McEwan v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 81

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10(2), s 10B, s 29, s 59, s 142

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33

[1] Mr McEwan asked the Tribunal to set-aside a decision to revoke his firearms license. His license was revoked after his second conviction for driving with a relevant drug present in his blood or saliva. The statutory reason for revocation was that he was no longer a fit and proper person to hold a license.

[2] There are some key statutory provisions in relation to holding a weapons license. Section 3(2) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('the Act') states that object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. Section 3(1) provides that the principles underlying the Act are:

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

(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.

[3] Section 4 of the Act relevantly provides that the object of the Act is to be achieved, with respect to firearms, by:

(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) ...

(e) ....

[4] Section 10(2) of the Act provides that a weapons license may only be issued to an individual if, among other things, the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

[5] Mr McEwan held firearms licenses for some 20 years before the most recent license was revoked.

[6] On 6 September 2008, Mr McEwan drove with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.097. He was convicted, fined and disqualified from driving for three months.

[7] On 22 February 2010, a firearms license was issued to Mr McEwan. On 14 August 2015, he applied to renew the license. One of the questions he had to answer was:

Since your license was last issued, have you in Queensland or elsewhere been charged with any offence?

[8] He answered in the negative, which was correct. I mention this question and answer because it must have drawn Mr McEwan's attention to the relevance of criminal charges to the decision whether to renew his license.

[9] Mr McEwan described the use for which he sought the license as 'putting down sick & injured livestock, control of feral animals' at a rural property identified as Naldera. The renewal conditions were for 'OCCUPATION, RECREATIONAL SHOOTING, SHOOTING CLUB'.

[10] At 5:05pm on 15 April 2022, Mr McEwan was intercepted by the police. He told them he was on his way to go shooting. It is accepted that he did not have a firearm in the vehicle with him: he was going to use a firearm provided by his father. One of the businesses he conducted was macropod harvesting (killing kangaroos and selling their carcasses) and dusk was the optimal time to shoot kangaroos.

[11] When the police asked Mr McEwan if he had consumed any illegal drugs in the previous two weeks, he replied that he had not. However, the police took a saliva sample that tested positive for methamphetamine. He was taken to a police station where he admitted to having consumed methamphetamine the previous day. A blood test confirmed the saliva test.

[12] On 28 May 2022, Mr McEwan pleaded guilty to driving while relevant drug present in blood or saliva contrary to s 79(2AA) of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld). He was convicted, with the conviction being recorded. He was fined $300 and disqualified from driving for a month.

[13] On 6 August 2023, Mr McEwan was again intercepted by police and he tested positive for methamphetamine. He admitted to the police that he had used the drug two days earlier. He gave no emergent reason for driving.

[14] On 14 September 2023, the Queensland Police Weapons Licensing Group ('WLG') suspended Mr McEwan's firearms license.

[15] On 24 October 2023, Mr McEwan pleaded guilty to driving while relevant drug present in blood or saliva. He was convicted with the conviction being recorded. He was fined $500 and disqualified from driving for six weeks.

[16] On 15 November 2023 the WLG revoked Mr McEwan's license. The statement of reasons noted the two drug-driving offences and that Mr McEwan's driving license had been disqualified three times since 2008.

[17] On 12 December 2023, Mr McEwan applied to the Tribunal to review the decision to revoke his license as is his right under s 142 of the Act. Section 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) provides that the Tribunal must hear and decide the matter by way of a fresh hearing on the merits, with a view to producing the correct and preferable decision. Relevant to this review, the Tribunal can affirm or set-aside the original decision.

[18] On 6 September 2025 the term of Mr McEwan's firearms license expired. That means, whether the Tribunal affirms or sets-aside the decision to revoke the license, Mr McEwan will remain unlicensed. However, the WLG indicated in the hearing that, if the Tribunal were to set-aside the decision, and Mr McEwan were to apply for a new license, the WLG would be guided by the Tribunal's assessment that it is appropriate for him to have a firearms license. Further, if the Tribunal decided to affirm the revocation decision, that would not necessarily preclude Mr McEwan from getting a license in the future as things may change with the passage of time that affect Mr McEwan's suitability for a firearms license.

[19] Section 29(1) of the Act relevantly provides that:

(1) An authorised officer may, by a revocation notice given to a licensee, revoke the licensee's licence if the authorised officer is satisfied of any of the following things -

(c) the licensee has contravened a condition, participation condition or special condition of the licence;

(d) the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence;

[20] It emerged during the hearing that Mr McEwan had probably contravened conditions of his license by using firearms outside the approvals in his license, for example by harvesting macropods on properties other than Naldera, although I accept that he did not knowingly contravene the conditions of his license.

