Williams v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 464

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 18 October 2023 for the issue of a firearms licence pursuant to the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ('the Act'). That was refused in a decision dated 5 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 and it was not considered to be in the public interest that he holds a licence authorising the possession of weapons.

[2] He previously held a firearms licence between 2011 and 2018. His licence was then revoked on 20 March 2018 after two incidents that month where he threatened to commit suicide and made some other threats. The first incident was on 8 March 2017 and the second on 28 March 2017. The circumstances which he faced, and which led to that revocation, still loom large if not entirely dominate the reasons for the rejection of his application when he reapplied for his licence in October 2023.

[3] After an accumulation of factors, including a business failure, his bankruptcy, and a matrimonial breakdown, he then had a breakdown on 8 March 2017 after having a heated phone call with his estranged wife. I will describe these events shortly. It is common ground that after he made the threats to commit suicide on those two occasions in March 2017, that there have been no more recent incidents involving any such threats, or for that matter, threats of violence towards any other person.

[4] He is now 46 years of age. His background is that he once had a successful automotive business which ultimately failed, and this and other things resulted in his bankruptcy in 2018. He then started again with his career and in around 2018 he obtained employment with Queensland Fire and Emergency Services as an auxiliary firefighter in Rosewood, Queensland. This was a part time job where he was on call. He also volunteered for a period of approximately 18 months, then transitioned to his current employer as an emergency service officer with an energy supplier. He has conducted courses to attain responsible qualifications and certificates such as a Diploma of Workplace Health and Safety, Public Safety (firefighting), Engineering (mechanical technology), Automotive Mechanical Air such as Air Conditioning and in Security Operations. He also trains junior firefighters and new team members to site and safety. He had always done volunteer charity work in the community although this has decreased over the last several years due to work commitments. In the past he had coached soccer teams and sponsored many teams including the Queensland Police Women's Soccer team.

[5] He remarried on 27 November 2022 after a failed first marriage and has teenage children.

[6] He then applied for a new firearms licence on 18 October 2023. His genuine reason for possession of a firearms licence is for sports or target shooting. That he intends to use it for that purpose is not contested.

[7] 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 2013 which bears upon that question.

[8] The reasons for rejection of the licence application dated 5 March 2024 state:**

As a result of checks conducted by this office. I note that on 08/03/2017 you were detained for an Emergency Examination Order due to concerns for your mental health. I note that you were located by Police with ammunition and a firearm. I note that you stated to Police that you intended on shooting yourself.

I note, on 28/03/2017 you were subject to an Emergency Examination Authority. The circumstances surrounding this incident were as follows:

I note that you had sent messages to a friend that you intended on committing suicide. I note that you had ran a bath and prepared a razor blade. I note that you stated to Police that you were going to slit your wrists and get into the bath.

I note, due to concerns raised regarding your mental fitness to use and possess firearms you were sent an email on 7 December 2023 requesting you to provide a medical letter of recommendation issued by a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist.

I note, this office received email correspondence that was received on 3 January 2024. This response contained a letter from Dr Magdy El Ashrey.

As an Authorised Officer, I was not satisfied with this report and it was insufficient and did not contain all of the requested information outlined in the medical request.

The letter from Dr Magdy El Ashrey did not contain an acknowledgement from the medical practitioner indicating they have reviewed this document, whether the community can have confidence that no improper conduct will occur with respect to a firearm if the applicant were to be issued a firearms licence and the basis for this opinion, the medical history taken, the medical practitioner's opinion in relation to your fitness and propriety to possess/use firearms and the reason for coming to that conclusion, for example support strategies in place to prevent or mitigate a future incident , and an expert opinion that at the time of your assessment, there is no real risk to public and individual safety.

With consideration to your mental and physical health, I could not be satisfied that you are a fit and proper person to be issued with a firearms licence.

**[9] That letter seems to be a form of letter that is a routine series of requests for the applicant to get reports from treating doctors when mental health concerns are held by the respondent. I dealt with the effects of a similar letter in a recent decision of Doherty v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 380 ('Doherty').

[10] As I said in the decision in Doherty, in my view there is nothing in the Act which imposes any duty on an applicant to provide expert evidence that meets some or other standard or which mirrors the language of the Act in terms of showing fitness and propriety to possess or use firearms and the reason for coming to that conclusion. It is also a significant over-reach to expect medical practitioners to give an opinion that there is no real risk to public and individual safety if a weapon were issued. I doubted any medical practitioner would have the expertise to give such an opinion.

