onus to put such evidence before the Tribunal.[17]

[30] In conclusion, having considered the factors in s 10B of the Weapons Act, evidence given before and during the Hearing, as well as having had the opportunity to observe Mr Lamble during cross-examination, I find that there are reasonable grounds to consider that Mr Lamble may no longer be a fit and person to hold a licence.

[31] Accordingly, I confirm the decision under review.

[2] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 142(e).

[3] Ibid s 11(a).

[4] Ibid s 20.

[5] Ibid s 24(1).

[6] Ibid s 28(1)(a)(i).

[7] Ibid s 28(2)(a).

[8] Ibid s 28(1)(b), which refers by Note to s 10B.

[9] Ibid s 28(2)(c).

[10] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 94 ALR 11, 56.

[11] Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor (1995) 131 ALR 657, 681 citing O'Sullivan v Farrer [1989] HCA 61; (1989) 168 CLR 210, 216; Moye v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2017] QCAT 79, [36].

[12] D.P.P. v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] 1 VR 63, 75.

[13] Weapons Act, s 3(2).

[14] Ibid s 3(1)(a).

[15] Ibid s 3(1)(b).

[16] Vega Vega v Medical Board of Australia [2014] QCAT 328.

[17] Cormack v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing Unit [2015] QCATA 115, [32] citing McDonald v Director-General of Social Security [1984] FCA 57; (1984) 6 ALD 6, 9.