Madin v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licencing [2025] QCAT 149

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10, s 11, s 13, s 142

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 33

Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 5

Salmon v Queensland Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch) [2019] QCATA 177

Shaxson v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licencing Branch [2014] QCAT 309

Stanway v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (No 2) [2012] QCAT 262

Mr D. Neuendorf - Solicitor - Robert Bax and Associates

• [1] The applicant conducts the business of a stud cattle farmer. He asserts that there is a feral animal problem on his land impacting the financial viability of that business due to the feral animals killing his stock.
• [2] He holds a firearms licence which permits him to use a weapon which is a category A, B, or C. He asserts that he needs a category D weapon, being a semi-automatic weapon, to enable him to manage the feral animal problem.
• [3] The applicant's application to the respondent for a change to the conditions of his licence to that effect was refused. This was on the basis that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that it was necessary for him to have to use a category D weapon.
• [4] The applicant applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision. He maintained his position that he needed use of a category D weapon.
• [5] For the reasons I explain herein, the applicant was unsuccessful in his application for review. On the evidence that he placed before the Tribunal he failed to satisfy the test for what was 'necessary' as that term is used in s 13 (5) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (the Weapons Act). At best, all he showed is that it would be convenient for him. This was not enough to entitle him to have his licence changed to permit him to use a category D weapon.

• [6] On 28 May 1991, Mr Madin was issued with a firearms licence under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), licence number 10712450 (the Firearms Licence).
• [7] Mr Madin is a part owner of rural land at Wongabel on the Atherton Tablelands in Queensland. He described that land as being two farms totalling approximately 260 acres on which he, together with his brother, operates a stud cattle breeding business.[1]
• [8] There is a condition placed on the Firearms Licence that it may be used for the purposes of primary production activities on nominated rural land, such entitling Mr Madin to acquire, keep, possess, and use any category A, B, and C weapons on the rural land. I infer the land to which it refers is his Wongabel farm.
• [9] On 20 December 2022 he applied to the respondent for a change of conditions on the Firearms Licence seeking to add approval for a category D weapon.[2] He explained the premise for that application in the following manner, such contained in a letter addressed to the 'Authorized Office Weapon Licencing' enclosed with his application:[3]

We are currently facing and (sic) increasing problem of dingoes and feral animals such as pigs, cats, rabbits, and wild dogs within this property. The feral pigs are causing major damage to the property, but the most significant concerning problem are the wild dogs.

...

Feral animal control methods, like bating and contract shooting are problematic. ... The most efficient and effective option is with the use of a firearm and patrolling on foot, to keep the element of surprise. For this to be effective, my response time is critical, and therefore a D class rifle would be most effective in service to response time. These wild dogs work in packs, and a quick reload time is critical for eradication.

... To get on top of our present stock loss problem and other issues mentioned at hand, I require a long range, self-loading D Class Centrefire rifle.

• [10] By a decision dated 26 June 2023 given by its authorised officer, the respondent refused the application. (the Decision)[4] Within the 'Information Notice' given in conjunction with the Decision, the following statements appear:[5]

Section 33 of the Regs states that a person who, in the conduct of the person's business or employment (whether or not primary production), has a need for a category D weapon to cull animals may apply for a firearms licence with an endorsement for no more that 2 category D weapons.

However, section 33 of the Regs also states that an authorised officer may only endorse a licenced with the number of category D weapons the authorised officer decides is reasonably necessary to satisfy the person's need.

I accept that you have demonstrated a genuine reason for an occupational firearms licence on Rural lands situated at [RP description given].

I accept that you have demonstrated that category A & B weapons are necessary in carrying out the duties associated with your occupation on Rural Lands.

However, I am not satisfied that you have a need for category D weapons ...

I note you have successfully managed this property for many years without the use of Category D weapons. I note you have not provided any evidence to demonstrate any significant changes to the feral animal population of the property that makes category D weapons necessary.