[11] The respondent then sent him an email of 2 May 2023. In that email it was provided that:**

Your application for a firearms licence is currently held with Weapons Licensing awaiting determination. The Weapons Act 1990 provides that a licence may only be issued to a person if that individual meets the established legislative criteria, including that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Whether a person is fit and proper requires consideration to be given to, amongst other things, matters including the individual's mental and physical fitness, whether a domestic violence order has been made or police protection notice issued and whether the authorising of that person to possess a weapon is contrary to the interests of the public. Before the application is decided, an authorised officer with whom an application for a licence is lodged may- (a) make an inquiry or investigation about the applicant or the application; and (b) require the applicant to give the officer further information the officer reasonably needs to be satisfied about the applicant's identity or physical or mental health.

In deciding the application, the authorised officer may consider anything at the officer's disposal. As a result of inquiries conducted by this office in connection with your application, there are concerns regarding your suitability to possess a firearms licence.

These concerns are: Medical History. It is noted that you provided a letter from you doctor with your application that outlines your previous medical history which includes marijuana use, ADHD, Depression, Autonomic Neuropathy, Spondylolisthesis, Type 1 diabetes, Neuropathic pain, and Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease

In connection with your application there is insufficient independent evidence to establish that you have developed sufficient skills and strategies to prevent a return to your previous conduct. A return to that conduct would be contrary to the public interest.

[12] The Applicant has applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision.

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

• [13] 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.
• [14] 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.

• [15] 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.
• [16] 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.
• [17] 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.
• [18] 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.

• [19] 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.
• [20] 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.
• [21] 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.

• [22] 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.

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

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

• [24] In his material filed in this Tribunal the Applicant says that he got treatment in 2017 which he found extremely helpful as it allowed him to be more open about things, manage his thought processes and relationships better. He does not now act impulsively to problems but will respond after considering options. He has also learnt to communicate with others about any issues he may have and understands for each problem there is a solution. He also now has the benefit of hindsight, having been through bankruptcy. He says he was extremely successful at one point and then went through a difficult time and hit rock bottom. This was the first time he had ever been through an accumulation of difficult events including financial difficulty. He says he now knows how to deal with it and understands that whilst money is extremely helpful it does not create happiness. His life has changed since then, in particular his employment. After his business went down, he continued further study and have since become a firefighter working in the private industry section.
• [25] I accept his evidence as to his state of mind and learnings.
• [26] It is to be noted that whatever was contained in the police email of 7 December 2023 referenced above was not put before the Tribunal and is not otherwise in the material. It is, however of no particular significance because the reasons summarise what the point of that email was. The reasons refer to the officer who was assessing the application not being satisfied with the report from his General Practitioner written in 2017.
• [27] That report from his General Practitioner is a very brief document purporting to "certify" that the applicant had been a patient of the surgery of a GP for the previous fifteen years and that based on his medical history, he did not suffer from any mental or physical condition that would prevent him from renewing his firearms licence.
• [28] But there was in existence, but not referred to in the reasons for rejecting the licence application, a detailed report dated 7 November 2017 from a psychologist who had treated him for 12 sessions from March 2017 when the suicide threats had occurred, until August 2017. It was addressed to Queensland Police.
• [29] What that report from the treating psychologist Dadirai Gara said was:

I write to you as confirmation that Mr Williams was referred to me by his GP Dr Jana De Silva on 10/3/2017 for the assessment and treatment of depression. Prior to the referral from his GP, Mr Williams had presented to the emergency department at Ipswich Hospital following having thoughts of ending his life, He reported that he was having relationship stressors which led to him having thoughts of suicide. Mr Williams reported a normal upbringing and life history; He stated that the only major struggle he had was drinking alcohol excessively.

I saw Mr Williams for 10 sessions under the Medicare Mental Health Care Plan and for 2 private sessions from 10/3/2017 to 25/08/2017.

Mr Williams underwent a course of cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression with me. At the last session, Mr Williams reported that he has found the sessions helpful and that the sessions have allowed him to be more open to things and have a better understanding of his illness and managing his thought processes and his relationships.

At that point, he denied having any thoughts of self-harm, suicide, or homicide. He reported a drastic improvement in his mental state and hoped to continue using the learnt strategies. Mr Williams reported that he has since stopped drinking alcohol. He noted that when he had recognised that drinking alcohol impairs his judgement and that when he had thoughts of ending his life, he was under the influence of alcohol.

