Melton v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 96

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 4, s 10, s 10B(1)(c), s 142

[1] The Applicant applies for the review of a decision, made on 1 June 2023 by an authorised officer of the Queensland Police Service, to refuse to issue him with a weapons licence.

[2] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the Application for review pursuant to ss 17(1) and 18(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ("QCAT Act") and s 142(1)(aa) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ("Weapons Act").

[3] The purpose of the review is to conduct a fresh hearing on the merits and on the evidence before the Tribunal in order to produce the correct and preferable decision.[1] In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.[2] It is not necessary for the Applicant to establish error on the part of the primary decision maker and there is no presumption that the decision under review was correct.[3] Neither party bears the onus of proof.

[4] On 3 August 2018 the Applicant was the holder of a weapons licence.

[5] Shortly before 10pm, Queensland Police attended at the Applicant's residence in Boronia Heights after receiving a call from the Applicant's wife who is recorded in the occurrence report as having told police that the Applicant:

(a) had taken pain killers for his back;

(b) had been unable to sleep;

(c) had threatened to kill himself and left the premises with a belt in order to do so;

(d) had been behaving out of character for the past week, had been angry and not attended at work, but had not been violent or destructive; and

(e) had been concerned about consulting a doctor through fear of losing his weapons licence.

[6] The Applicant is recorded as having told police "it was his time".

[7] Ambulance officers who attended described the Applicant as appearing depressed and recorded that he made comments consistent with suicidal ideation. He was detained and transported to hospital for a mental health assessment under an Emergency Examination Authority. He says that he was released the following day without treatment.

[8] On 14 August 2018 the Applicant's weapons licence was suspended. After providing a letter from his general practitioner, his weapons licence was reinstated.

[9] Eventually the expiry date for that weapons licence approached, but his attempt to renew it was hampered by the fact that he had relocated. That weapons licence expired on 16 June 2022.

[10] On 13 January 2023 he applied for a new weapons licence, noting the details of his previous weapons licence at question 5 which included that it had expired.

[11] At question 6 of the application he answered to the effect that his weapons licence had never been "surrendered, cancelled, disqualified, suspended or revoked". At question 7 of the application he answered to the effect that he had never suffered from a "Psychiatric disorder, psychological or emotional problem". Plainly those statements were not true and correct.

[12] The Application for a weapons licence was refused on 1 June 2023.

[13] The Applicant applied for a review of that decision on 26 July 2023.

[14] In conducting this review, the Tribunal has had regard to the following material:

(a) Bundle of relevant documents produced by the Respondent pursuant to s 21 of the QCAT Act including:

(i) Form 1 Weapons Act Application for a Licence dated 13 January 2023;

(ii) Notice of Rejection of Application to Issue or Renew Licence dated 1 June 2023;

(iii) Statement of Reasons dated 1 June 2023;

(iv) General police occurrence report by officers that attended on 3 August 2018;

(v) Queensland Ambulance Service documents by officers that attended on 3 August 2018;

(vi) Suspension notice dated 14 August 2018;

(vii) Medical certificate by Dr Reggie Ba-Pe dated 7 September 2018;

(viii) Criminal history; and

(ix) Traffic history;

(b) Application to Review a Decision filed on 26 July 2023;

(c) Letter from Chinchilla Medical Practice dated 25 July 2025 confirming that the Applicant had experienced difficulties in finding a psychiatrist that was available to consult with him and encouraging weapons licensing to grant him more time;

(d) Letter from the Applicant's wife dated 20 July 2023, walking back any concerns and encouraging the renewal of the Applicant's weapons licence;

(e) Oral evidence including answers to cross examination given by the Applicant and his wife, Ann Melton.

[15] The Applicant contends that he should have been issued with a weapons licence because:

(a) he has never been in trouble in a way that would impact on his suitability to hold a weapons licence;

(b) a minor incident that occurred five years beforehand should not impact him today;

(c) the firearms that are owned by him were handed down from his late grandfather and he in turn would like to hand them down to his own son;

(d) he was not treated for any disorder or condition on 3 August 2018;

(e) the suspension of his weapons licence in 2018 was revoked and nothing has changed since that time.

(a) the answers given by the Applicant in response to questions 6 and 7 of the application for a weapons licence were materially false or misleading;

(b) the Applicant appeared to have suffered from an episode of poor mental health on 3 August 2018, including suicidal ideation, such that his mental fitness to hold a weapons licence is a matter of legitimate concern;

(c) the medical information provided by the Applicant in 2018 gave no indication at all that the general practitioner knew what had occurred in the lead up to, and on the night of, 3 August 2018 and to that extent was not capable of satisfying the decision maker that the Applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.