Category D weapons are only issued for the control of large-scale feral animal problems, and these are generally located on properties of significant size with vegetation and terrain that makes access for culling the animals very difficult. Category D weapon licences are generally only issued to Professional Feral Animal Controllers that conduct shooting from aerial platforms (Helicopters). Category D weapon licences are also issued to Primary Producers that can demonstrate a significant feral animal problem and that this problem cannot be controlled using firearms they are already licenced to possess.

• [11] The authorised officer then noted he had considered the specific feral animal problem that Mr Madin explained in his application, and in turn that he had also considered the best practice guidelines issued by the 'Centre for Invasive Species Solutions' and 'pestSMART' for control of such feral animals. The officer then concluded his reasoning with the following statements:[6]

I am satisfied that ground shooting alone, is not an effective method of controlling large number of feral pigs or wild dogs. ... I am satisfied that the majority of your encounters with feral pigs and wild dogs are 'chance' discoveries or opportunistic whilst carrying out your primary duties. I am satisfied that your needs can be met using Category A & B weapons.

I also considered your situation in the context of what firearms are available to you in category A, B and C weapons for which you are currently licenced.

I note the modern firearms market has a wide range of Category A and B firearms which present themselves as suitable for the control of feral pests, including wild dogs, dingoes, feral pigs and rabbits. A licence holder can acquire a lever action shotgun with a magazine capacity of not more than five rounds, there are a number of straight-pull bolt action 12G shotguns in Category A, and also linear repeating firearms, where follow up rounds are chambered for firing by way of a release button after a shot is fired.

These weapons allow for rapid follow up shots. Many of these firearms are available with integral tube magazines or detachable magazines which allow for quicker reloading. Additionally, many of these firearms are available with pistol-grip configurations to allow for better recoil control where multiple shots are required, such as, with large groups of feral pigs.

Further, I note you current possess twenty (20) Category A, B & C weapons including a semi-automatic rifle and pump action shotgun. I note these weapons allow for rapid follow up shots and an increased rate of fire.

I am satisfied that your genuine need can be met using Category A, B, & C firearms.

Your application for Category D firearms is refused as you have not satisfied the Authorised Officer you have a genuine need or that your requirements cannot be met using firearms of another category.

• [12] On 30 August 2023, Mr Madin applied to this Tribunal for a review of that Decision. The premise for that application was expressed as follows:

Possession of a Category D weapon is necessary in the conduct of the Applicant's employment (eradicating pests) and cannot be efficiently achieved with the use of another Category weapon.

... The Applicant's business will continue to suffer a loss until the Category D weapon licence is issued.

• [13] It was against this background that the application came before me for hearing.

• [14] This Tribunal's jurisdiction to review the Decision arises under the Weapons Act,[7] it being read together with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).[8] In constituting the Tribunal for this proceeding, I was required to exercise this jurisdiction in accordance with both those pieces of legislation and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (the HR Act). In doing so I had all the functions of the decision-maker in terms of the decision to be made.[9]
• [15] The purpose of the review was to produce the correct and preferable decision, such to be reached by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[10] It was not necessary for me to consider whether the respondent's decision-maker had made an error in making the Decision, rather the focus was on the cogency of Mr Madin's case as presented to this Tribunal. At the conclusion of the review, I was empowered to confirm or amend the Decision, set aside the Decision and substitute my own decision, or set aside the Decision and return the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration with directions I considered to be appropriate.[11]

• [16] The background facts gave rise to a singular issue to be decided in this proceeding. That is whether Mr Madin had demonstrated that it was 'necessary', as that term is used in s 13 (5) of the Weapons Act, in the conduct of his business for him to be licenced to possess and use a category D weapon.

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld)

• [17] The primary piece of legislation under which the issue in this proceeding fell to be decided is the Weapons Act, the fundamental principles and objects of which are to:[12]

(a) Make weapons possession and use subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety; and

(b) Prevent the misuse of weapons.

