Richards v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 495

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33

Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634

Doherty v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 380

Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378

Queensland Police Service v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147

Scott v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330

**[1] The Applicant made an application dated 13 March 2024 to review a decision to revoke his firearms licence which he used to cull kangaroos in rural Queensland. He held that firearms licence pursuant to the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('the Act'). That decision to revoke his licence dated 1 March 2024 ('decision') on the basis that it was considered by the authorised officer of the respondent that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Act.

[2] He previously held a firearms licence for some period not specified in the material and had done so without incident. The stated bases for the revocation were not relied on in respect of this review because they were based on mental health conditions, he was said to have but which were actually those of someone else, a case of mistaken identity. Instead, new grounds were advanced at the hearing to justify the revocation.

[3] It is common ground that in the period whilst he held his original licence, he had no history that was relevant to whether he should now continue to have that licence. He has no history of drug use. He has no history of domestic violence nor any contraventions of the Act or any history of misuse of weapons. He has no criminal or other relevant history which would impact on the question whether he was a fit and proper person to hold that licence, and furthermore, he has no such history since the licence was revoked in 2024 which bears upon that question of whether he was a fit and proper person.

[4] The Applicant has applied to this Tribunal for a review of the decision to revoke his licence.**

The relevant law and whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence

• [5] By s 3(2) of the Act, the object of the Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. By s 3(1) of the Act, the principles underlying the Act are that weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety, and 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.
• [6] Relevantly, section 4 of the Act provides:

The object of this Act is to be achieved for firearms by -

(a) prohibiting the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and automatic and self-loading shotguns except in special circumstances; and

(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) the acquisition and sale of firearms; and

(e) ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way.

• [7] By s 10(2)(e) a licence may only be issued to and held by an individual if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and by s 10(2)(f) of the Act has a reason mentioned in section 11 to possess the weapon or category of weapon.
• [8] Section 10 of the Act also provides that a licence may only be issued to an individual if the person has, under section 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence and has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence.
• [9] Section 11 of the Act lists the "genuine reasons" for possessing a weapon in Queensland, which are necessary to obtain a weapons licence. These include as genuine reasons, sports or target shooting, recreational shooting, an occupational requirement (including for rural purposes), the collection, preservation, or study of weapons, and any other reason prescribed by regulation.
• [10] The term 'fit and proper' is not defined but the Act does require that certain things be considered, and amongst them is the public interest. The phrase 'fit and proper person' in the context of the weapons legislation has been considered by the Tribunal in light of the discussion as to the meaning of that expression by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 ('Bond') where it was said at [36]:

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.

• [11] In Magarry v QPS Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 ('Magarry') the Tribunal considered the description of the meaning of fit and proper person set out in Bond. The learned Senior Member observed that the Act does not list the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether it is in the public interest to revoke a licence, but the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act.
• [12] In Magarry, the Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Magarry's renewal of his firearms licence and revoke his collector's licence in far more serious circumstances than those arising in the matter before me.
• [13] The Senior Member's decision was confirmed on appeal in QPS v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147 ('Magarry'). In the reasons on appeal Cullinane AM QC Judicial Member said as follows:

[26] The Act provides for a licensing regime. Section 10B provided for the considerations on any application for the grant renewal etc of a licence. In deciding whether a person is or is any longer fit to hold a licence consideration must be given to the mental and physical fitness of the person, whether there is a risk to public safety and the public interest. Consideration of the concept of "fit and proper person" is found in cases such as Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321.

[27] The Tribunal approached the matter on the basis of the principles set out in Stower v Smart (2007) QDC 4.

[28] I, with respect agree that these principles represent the approach which gives proper expression to the principles of the Weapon Act 1990.

[29] These are as follows:

(a) It is of extreme importance to bear in mind the object of the Act which is stated in s 3(2) to be "to prevent the misuse of weapons".

(b) The proper exercise of discretion would require the Magistrate to evaluate the evidence of the character of Stower.

