Mosello v Queensland Police Service [2026] QCAT 122

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13, s 15, s 24, s 58

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21

Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), sch 2, s 3, s 4, s 10, s 10B, s29, s 142(1)(e)

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

Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others [1995] IRCA 540; (1995) 131 ALR 657

Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93

Dawson v Tanwan [1999] QDC 289

Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR

Grobler v Queensland Police Service [2022] QCAT 103

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286

Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28

[1] By notice dated 12 September 2023, an authorised officer under the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) revoked the applicant's firearms' licence because 'the applicant is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, due to it not being in the public interest.'

[2] In its statement of reasons for the decision the Queensland Police Service (QPS) relied on the following sections of the Weapons Act in force as at 12 September 2023:

• s10B fit and proper person - licences;
• s10B(1)(d) the public interest;
• s29(1)(c) the licensee has contravened a condition of the licence; and
• s29(1)(d) the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person.

[3] The statement of reasons concluded that: 'taking into consideration your failure to properly secure your weapons and contravening a condition of your licence I have determined that it is not in the public interest for you to continue to hold a firearms licence. As such, your licence is now revoked.'

[4] The applicant seeks to have his firearms' licence reinstated with storage to continue at an address in Moranbah, Queensland. In the alternative, to have his weapons licence reinstated on a formal undertaking that he will not make any application to acquire new weapons and will transfer ownership of all existing weapons to his father who resides in Victoria.

[5] The Tribunal will conduct a review of the decision made on 12 September 2023. The Tribunal is required to make the correct and preferable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[1] The Tribunal will consider all facts before it and will apply the law in force as at the date of its decision[2]being the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) reprint as at 1 January 2026.[3]

[6] Mr Mosello was granted a firearm's licence in September 2019.

[7] On 23 August 2023 police located two registered firearms, unsecured in a bedroom cupboard at an address in Moranbah. It was a condition of the licence that no weapons are to be possessed or stored at that address.

[8] Mr Mosello was charged with an offence of contravention of licence conditions. He was convicted and no conviction was recorded.

[9] On 4 September 2025 a domestic violence order[4], other than a temporary protection order, known as a Family Violence Final Intervention Order was made against Mr Mosello by the Magistrates' Court at Mildura. That is a nationally recognised order.[5]

[10] The documents filed in the Tribunal pursuant to s 21 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act') contain Mr Mosello's traffic record for the period 7 September 2007 to 26 August 2023, including amongst a number of speeding offences, more seriously:

(a) September 2007 disqualification for a period of 8 month for drive/attempt put in motion/in charge of a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor (0.129 Blood Alcohol Count); and

(b) February 2014 failure to provide a blood specimen, disqualified until 26 March 2015.

[11] Mr Mosello's grounds supporting his application for review assert an error in construing s 10B of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('Weapons Act'), on the part of the authorised officer who made the decision to revoke Mr Mosello's licence.

[12] With respect, that is not a relevant factor in a merits review which is not concerned with legal error, but rather to make the decision afresh.

[13] Mr Mosello says that the incident giving rise to the revocation was an isolated incident due to an inability to access the property where the weapons are usually stored. In any event the firearms had the bolts removed and were placed in a cupboard.

[14] Mr Mosello contends that factors outside his control prevented compliance with the licence condition and that he acted as safely as he could in the circumstances.

Mr Mosello has filed no statement of evidence and has not provided any submissions as directed.

[15] Mr Mosello gave evidence at the hearing that he is of good character, that he remains in permanent employment and that he has not previously received suspensions or breaches with respect to his firearms' licence.

[16] Mr Mosello's evidence is that the Family Violence Final Intervention Order made on 4 September 2025 in Mildura was uncalled for. He said that he was imprisoned overnight and had no access to a duty solicitor, so he accepted the Order.

[17] In relation to the traffic offences and convictions, he said there was nothing he could say. In relation to speeding offences Mr Mosello said that he was not a 'lot over' the speed limit and that he often travels distances with his children which results in some speeding.

[18] In his own defence Mr Mosello said that he is not a bad person, not a risk to the public and would never do anything to harm anyone.