• [18] The object of this Act is achieved by, amongst other means, establishing an integrated licencing and registration scheme for all for all firearms.[13] As is relevant in this proceeding, that scheme provides a number of relevant provisions which can be succinctly described as follows:

(a) A licence may be issued to an individual only of the person, inter-alia, has a reason mentioned in s 11 of the Act to possess the weapon or category of weapon;[14]

(b) A reason for possession of a weapon includes inter-alia an occupational requirement for rural purposes;[15]

(c) An application for a licence must state the applicant's reason for wishing to possess such a weapon;[16] and

(d) If the reason is an occupational licence, the applicant must state why possession of such a weapon is necessary in the conduct of the applicant's business or employment.[17]

Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld)

• [19] A category D weapon is described as:[18]

(a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates a rifle of that type in design, function or appearance;

(b) a non-military style self-loading centre-fire rifle;

(c) a self-loading shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds;

(d) a pump action shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds;

(e) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds;

(f) a lever action shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds;

(g) a weapon mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (f) that is a blank-fire firearm.

Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld)

• [20] Under s 33(2) of these Regulations, an authorised officer may endorse the licence in terms of category D weapons when the authorised officer decided it is reasonably necessary to satisfy the person's need, as it is referred to in the application, for such an endorsement.

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

• [21] There is also the application of the HR Act that I was required to consider, the main objective of which is to protect and promote fundamental human rights. However the rights listed therein are not exclusive, nor are the rights protected thereunder absolute. They may be limited, but only as far as is reasonable and justifiable.[19]
• [22] In deciding whether a limit is reasonable and justifiable relevant factors include inter-alia the nature of the human right, the nature and purpose of the limitation, whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the importance of preserving the human right, considering the nature and extent of the limitation on the human right, and the balance between the last two points. That being said, all statutory provisions, as far as is possible consistent with their purposes, must be interpreted in a way that is compatible, or most compatible, with human rights.[20] Such includes the provisions of the Weapons Act.
• [23] In my opinion there were at last two human rights as stated in this legislation that were relevant in this proceeding, namely Mr Madin's right to recognition and equality before the law and his property rights.[21] But in my opinion there was a competing right that could not be overlooked, and one that permissibly was considered by me that may limit Mr Madin's rights in the circumstances of him seeking to be the holder of a firearms licence permitting him to possess and use a Category D weapon. That is the right that every member of the public has to be assured of safety, such which in my opinion falls with the HRA under the right to security of person.[22] Thus, a decision under the Weapons Act that Mr Madin had not demonstrated why the possession of such a weapon was necessary in the conduct of his business, such which might be said to infringe his rights to which I have just referred, will nevertheless be compatible with human rights. This is because, despite any limit the decision places on his human rights, the decision will be justified by the factors outlined under s 13 of the HR Act because, amongst other things, any limitation on Mr Madin's human rights remains consistent with the principles and object of the Weapons Act being the need to ensure public and individual safety.
• [24] It must be recalled that weapons possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety which in my opinion is a consideration to which all other factors must yield. Thus, to the extent Mr Madin is afforded a right under the HR Act, in making the correct and preferable decision, by application of the Weapons Act in conjunction with the HR Act such right must yield to the rights of the greater public and other individuals in a manner permissible under the Weapons Act consistent with the principles and objects of that legislation.[23] That would include the making of a finding that Mr Madin had not demonstrated it was necessary for him to possess and/or use a Category D weapon in the conduct of his business. Such is consistent with s13 of the HR Act.