[17] Central to the decision of the Respondent to refuse to grant the Applicant a weapons licence was that:

(a) he made a false or misleading statement in his application for a weapons licence, namely:

(i) at question 6 where he ticked "no" to the question whether his weapons licence had ever been "surrendered, cancelled, disqualified, suspended or revoked";

(ii) at question 7 where he ticked "no" to the question whether he had ever suffered from a psychiatric disorder, psychological or emotional problem; and

(b) he may not be mentally fit to hold a weapons licence.

[18] There was good reason to think that the Applicant had suffered from a psychiatric disorder, psychological or emotional problem, even if only fleetingly, as a result of the incident on 3 August 2018. His wife is recorded as having said that he was suicidal and acting out of character for about a week. Those observations were supported by police and ambulance officers who attended that night.

[19] It is noted however, that the Statement of Reasons miscategorised the nature of the false or misleading answer which is relied upon. The question which is asked in the Form 1 Application for Licence is whether the Applicant "has ever suffered from" a psychiatric disorder, psychological or emotional problem. The Statement of Reasons records:

I note your application your answer of 'NO' for have you ever received treatment for psychiatric or emotional problems. You have failed to disclose your medical history.

[20] First, the question was not whether "treatment had been received for", but whether the person has ever "suffered from" a psychiatric disorder psychological or emotional problem. There is great potential for the answer to differ, depending upon which of those questions was required to be answered.

[21] That issue aside, I am not satisfied that the Applicant intentionally made a statement that was false or misleading. In terms of question 6, the Applicant's understanding was that his licence having been reinstated, he had nothing to declare. I accept that he misunderstood what the question sought from him and his answer was not intended to be false or misleading. In terms of question 7, the Applicant's clearly stated belief is that he was not ever suffering from a "psychiatric disorder, psychological or emotional problem", a fact supported by his swift release from hospital without the need for any treatment. I am satisfied that he has that belief and did not intend his answer to be false or misleading.

[22] In any event, that is not the real concern that caused the Respondent to refuse to issue the Applicant with a weapons licence. The real concern was whether or not the Applicant was a fit and proper person, and specifically whether he was mentally fit to hold a weapons licence.

[23] The Tribunal's function is produce to the correct and preferable decision and in the light of the history of this matter it would have benefited greatly from the provision of a health report that cogently addressed that central concern of whether the Applicant had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder, psychological or emotional problem in August 2018 and, just as relevantly, whether anything has changed since that time.

[24] To that end, on 12 May 2025 Member Jenson made directions which included that the Applicant was to file and give to the Respondent, within three months, a health report that complied with ss 58 to 60 of QCAT Practice Direction 7 of 2022.

[25] The Applicant did not comply with that direction and at the hearing he confirmed that on 2 December 2025 he had declined to give any further evidence in this proceeding. He explained at the hearing that he had been unable to obtain a health report because of distance, cost and the unavailability of any psychiatrist contacted to provide a report in circumstances where he had never been treated for a psychiatric condition.

[26] In circumstances where the decision maker was obliged to consider the medical and physical fitness of the applicant for a weapons licence, and the Tribunal now stands in the shoes of the original decision maker, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant is mentally fit to hold a weapons licence unless he provides a health report of the kind that he was directed, but failed to provide.

[27] Also, because the Tribunal stands in the shoes of a "public entity" it must comply with s 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which obliges the Tribunal not to decide this Application in a way that is incompatible with human rights and to consider relevant human rights in making its decision. The only human right that is relevant in this proceeding is the Applicant's right not to have his privacy interfered with or his reputation unlawfully attacked[4] and it might be thought that requiring the Applicant to provide a health report or querying the Applicant's mental fitness infringes upon those rights. To the extent that it does, I consider that it is reasonable and justified because establishing whether or not the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence is an important safeguard, mandated by ss 4 and 10 of the Weapons Act and there are no less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the objects of the Weapons Act than to require the Applicant to satisfy the decision maker that he is mentally fit, having regard to the events that occurred on 3 August 2018.

[28] For the reasons set out above, the decision of Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing dated 1 June 2023, refusing to issue a weapons licence is confirmed.

[3] Oliver v Queensland Racing Integrity Commission [2017] QCAT 50, [11].

[4] Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) s 25.