(c) The proper exercise of discretion would then lead to the questions "in these circumstances is there any real prospect of Stower misusing his weapons so that his licence should be suspended? Is his right to possess firearms a real risk to public and individual safety?"

[30] Here the Tribunal has carried out an exercise which involves weighing the considerations militating in favour of and against the Respondent but bearing in mind that all other considerations are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety.

• [14] In Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634 it was said in relation to examining the historical behaviour of an applicant that:

It is well established on the authorities that irresponsible, uncontrolled, antisocial or behaviour constituting a risk to public safety does not have to be limited to the subject matter of, in this case, the renewal application. Such behaviour exhibited in other areas of an Applicant's interaction with those about him or her may determine whether that person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence applied for.

• [15] I adopt and apply those principles to the facts here.

• [16] By the time it came for final submissions, and after the applicant had been cross-examined about whether he had any relevant history of attempts at suicide, making threats of suicide or making other statements which implied violence towards others, it was submitted the Tribunal would nevertheless hold concerns as to his suitability because he had previously told lies about being suicidal when he was not suicidal and could not be trusted to hold a licence.
• [17] The second point was that the medical reports, which dealt with his mental health history were not sufficiently detailed and relied upon material, which had not been verified effectively.
• [18] Thirdly, it was submitted that a psychiatrist Dr Peter Clark in Caloundra who had seen him on a number of occasions specifically with a view to providing him with a report as to his suitability to hold a weapons' licence had suggested he was not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. In fact, there was no report from that psychiatrist which said any such thing. On the contrary, the only report provided by that psychiatrist was in 2016. It said he did not at face value at that time, present a risk to himself or the public if he were to have a firearm. It said there was no psychiatric or medical disorder that would make him a person not fit or proper to hold a licence. There is more history with that doctor since I was informed that he had done a further report this year which he refused to give to the applicant or respond to his communications from the applicant, but which he sent to the respondent. It is not in evidence and Dr Clark was not called by either side to give evidence. I was told by the applicant that he has some legal claim he is making against that doctor.
• [19] The applicant conceded in cross-examination that although that this psychiatrist Dr Clark who saw him in 2024 had made no assessment of his suitability to hold a weapons licence when he saw him in 2024, he insisted that the applicant go on a course of medication, wanted him to receive treatment by seeing that psychiatrist, but also insisted that he make an acknowledgement of his medical history, which the doctor contended, he was in denial of.
• [20] I accept the applicant's evidence that this psychiatrist and other medical authorities were at that time in 2024 proceeding on the false assumption that the medical history of an entirely different person, with the same or a similar name, but of a completely different age, was his medical history, and that this psychiatrist proceeded on the basis of the same fallacy. That is why the treatment plan was proposed.
• [21] At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent also sought to rely upon various things said to a cousin of the applicant who happened also to be a police officer, during the course of which it was suggested he had some kind of extremist and violent opinions.
• [22] No evidence was led from his cousin to demonstrate what was said in their exchanges nor was the cousin made available to be cross-examined.
• [23] A document the cousin wrote as an intelligence report to the police in January 2024 concerning incidents that occurred in December 2023 was entirely repudiated by the applicant as either a misrepresentation of what truly happened, materially incomplete or to the extent that it was accurate, reflected untruths that he himself had told his cousin. I cannot treat the version of what occurred in the document created by his cousin as being reliable. The applicant and his cousin had a long history of animosity as family members. The author appears to have significantly exaggerated the significance of some of the things that were said, including that the applicant stood with farmers overseas who were protesting taxes using animal manure. He seemed to take issue with the protesting taxes, and the fact that the applicant took umbrage to what he saw as having been poorly treated by the police in some of his encounters with them. His cousin was himself a police officer. I do not consider that there is anything of significance which occurred in the dealings between the two of them that demonstrates that the applicant is not presently a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
• [24] There were text messages sent by the applicant to his cousin in which he made comments about people killing themselves, like he "had tried to" do and suggested that an aunt had taken the key to the gun safe from him when he was in a low moment of his life. The texts also imply he might kill himself.
• [25] His explanation for all of this was not entirely convincing, but it is clear that he was not being genuine in saying these things. I accept that he had not in fact, ever attempted to kill himself, but had invented a story when he was in his teens that he had attempted to do so, and this story had gained some widespread distribution amongst members of his family.
• [26] Although not entirely persuaded by his answers to the questions surrounding these comments, I give greater weight to the evidence of the GP, the psychologist and psychiatrist who saw him and provided reports as to his mental health history.