• [25] As it was required to do, the respondent provided its 'List of Materials' dated 10 October 2023,[24] and a further list dated 5 September 2024.[25] Those bundles contained a copy of Mr Madin's original application for the change to his licence, a copy of the Decision, as well as extracts from the Weapons Act and references to a number of decisions of this Tribunal, which as I understood the purpose of same was to say they were relevant to the decision that was required to be made.
• [26] Mr Madin similarly provided a statement and small bundle of documents as he was required to do. This is as filed on 31 July 2024.[26] Therein he sought to explain the 'reason' why he required use of a Category D weapon, and why it was 'necessary'. Whilst that 'statement of evidence' is relatively prolix in its content, on my reading of it I considered that the following paragraphs summed up that which Mr Madin seemingly sought to convey:

1. A Category D is a semi automatic (sic) weapon which allows the quick fire of bullets, without the delay to reload. It also avoids having to take your eye off the targets. 2. In the rejection from the Respondent they have suggested a linear repeating firearm as it allows you to take the shots in apparently much quicker succession. This is usually called a button release. After taking a shot, to reload the weapon you are required to push a button on the side of the weapon. This requires moving your hand position on the weapon to reload each time. This therefore means you take your eye of the target so you know where you are pushing. Prior to shooting again you will need to regain your sight. Aiming for the target is difficult and must be done slowly and not under pressure. It is not something done easily. 3. Therefore using the suggest (sic) linear repeating firearm is a slow process as is not effective ... 4. I require a semi automatic (sic) rifle that loads automatically after each shot. The purpose is so that when I come across multiple dogs and pigs I can attempt to eradicate them all at once, prior to them running away and out of site. 5. I would be able to keep my aim/sight between each shot, as I wouldn't be required to reload. 6. In the Decision of the Respondent they may reference of me surviving in the past with my other Category Weapons. Unfortunately the number of pests and the new hybrid dog numbers are only growing and becoming out of the control (sic). This is the reason why I now need the Category D weapon. 7. My business is dependant on the removal of as many pests as possible. This can only be achieved with a Category D weapon, as it:

1. Has a large caliber (sic) - meaning one (1) correct shot is effective; 2. Is semi automatic (sic) - meaning self loading (sic) which allows me to discharge up to 25 shots in quick succession. This means I can eradicate a large number at once; (sic)

1. The use of a Category D weapon is absolutely necessary for my role. Being without it results in a loss of income. ...

• [27] Mr Madin was his only witness. He did not provide any independent opinion evidence from experts or other persons similarly qualified to speak to the essence of his case.
• [28] Mr Ferguson for the respondent extensively cross-examined Mr Madin. In my opinion it is unnecessary for me to set out in great detail that examination, it being sufficient to note the following that became very apparent during that examination:

(a) Mr Madin's asserted need for a category D weapon was based on his own personal circumstances as he was experiencing them, for example:

(i) He asserted that the nature and terrain of his property is such that use of contract shooters and aerial shooting is not practical;

(ii) He otherwise does not have the finances to engage in such alternative methods of control;

(iii) He had not approached the Shooters Association of Australia to access their 'farmer's assist program' because he considered it to be a waste of time;

(iv) When being questioned about the steps he engages in when using the current weapons of a class his licence permits having come across a pack of feral animals, he was vague in his answers, consistently seeking to explain that he could do better with a rapid fire weapon;

(v) When he was asked about the delay between shots that was necessary, even when using a rapid fire weapon, so as to ensure the animal is humanely killed he was unable to answer the question;

(vi) When it was put to him that there were category B weapons readily available on the market that could do the job he was wanting to do, he disagreed but he was unable to explain why other than stating words to the effect of:

My inner circle of guys tell me that Category D is the best option.

(vii) When it was put to him that poor shooting technique does not permit him to get a category D weapon licence his response was words to the effect of:

• [29] In his closing submissions, Mr Madin's solicitor submitted:

(a) The issue must be considered on a 'case by case' basis;

(b) It is not an issue as to whether Mr Madin is a good or a bad shot, nor whether there is a weapon which is not a category D weapon that could be used by a professional shooter that would do the job required. Rather, the issue must be considered on Mr Madin's ability to use the various types of weapons available; and

(c) The requirement for it to be 'necessary' not just 'convenient' must be considered on Mr Madin's personal circumstances, not those of a reasonable person in his position.