[21] As this issue emerged in the hearing, Mr McEwan did not have a reasonable opportunity to look into, and respond to, the concerns raised by the WLG. I am therefore not prepared to make a finding that Mr McEwan contravened his license conditions.

[22] The question then remains: is Mr McEwan no longer a fit a proper person to hold a firearms license?

[23] Mr McEwan has no criminal history apart from the drug and alcohol offences. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr McEwan has ever engaged in violent behaviour. He claims that he has never threatened anyone or caused property damage with a weapon, and I have no reason to doubt that claim. I accept that he has never knowingly contravened the conditions of a firearms license. Mr McEwan regards himself as a good, hard-working member of the community. He said he does not pose a danger to the community through being a holder of a weapons licence.

[24] Mr McEwan claimed that his use of methamphetamine was recreational - he used it at night with friends - and he was not addicted. He said he only used it three or four times. He said he had not felt affected by drugs at the times when he was intercepted, and he did not see himself as a threat to anyone while using methamphetamine. He claimed that he woke up to himself after the second drug-driving offence and stopped using drugs.

[25] He was challenged on his evidence that he only used methamphetamine a few times as that would make him very unlucky, getting caught driving with it in his system shortly after two of those occasions. I found his evidence on this topic somewhat evasive and he seemed to develop it as he was being questioned. In my opinion, he understated his methamphetamine use.

[26] It is very concerning that on the first occasion Mr McEwan was on his way to go shooting with methamphetamine in his system. I find it unlikely that he did not think he was affected by it despite having used it the previous day/evening. There is also the fact that he lied to the police about it.

[27] Mr McEwan said he is sorry that he drove with drugs in his system, and he assured the Tribunal that he will not offend again. He claimed that those offences have no relevance to his ability to safely store and use weapons in his work as a commercial grazier and primary producer. He said he has made significant lifestyle changes, such as distancing himself from negative influences, and those changes have positively impacted his behaviour and overall well-being.

[28] On 7 February 2024 on the advice of his lawyer, Mr McEwan arranged to be tested for alcohol and certain illicit substances including methamphetamine, to show that he was not using drugs. The results were negative. I accept that around the time of the test Mr McEwan was not using any illicit substances or alcohol, which tends to corroborate his evidence that he is not addicted. However, the negative test only proves abstinence around the time of the test: it does not prove long-term abstinence.

[29] A Ms Edwards provided a character reference. She said she had known Mr McEwan for six years in a social and professional capacity and had never witnessed or heard of him conducting himself in a violent or aggressive manner. She said he coached sport and was a respected member of the club and a positive role model for past and present players. He had spoken to her about his weapons licensing and expressed regret for his actions. I accept these matters with the qualification that a good role model does not use methamphetamine and then drive soon after.

[30] The term 'fit and proper person to hold a license' is not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, it is appropriate to use the ordinary meaning. While the idea of a 'fit and proper person' denotes some universal qualities like integrity and good character, it does not have a universal meaning. Its meaning somewhat depends on its context, consistent with the approach taken by the High Court in the decision referred to below. Here the context is the possession and use of firearms.

[31] Further, s 10B(1) of the Act provides for some factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a license, and those relevantly include the public interest.

[32] The High Court decision in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond[1] ('Bond') concerned legislation that provided that a broadcasting license could be suspended or revoked if it appeared advisable in the public interest on the basis that (among other reasons) the licensee was no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence. Mason CJ observed that the consideration whether someone was a fit and proper person under the legislation had to extend to any aspect of fitness and propriety that was relevant to the public interest.

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 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.

[34] The WLG's position is that the offences, and the circumstances of the offences, are relevant to whether Mr McEwan is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms license. First, he used an illicit drug and he was driving with that drug in his system. There was not any evidence before the Tribunal about the effects of methamphetamine in the hours and days after taking it, but it is common knowledge that its presence in the bloodstream does have physiological and psychological impacts.

[35] After being convicted and punished for the first offence, Mr McEwan was caught engaging in the same illegal behaviour, indicating a susceptibility for poor decision-making and inappropriate risk taking. Such a susceptibility is not consistent with the responsibilities of, and standard of behaviour that applies to, the holder of a firearms license. Further, people who have weapons are expected to be law-abiding, and Mr McEwan failed at that.