What does the Applicant and his doctors say are his current state of mind and mental health

• [27] The applicant is in his mid-thirties, has been a patient at the Bundaberg clinic from June 2019. That is a period of more than six years and is significant. He started seeing Dr Rornika Lal as a patient in September 2024 and saw him eight times since then.
• [28] There are two reports from Dr Lal. In the first report dated 2 December 2024 she says:

He has not had any presentations to hospital for any mental health crisis. He has no prior history of any suicidal ideation's psychosis bipolar disorder hallucinations or delusions. He possibly has some anxiety and possible Autism traits. In my opinion he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons license and is not a harm to himself or the community.

• [29] In the second report of 1 August 2025, Dr Lal says:

He was seen by a psychiatrist at Currajong Clinic in September 2024. The report is in his file and he was assessed not to have bipolar/psychosis/depression and suicidal conditions.

He has also been seeing a psychologist since September of 2024. Since I have been seeing him from September 2024, he has not demonstrated any signs or symptoms of bipolar, psychotic episodes any symptoms or signs of depression with suicidal ideations or thoughts.

I have taken a psychiatrist history and so has the psychologist to come to the above conclusion. He has some insomnia and has insight into how to manage this.

In my opinion and at the time of writing- in relation to his fitness and propriety to possess/use firearms he has been deemed to be a fit and proper person to hold a weapons license and the reason for coming to that conclusion is that he has no mental health conditions that I can find or know of that affects his ability to hold a weapons license.

He is a fit and proper person to unconditionally hold a firearms licence as there have been no incidents as far as I know of him been a risk to themselves or the public.

• [30] The applicant says there are errors in the report of Dr Lal since he had not been seen by a psychiatrist at Currajong Clinic in September 2024, but did see a GP doctor there. He may be mistaken about that since there is a report from a psychiatrist at Currajong Clinic dated 2 September 2024 from a Dr Hashan Gunawardeena from a Government Agency, Bundaberg Community Mental Health which makes some reference to what Dr Clark had thought. It said he had sought clarification around his diagnosis after seeing the private psychiatrist, but on review in that clinic, he showed no history indicative of fluctuating moods or episodic mood swings. And his functional level did not indicate any decline. It described his work and the stability of his relationships and described him as rational and not indicating any expansive thinking or grandiosity. It said there were no clear episodes where he had demonstrated elated mood, poor sleep, grandiosity, distractibility, or other manic, or hypomanic features. I accept the findings set out in the 2 September 2024 report from Dr Hashan Gunawardeena.
• [31] What the 2016 report from the psychiatrist Dr Clark that I referred to earlier said was that he was a farmer who was married and lived with his wife. The evidence before me is that he remains married, has three children, and says he has no reason to want to end his life, inter alia because of his young family.
• [32] The 2016 report of Dr Clark referred to the fact that it was being done specifically for the purpose of supporting his licence application then being made. It briefly described an insignificant altercation with a neighbour, engagement with the police arising out of that, which led to his arrest. He was diagnosed as having history of Aspergers syndrome when still under the age of ten but that he compensated communication issues by the time he was 16. Again, as a child, he was diagnosed with ADHD and was treated. There was history of depression in his early teens but no history since. The report referred to him as a pleasant man who was neatly and casually dressed, calm and cooperative and articulate. It said that he had no psychiatric disorder and no symptoms of any of his earlier mental health issues, no risk of harm to himself or others. He did not at face value, present a risk to himself or the public if he were to have a firearm. It said there was no psychiatric or medical disorder that would make him a person not fit or proper to hold a licence.
• [33] He was given such a licence then in 2016. I have seen nothing that has happened since that should suggest a different outcome here.
• [34] It seems clear that the revocation occurred also because the decision maker was also proceeding on the false assumption that the medical history of an entirely different person, with the same or a similar name, but of a completely different age, was his medical and mental health history. The applicant even provided a statement from his parent pointing out the obvious discrepancies in emails from health providers which referred to traumatic things that happened to some individual being aged 11 in the year 2013 whereas in 2013, the applicant was actually 22 years old. The health provider later conceded the errors in confusing him with a different person and wrote a letter accepting that he was not the person with that history.
• [35] The applicant also had reports from Amanda Bluck, a psychologist, the most recent of which is dated 24 October 2025. It said Mr Richards had attended five psychological consultations since December 2024. She observed that he has a job as a farming senior operator doing irrigation supervision and damage mitigation for the controlling of macropods on his family farm. Mr Richards is also a beekeeper managing 20 hives on his acreage property. He had additional casual employment as a bartender and security for weddings and events at two local venues.
• [36] It said:

Mr Richards mental state examination was consistent and all within normal limits across each attended psychological consultation. At time of consultations, Mr Richards appeared to have good insight of his situation and mental wellbeing, intact judgement.

There were no concerns regarding his appearance, behaviour, speech, mood/affect, thoughts, perception, cognition, insight or judgment at time of consultations. He Mr. Richards stated that there are no current or historical risks of harm to self or others. Bunda berg Community Mental Health have provided a retraction letter stating they had provided incorrect medical information regarding Mr. Richards.

Dr. Romaki Lal has also provided a letter documenting the purposes for Mr. Richards prescribed medication, with Mr. Richards planning to attend additional psychological consultations in the future regarding sleep anxiety. As per Dr Romaki Lal's letter, it is stated that Josiah does not have bipolar/psychosis/depression and suicidal conditions. At time of consultation, there were no risks of suicidal ideation, non-suicidal self-injury, nor any risks to others disclosed or identified.

Mr Richards stated he is planning on continuing psychological intervention for sleep hygiene related to sleep anxiety. Mr Richards general practitioner Dr Romaki Lal reported at time of writing that Mr Richards is a fit and proper person in relation to this matter.

• [37] I accept the findings set out in the 24 October 2025 report from Ms Bluck.
• [38] I do not accept that the Tribunal would hold concerns as to his suitability because he had previously told lies about being suicidal when he was not suicidal and could not be trusted to hold a licence. The reports show he has had no such history of being suicidal. That someone tells a family member lies does not demonstrate that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence.
• [39] I do not accept that the medical reports, which dealt with his mental health history were not sufficiently detailed and relied upon material, which had not been verified effectively.
• [40] I am cognisant of the importance of the object of the Act which is as stated in s 3(2) to be to prevent the misuse of weapons and as to whether in these circumstances there is any real prospect of him misusing weapons so that his licence should be reinstated. I do not consider that there is. Nor do I consider that permitting him to possess firearms is a real risk to public and individual safety.

• [41] In my view the material unequivocally demonstrates that he was and is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence of the kind that he held and seeks to be reinstated and, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to set aside the decision and order that the application for review be upheld.
• [42] Taking all these factors into account, I determine that Mr Richards is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence for the category he has previously been permitted to hold one and now seeks reinstatement. I determine that it is not against the public interest for him to hold such a weapons licence or have access to weapons. I do not consider he constitutes a risk to the public going forward.
• [43] The decision to revoke his weapons licence should be set aside and I so order.