• [30] In his closing submissions, Mr Ferguson raised these points for my consideration:

(a) Mr Madin has not shown any 'special circumstance' that dictates he should be permitted a category D weapon;

(b) Just because a person has a category D weapon does not mean that person would kill more pest animals;

(c) Mr Madin has not presented any evidence to show that the use of a category B lineal weapon could not do the job required such that a category D weapon was required.

• [31] In the reasons for the Decision, the respondent's decision-maker referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Shaxson v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licencing Branch wherein the word 'necessary', as it appears in s 13(5) of the Weapons Act, was considered, in particular the following observation made by the learned Member:[27]

The word, 'necessary' as used in s 13(5), is not defined. Its meaning must properly be interpeted (sic) in the context of not only the provision in which it sits, but the Weapons Act and its purpose. 'Necessary,' according to common usage, connotes something which is required, rather than something which is merely convenient or a matter of preference. In the context, it reasonably connotes that the requirement can not (sic) be met in some other way, and can not (sic) currently be appropiately (sic) met.

• [32] It was in Salmon v Queensland Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch), that this Tribunal expressed the conclusion that the circumstances of whether the use of a particular category of weapon is 'necessary' have to be considered on a 'case-by-case basis,[28] such being presumably the premise upon which Mr Madin's solicitor made the same submission to me. That conclusion was not disturbed on appeal, with the Appeal Tribunal advancing the interpretation of that provision in Queensland Police Service v Salmon noting the relationship between s 13 and s 11 of the Act to arrive at a proper construction of the meaning of 'occupational requirement' read in conjunction with what is 'necessary' as those terms are used in s 13(5). The conclusion of the learned Senior Member and Member constituting the Appeal Tribunal in that instance was expressed as follows:[29]

In our view, 'occupational requirement' for the purposes of s 11 of the WA means the possession of a particular type or category of weapon is necessary to enable the conduct of an applicant's business or employment to be undertaken.

The construction at which we have arrived is, in our view, harmonious with the principles and object of the WA and how the object is to be achieved, including requiring a person who wishes to possess a firearm to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm.

• [33] That is as I understand the premise for the submission by Mr Madin's solicitor that whether it is 'necessary' and not just 'convenient' must be considered on Mr Madin's personal circumstances given it is in the conduct of 'his' business in comparison to considering the issue in terms of a business of the type he is in. To put it another way, the submission is that the relevant test is subjective, not objective.
• [34] I agree that the test is subjective. As to what is 'necessary' must be considered case-by-case on the applicant's personal circumstances. The occupational requirement for a particular category of weapon being necessary for one person may be different for another person even though the circumstances which have given rise to the necessity could be the same or remarkably similar when looked at from an objective perspective. Such is consistent with the reasoning in Salmon both at first instance and on appeal. But that difference must still be measured, and in turn assessed, by reference to the issues of 'convenience' and 'preference' as those terms were used by the learned Member in Shaxson when placing a meaning on the term 'necessary'. To put it another way, even where an applicant can show the need for a particular category of weapon is 'necessary' on his/her own personal circumstances, the applicant must still show that necessity is something more than mere convenience.
• [35] In this proceeding, Mr Madin has failed to show that something more.
• [36] On the facts as he presented them I could readily find:

(a) he had a need to control feral pests as part of his stud cattle farming business;

(b) that feral pest problem was adversely affecting the business financially due to losses in stock;

(c) he was unable to satisfactorily control the pest problem within the confines of the conditions imposed on him under the Firearms Licence restricting him to categories A, B, and C; and

(d) should he be granted a change to his licence to permit him to possess and use a category D weapon, his prospects of improving the degree of control would increase.