At the first session with me, Mr Willaim's scores on the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) were Depression - Mild; Anxiety - Normal; Stress - Moderate.

At the final session, his Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) scores were Depression -Normal: Anxiety- Normal; Stress - Mild.

I have reported Mr William's progress to his referring doctor. Mr Williams is no longer receiving therapy from me. have notified Mr Williams that I can only comment on his treatment of depression and that I cannot comment on his suitability to possess a fire arm license.

• [30] The material before the Tribunal also includes a further medical report that was not before the Respondent when it made its decision.
• [31] For the purposes of this application the applicant obtained a comprehensive report in November 2024 from a clinical psychologist Dr Donna Eshuys. It was prepared specifically for the purpose of supporting this application. She saw the applicant for the purposes of that report for some two hours, but also relied upon detailed answers that he gave to questions as well as material obtained from a psychometric assessment, which she described as comprehensive.
• [32] Dr Eshuys supplemented her report with oral evidence to the tribunal and was cross-examined.
• [33] There were concerns expressed by the respondent about the way in which the applicant had described to her the two suicide threats in 2017 and suggested he had significantly understated the objective circumstances.
• [34] She described the first of the 2017 incidents as follows:

In March 2017 Mr Williams was twice subjected to an Emergency Examination Order over a 20-day period. It is alleged he was located by police with ammunition and a firearm, claiming he intended to shoot himself. In the second instance, it is alleged, he had sent messages to a friend that he intended to commit suicide, had run a bath and prepared a razor blade, informing police that his plans were to slit his wrists and get into the bath tub. Both times he was taken to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation.

He says he had received a phone call from his ex-wife, who once again was demanding more money from their settlement and asking why he had treated his first wife so well in their property settlement but was not doing the same for her. Mr Williams said he became frustrated as she did not listen to reason and so he burst out with "you can have everything ... You'll be the last person I speak to". He declares that he had no real intention of shooting himself with a weapon. This is why he chose to arm himself with a 410 gun, knowing he did not have any ammunition for that weapon in the house. He sees this as him putting a "block" in his own way. He admits he was distressed, had been on the opioid pain reliever, Oxycodone, at excessive rates after the GP just kept prescribing them for him at high doses, "box after box"

• [35] She described the second of the 2017 incidents as follows:

Mr Williams remembers saying to a friend that "this (removing his firearms) doesn't change anything, if I wanted to kill myself, I would slit my wrists and take a bath".

It was an offhand statement, whilst intoxicated, in response to his weapons having been removed after his friend had called the police.

However, it was this statement he says, that saw him transported to the local emergency department for another psych assessment. He remembers being embarrassed by the fact that his good friend was in charge of the emergency department and two of the security guards that night were his customers. Mr Williams said he sat in the emergency room and chatted before being sent home. He said he had no shoes on, no wallet and no phone so he walked the 90 minutes to his home, had a shower, and went to work. He then said he sought immediate psychological help to address his situation