[19] No character references were submitted by Mr Mosello.

(a) Mr Mosello has contravened a condition of the licence under s 29(1)(c) Weapons Act justifying revocation of the licence; or

(b) Pursuant to s 29(1)(d) of the Weapons Act Mr Mosello is no longer a 'fit and proper' person to hold a licence.

[21] Since the date of the decision under review:

(a) The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Police v XPR[6] concluded that s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ('PSA') makes it impermissible to have regard to a conviction for which no conviction was recorded in considering whether a person is a 'fit and proper person' for the purpose of s 10B of the Weapons Act. The prohibition includes the facts and circumstances of the conviction for which no conviction was recorded.

(b) On 4 September 2025 a domestic violence order was made against Mr Mosello.

[22] On one view of XPR, I cannot have regard to the breach of licence conditions which gave rise to the conviction (no conviction recorded), in deciding if Mr Mosello is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms' licence.

[23] I asked the parties to provide submissions in relation to XPR and in particular whether the Tribunal might have regard to s 79 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) ('Evidence Act'). The QPS made strong submissions that it is not possible to distinguish XPR, that it must be followed and that it is not possible to turn to s 79 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of proving that the offence of breaching a condition of the licence has been committed.

[25] I will not take those issues any further in the face of the submissions by the QPS.

[26] The QPS say that failure to comply with a licence condition is a separate ground for revocation under s 29(1)(c) of the Weapons Act and that the prohibitions spelled out in XPR can be limited to any examination of the matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence under s 10B of the Weapons Act.[7]

[27] The QPS say that without having regard to the conviction (not recorded) for the licence contravention offence, the Tribunal can otherwise be satisfied on the available evidence that s 29(1)(c) has been met, because:

(a) it was a condition of the licence that no weapons be stored at a particular residence;

(b) on 23 August 2023 police attended that residence;

(c) during that attendance police located two of Mr Mosello's registered firearms unsecured in a bedroom cupboard.

(d) Mr Mosello accepts that he did not comply with a condition of the licence.

[28] The QPS also submit that because of the Family Violence Final Intervention Order made on 4 September 2025, s 10B(5)(b) of the Weapons Act is engaged so that I may find that Mr Mosello is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence. At the outset I reject that submission because the Order was not made within 5 years of the day Mr Mosello was given the revocation notice, as required by s 10B(5)(b) of the Weapons Act. However, I consider the Order does have relevance to my consideration as it goes to the question of public interest, which I discuss later in this decision.

[29] I observe, as the QPS submitted, that in this case an absurd or irrational outcome is reached in applying XPR, whereby a person convicted of failing to comply with a condition of their licence, for which no conviction is recorded, can avoid having their licence revoked because the QPS cannot refer to the circumstances involving the contravention. That result makes a condition on the grant and maintenance of a licence meaningless and flies in the face of the objects of the Weapons Act.[8]

[30] S 29(1)(c) of the Weapons Act is a discrete ground for revocation of a licence. It provides that an authorised officer may by a revocation notice revoke a 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.

[31] I would nevertheless have to go to the facts and circumstances surrounding the charge to find that there has been a contravention of the conditions of the licence.

[32] I find that on the authority of XPR and other earlier decisions, I am unable to do so. In Grobler v Queensland Police Service[9], a careful analysis was conducted as to the effect of s 12(3) of the PSA. Reference was made to helpful obiter in Dawson v Tanwan[10] that if a conviction is not recorded, it is not to be taken into account at all for the purposes of ss10, 18 or 29. His Honour McGill DCJ there referred to an earlier version of the Weapons Act, but s 29 of that version covered the same circumstances for revocation as currently appear in s 29. Member Howe concluded in Grobler's case that if Weapons Licensing were able to go behind the balance determined appropriate by a Judge or Magistrate in sentencing it would set to nought their careful consideration of what is appropriate in the circumstances under the protective umbrella of s 12(3) of the PSA.[11] He went on to say none of the authorities, which raise the important issue of the tension between the interests of an offender and the right of people who may have further contact or dealings with the offender, suggest that the circumstances of offences leading up to an unrecorded conviction is something separate from the conviction itself and may be relied on to avoid the broad intended effect of s 12(3).[12]

[33] On the basis of these considerations, I find that it is not possible to have regard to the circumstances surrounding the charge of non-compliance with a condition of the licence in order to find that the decision to revoke the licence on that ground should be affirmed.