• [37] However, the last aspect is one which in my opinion stemmed solely from a factor of convenience afforded Mr Madin within the circumstances he finds himself. All he had demonstrated to me within the presentation of his case was that he was unable to improve the degree of control using a category B weapon because of the manner in which he used such a weapon. He did not demonstrate to me that the use of such a weapon in any other way could not improve the degree of control, nor if it could that he was simply unable to use such a weapon in that alternative way.
• [38] As I observed in paragraph [15] herein, my focus in considering Mr Madin's application was the cogency of the case he presented to the Tribunal. But that cogency was left wanting. As presented, his evidence was at best limited to showing what would be convenient to him in the conduct of his business in stud cattle farming. It was otherwise nothing more than bare assertions of fact to demonstrate why he argued that a category D weapon was necessary. There was an absence of the requisite demonstration of need so as to make it 'necessary'. There were two glaring example of this.
• [39] The first is his response to the decision-maker reasons wherein the use of a linear repeating firearm, or a button release firearm, was discussed. Mr Madin's evidence was that which he asserts was the method of operation, presumably given from personal experience. But that is not necessarily evidence of how such a firearm operates. It may be nothing more than evidence of the manner in which Mr Madin operates it. What he should have presented is some independent opinion evidence to support his assertion that the manner of operation he is aware of, and has presumably experienced, is an accurate description of the way in which such a firearm operates and in turn shows that it was not an alternative such which could be used to satisfy the need. As presented his case goes no higher that demonstrating what is convenient for him.
• [40] The second is that which I noted it in paragraph [10] herein wherein I extracted relevant passages from the reasons for the Decision, such being the absence of any evidence to show significant changes to the feral animal population to show that a category D weapon had become necessary. Having received the reasons for the decision made by the respondent's decision-maker, Mr Madin was squarely on notice of the requirement for such evidence. But notwithstanding this, as he presented his case to this Tribunal his evidence was, at its highest, the bare assertion made by himself, as I noted it in paragraph [26] herein, that the number of pest and dog numbers are growing out of control. He should have provided some independent evidence to support that assertion which might have taken him closer to be able to show the requisite degree of necessity.
• [41] For all these reasons, Mr Madin simply failed to make his case that a category D weapon was necessary as part of his occupational requirement. He achieved a satisfaction level of nothing more than showing it would be convenient to him in terms of his efforts to control the feral pest problem. He did not demonstrate to me that the correct and preferable decision should be that the Decision be set aside and replaced with a decision that the change in conditions which he sought be allowed.

• [42] On the evidence that was before me at the hearing, whilst it was readily apparent that Mr Madin was regrettably at the mercy of a feral pest problem in the conduct of his stud cattle farming business, it was not readily apparent that it was necessary for him to possess a firearms licence for use of a category D weapon to be able to control that problem other than to the extent of it being convenient to him. His evidence did not demonstrate to me, and so I could not reach the conclusion that was required of a decision-maker under s 33 of the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld), that it was 'reasonably necessary' in the context of what is 'necessary' for the purposes of the Weapons Act.
• [43] For this reason, and on the basis of that which I have discussed herein for me reaching that conclusion, my decision was that the respondent's decision to have refused Mr Madin's application for a category D firearms licence was correct. An order was made to that effect.

[1] Ex 3 para's 6 to 10.

[5] Ex 1 pg's 3 and 4. The references therein to the 'Regs' is to the Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld).

[7] See s 142(1)(e) therein.

[12] Weapons Act s 3.

[13] Ibid s4(b).

[14] Ibid s 10(2)(f).

[15] Ibid s 11(c).

[16] Ibid s 13(1)(a).

[17] Ibid s 13(5).

[18] Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Qld), s 5.

[19] HR Act s 13(1). The factors for determining what is reasonable and justifiable are set out in s 13(2) of the Act.

[23] Such is consistent with that observed by this Tribunal in Stanway v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (No 2) [2012] QCAT 262 at [16].

[26] Ex 3. There was some additional oral evidence in chief given by Mr Madin. It was short and succinct, its content being to explain the basis for the asserted financial losses Mr Madin is said to be suffering in the absence of being able to possess and use a category D weapon.

[27] [2014] QCAT 309,[21]. Footnotes omitted.

[28] [2018] QCAT 202,[15].

[29] [2019] QCATA 177,[60] and [61].