• [36] This version of the second incident does not accord with the objective evidence.
• [37] The day before the hearing before this tribunal, the respondent disclosed material not previously seen, which evidenced a text exchange between the applicant and his friend when the second incident occurred and from which it is apparent that he said he is considering committing suicide and makes a comment to the effect that he was wondering if he should just go quietly or kill many with him. He invited a comment from his friend about that. When his friend showed concern and wanted to know where he was, he commented that the friend could come and identify his body. Then when he is invited to talk about this by the friend, he says that he is "sorry he did this", implying ending his life. He had filled a bath with water and put a box cutter knife on the bench adjacent to it.
• [38] These look rather like serious intimations of a plan to commit suicide, although as doctor Eshuys conceded, whether these were genuine threats or not, they must all be taken seriously and that there was an acute situation that he was confronting at the time but which he may now well be diminishing, seeking to explain it away. She said it was common for suicide threats to be made during major crisis, which were later in life rationalised as not so serious or not so genuine.
• [39] Dr Eshuys conceded that both of the incidents of March 2017 could have been genuine suicidal events. I will proceed on the basis that they were genuine potential suicidal events. I do not consider that although he described them as less serious in his interview with the psychologist than they were, as being of any particular significance going forward. That is because the doctor has described in considerable detail what his present mental state of mind and mental health is and she was not challenged as to that.
• [40] She found that looking at the risk of him committing an act of violence, although there is no formal cut-off score for the HCR-20 test for this, a score of 30 or above is often associated with high risk of violence. On the HCR-20, Mr Isaac Williams' score of two, places him in a low-risk category of future violence. He was also assessed as being at low risk for perpetrating serious physical harm or of imminent violence.
• [41] She found that looking as the risk of him committing an act of suicide, that he does not endorse any of the most important personal risk factors for estimating the current and immediate risk. His current risk of suicide is also low due to the existence of protective factors, he has no current suicidal ideation or no plan or intent, he has supportive, stable family connections and friendships, he is gainfully employed, has a stable living situation, is financially secure, has good insight and awareness of triggers, and he abstains from alcohol abuse or illicit substance abuse.
• [42] She recounts that he had told her that he has no "drama" with police regulations around ownership of weapons and he understands the process he must go through. Mr Williams is also aware that the weapons licensing branch has reasonable concerns for public safety. However, Mr Williams explains he has a diploma in safety and his full-time employment in the emergency services is all about ensuring people on the job "go home safe ... It's what I'm employed to do". He explained how important this is for him as he has "been with someone when they've taken their last breath". She said that this man believed he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, and that firearms are important to him, having grown up with them in his home. Mr Williams has enjoyed shooting with his mates, even hunting in America, and said that all in all it has been an important part of his life which he has missed greatly.
• [43] I accept her evidence that this is his current state of mind.
• [44] Although she was cross-examined, she was not challenged in relation to this evidence.
• [45] The statement that his current risk of suicide was low was to be understood, she said, as a statement that this was as low a risk as clinicians could go and that there was never "no risk". She was not challenged on this evidence either. On one interpretation of the earlier psychologist's report, the applicant had received some but minimal treatment after the first incident and before the second incident. It was suggested by the respondent that this might indicate that despite receiving treatment he might still be a risk of suicide, or potentially violent behaviour to others.
• [46] Dr Eshuys dismissed that concern by suggesting that even if there was some treatment, it was minimal and unlikely to have any significant effect in the few weeks between these incidents in 2017. I accept that evidence.
• [47] Some criticism was levelled by the respondent in final submissions of this process of having Dr Eshuys express these views and it posed the question rhetorically, that despite it being all well and good to have these kinds of reports, the question that needed to be answered was what happens if he has things go badly for him in the future and the police are concerned that he will go down the track of injuring himself and his family if allowed to be in possession of a firearm in the future. It was submitted that the risk was too great to permit that to occur.
• [48] The answer to that is in the report from Dr Eshuys. She says that Mr Williams' suicidal threat was over seven years ago. He then took full responsibility for his mental health at the time and set about making lifestyle changes, including reducing his stress load, sourcing counselling treatment, engaging with his GP, and practicing his newly learned techniques to arrive at a healthier place. He reduced his alcohol use and today is in a happy marriage with his wife of four years. He has no criminal history and holds a responsible job in the emergency services.
• [49] She says that Mr Williams poses at low risk to himself, others, and the community. She does not consider there to be any real prospect of Mr Williams misusing his weapon should his weapons license be approved. Therefore, it is her opinion that he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons license.
• [50] 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 refused. 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.
• [51] As to his character generally, he has numerous character references that show him to be a respectable member of the working community where he lives despite the difficulties he has faced in his life. One of those, from the Captain of the Rosewood Fire Station states:

His unwavering dedication to personal and professional development. coupled with a sincere commitment to public safety has set a commendable example for others Isaac's actions consistently reflect a deep-seated ethos of service and responsibility, further reinforcing his suitability for access too and the safe use of firearms In summary. Isaac's mental resilience, exemplary conduct. and dedication to public safety are beyond reproach He has proven himself to be an upstanding citizen and a valuab1e asset to our team. I wholeheartedly support his application and am confident (of) his continued excellence and positive impact within the community.

• [52] It was conceded the category A and B firearms in respect of which his application was sought to be used were commonly used on shooting ranges by persons doing target shooting, which is what the applicant wishes to be able to do here. There is material to suggest that he had a history of being involved with target shooting associations.
• [53] He has demonstrated in material constituting references from others that he is an active and respected member of the community and has made significant contributions to his community particularly toward community fire service organisations, the training of others in that field and has a commitment to public safety. Those references are articulate and credible by persons who have longstanding relationships with him, particularly in the public safety framework. Some specifically reference his previous personal problems and his growth and self-improvement since.
• [54] 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 applied for and in the circumstances, it is appropriate to set aside the decision and order that the application for review be upheld.
• [55] Taking all these factors into account, I determine that Mr Williams is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence for the category he seeks. 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.
• [56] The decision to refuse him a weapons licence should be set aside and I so order.