[34] The result is absurd. It is for the legislature to address.

[35] I consider that there is a basis on which I should set aside the decision made on 12 September 2023 and substitute my own decision that the firearms' licence is revoked. That is because of the domestic violence order made on 4 September 2025. I consider that as a result of that order Mr Mosello is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a firearms' licence because it is not in the public interest for him to do so.

[36] Whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms' licence is a value judgment. The seriousness of conduct and the weight to be given to matters favouring the person are matters for evaluation.[13]

[37] Under s 10B(1) of the Weapons Act the public interest is a consideration as to whether a person is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

[38] In determining the public interest, it is necessary to consider the interests of the community as a whole. Those interests are met by ensuring on the basis of the facts before the Tribunal that the objects of the Weapons Act are met.[14]

[39] By s 3 of the Weapons Act, weapon possession and use are said to be 'subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.'

[40] In making a fresh decision on the merits I may have regard to all the facts before me. I am not limited to the facts before the authorised officer who revoked the licence.[15]

[41] I find that Mr Mosello is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a firearms' licence because it is not in the public interest for him to do so:

(a) because I infer on the basis of the domestic violence order or Family Violence Final Intervention Order made on 4 September 2025 that Mr Mosello is a threat to the individual safety of the protected person under the Order and resultantly to the public; and

(b) I am not satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety if the applicant were given access to a firearm.[16]

[42] Mr Mosello has not supported his own evidence of good character with any other evidence. In the face of the Family Violence Final Intervention Order I am unable to attribute any weight to his evidence.

[43] The revocation of Mr Mosello's licence on this ground is substituted for the decision revoking his licence on other grounds.

[44] The Tribunal has previously accepted that traffic offences may amount to irresponsible or antisocial behaviour constituting a risk to public safety which is relevant to the question of whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms' licence.

[45] I have noted earlier the more serious offences committed by Mr Mosello. They occurred in 2007 and 2014. I do not have an up-to-date traffic record before me. Given the age of the offences I do not propose to take them into account in determining whether Mr Mosello is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms' licence.

[46] The Tribunal is bound to apply the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) in the conduct of this review. I received no submissions from the parties in relation to the issue.

[47] I have considered the applicant's human rights, including recognition and equality before the law and property rights. However, given the principles and object of the Weapons Act are to ensure public and individual safety and to prevent the misuse of weapons, I consider that any limitation on the applicant's human rights is reasonable and justified in terms of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). The limitation is itself consistent with a free and democratic society based on human dignity by reference to public and individual safety. In balancing the public and private interests at play in this matter, I consider that the public interest in safety outweighs the private interest of the applicant in having access to a firearm for recreational purposes. I also conclude that given the statutory regime in the Weapons Act which subordinates the possession of weapons to the need to ensure public safety that it is not possible to make a different decision.[17]

[48] The orders sought by Mr Mosello as an outcome of this review are refused.

[49] The decision of the respondent made on 12 September 2023 is set aside, and for the reasons set out in this decision is substituted with a decision that Leo Mosello's firearms' licence number 26619372 is revoked because Leo Mosello is no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence due to it not being in the public interest.

[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s19, s20.

[2] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286, [99].

[3] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 198.

[4] Ibid, Schedule 2, "domestic violence order" means a domestic violence order under the Domestic and Family violence Protection Act 2012 and includes an interstate domestic violence order.

[5] Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 176F.

[6] [2025] QCA 93 ('XPR').

[8] Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s4(d) and (e).

[9] [2022] QCAT 103 ('Grobler').

[10] [1999] QDC 289.

[14] Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O'Connor and Others [1995] IRCA 540; (1995) 131 ALR 657; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] VicRp 6; [1991] 1 VR 63.

[15] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31, [98].

[16] Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28, [28].

[17] Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), ss 13, 15, 24, 58(1) and (2).