[36] Second, the WLG submitted that it is not in the public interest for a person to possess or use a weapon while under the influence of a drug. On the first occasion, Mr McEwan was on his way to do just that.

[37] Section 59 of the Act makes it an offence to physically possess or use a weapon while under the influence of a drug or alcohol. It is directed at preventing people whose judgment and dexterity could be impaired from drugs or alcohol from handling and using weapons. Mr McEwan was not charged with, or convicted of, an offence against s 59. However, his intended conduct was inconsistent with this safeguard and further evidence of a susceptibility for poor decision-making.

[38] The WLG noted that the risk arising from dealing with a firearm while under the influence is not confined to how the person might use the firearm. It includes failure to exercise the required level of diligence in handling and storing the firearm.

[40] A fit and proper person to hold a firearms license would be a person who can be trusted to possess and use firearms lawfully and responsibly. I am satisfied that in 2022 and 2023, when Mr McEwan was engaging in illegal and risky behaviour, including planning to use a firearm the day after consuming methamphetamine, he could not be so trusted.

[41] However, I should decide whether he is a fit and proper person now. It has been a relatively short time since the most recent offence in August 2023. Mr McEwan said he has made some positive lifestyle changes, and removed bad influences, although he did not provide details. I did not think Mr McEwan's evidence about his drug use was entirely genuine, and he was more focussed on the fact that no harm had resulted from his transgressions than the poor decision-making that led to the transgressions. The evidence does not establish that Mr McEwan has developed sufficient insight and maturity to consistently exercise the level of diligence and care expected of a person who possesses and uses firearms. I am not satisfied that he is currently a fit and proper person to hold a firearms license.

[42] As Mr McEwan is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearms license, the discretion in s 29 of the Act to revoke his license is enlivened. The Act does not provide criteria to consider when exercising the discretion, although the object of the Act is relevant. As stated above, the object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons, and public safety is paramount. Further, the Act provides that a firearms license should only be issued to a person who is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms license.[2] Accordingly, my assessment that Mr McEwan does not meet that standard is an important consideration.

[43] Other relevant factors may include the need for Mr McEwan to have a firearms license and the use he would make of firearms if he had a license.

[44] Mr McEwan described himself as a self-employed primary producer. He and his parents run a beef cattle operation consisting of over 2,000 head of livestock across three separate properties. He said he needs to use a firearm to humanely destroy sick or injured livestock and to protect his livestock from pests such as wild pigs and dingoes. He also used to harvest macropods for an income stream, which required him to use a firearm.

[45] Mr McEwan indicted that since his license was suspended, there are more kangaroos competing with his cattle for food, and there are more wild dogs attacking his cattle. His father has a firearms license however he is 170 km away from one of the properties. Mr McEwan needs to be able to use firearms to euthanise and protect livestock at Naldera.

[46] A Ms Cotter provided an affidavit in which she said Mr McEwan had been conducting shooting operations for a business she is involved in on two properties to assist in the humane control of the kangaroo and wild dog populations. However, since he lost his license, there had been a significant and detrimental increase in the number of kangaroos and wild dogs on the properties which caused considerable financial losses. She said Mr McEwan's contributions had been crucial in managing wildlife populations and protecting the land and the livestock, however she did not say that there was not anyone else who could do that work.

[47] In the hearing, Mr McEwan indicated that he was still in contact with Ms Cotter but he claimed to have no knowledge of whether someone else had been engaged to shoot kangaroos and wild dogs on those properties since he lost his license. I find that implausible. Mr McEwan conceded that there were plenty of people in the area who could be retained to do that work and he did not give any reason why it had to be him. I am satisfied that someone else could do what Mr McEwan did for those properties.

[48] Mr McEwan indicated that the loss of his license had caused financial strain to him and his family, including making it harder to pay his son's school fees and living expenses. I accept that Mr McEwan cannot earn income from macropod harvesting or contracting his services to other properties. I also accept that he cannot perform some tasks on the Naldera property, which makes it harder to control predators and delays the euthanising of sick or injured livestock. However, Mr McEwan was aware that he needed a firearms license to perform all these tasks, and he put his license in jeopardy not once but twice (that the authorities know of). The financial detriment to Mr McEwan and his family from his license being revoked does not outweigh the public interest that favours revocation of his license.

[49] The WLG was correct to revoke Mr McEwan's license. That remains the correct and preferable decision. The decision under review is affirmed.

[1] [1990] HCA 33.