Bryant v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 252

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Bryant v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 252 PARTIES: ADAM MARK BRYANT (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR748-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 9 June 2026 HEARING DATE: 9 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Cosgrave ORDERS: The Respondent’s 28 August 2023 decision is set aside. Mr Bryant is to be issued a firearms licence (Category A) subject to the following conditions: (a) Mr Bryant may use but not own or acquire firearms. (b) Mr Bryant must not store firearms at his residential address. (c) Mr Bryant must not access firearm safes, keys, or combinations. (d) Mr Bryant’s use of firearms is restricted to approved shooting ranges under range officer supervision. (e) Mr Bryant must provide an annual medical certificate confirming mental fitness. (f) Mr Bryant must maintain sobriety and notify Weapons Licensing within 7 days of any relapse. The conditions in Order 2 may be reviewed on application after two years from the date of this decision. -- 1 of 7 -- 2 CATCHWORDS: WEAPONS – FIREARMS – revocation of licence – fit and proper person – mental health crisis – alcohol use disorder – rehabilitation – self-harm – conditional licence – public safety – individual safety Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24(1) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1), s 3(2), s 10(2)(e), s 10B(1), s 11(a), s 15(4)(a), s 25, s 29, s 142(1)(e) Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 Queensland Police Service v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147 Stower v Smart [2007] QDC 4 Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 Williams v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 464 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Mr Gwaunza of Sambi Legal for the Applicant Mr Ferguson for the Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] Mr Adam Mark Bryant (‘Mr Bryant’) applies for review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘the Respondent’) to revoke his firearms licence. The Respondent made that decision on 28 August 2023 under section 29 of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’).1 [2] The licence authorised Mr Bryant to possess a Lithgow LA101 bolt-action .22 calibre rifle, a Category A weapon, for sports or target shooting. The reason for the revocation was that Mr Bryant was no longer considered a fit and proper person to hold a licence under section 10B of the Act.2 [3] The Tribunal sets aside the revocation and grants Mr Bryant a conditional licence. The conditions are set out in the Orders. Issues For Determination [4] The following issues arise for determination: (a) Was Mr Bryant a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence at the time of the revocation? (b) Is Mr Bryant a fit and proper person to hold a licence now? (c) If so, are conditions on the licence needed to protect public and individual safety? 1 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 29. 2 Ibid s 10B. -- 2 of 7 -- 3 The Law The Tribunal’s powers [5] A person who is affected by a decision to revoke a licence may apply to the Tribunal for review under section 142(1)(e) of the Act. The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision, following a fresh hearing on the merits.3 [6] On review, the Tribunal considers the matter afresh based on the evidence before it. Under section 24(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, substitute its own decision, or return the matter for reconsideration with directions.4 The fit and proper person test [7] Under section 3(1) of the Act, the need to ensure public and individual safety override the rights to possess and use a weapon.5 [8] A licence may only be held by a person who is fit and proper to do so: section 10(2)(e). Section 10B(1) sets out what the decision-maker must consider. That includes the person’s mental and physical fitness and the public interest.6 [9] The phrase “fit and proper person” takes its meaning from the activities the person will engage in and the ends those activities serve. The question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, or whether the community can have confidence that it will not occur.7 [10] The Tribunal must keep the object of the Act in mind, evaluate the evidence of the applicant’s character, and assess whether there is any real prospect of the applicant misusing weapons. The public interest is paramount.8 [11] The standard is whether there is “virtually no risk” to public safety. The Tribunal can never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk. But the Tribunal must be satisfied that the risk is virtually nil.9 Conditions on a licence [12] Under s 15(4)(a) of the Act, the Respondent may issue a licence subject to conditions. These conditions may limit the use or possession of a weapon or impose any other appropriate requirements. Section 25 permits the Respondent to amend conditions.10 Background The 16 May 2023 incident [13] On 16 May 2023, Mr Bryant experienced a serious mental health issue. At the time, he was dealing with a number of significant personal stressors. His children had 3 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 20 (‘QCATA’). 4 Ibid s 24(1). 5 The Act s 3(1), (2). 6 Ibid s 10B(1)(a), (d). 7 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33, [36]. 8 Queensland Police Service v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147, [26]–[30], adopting Stower v Smart [2007] QDC 4. 9 Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28. 10 The Act ss 15(4)(a), 25. -- 3 of 7 -- 4 recently left home, he had lost his job of 23 years and his uncle had died. Mr Bryant began drinking heavily. [14] Police found Mr Bryant intoxicated in a public place. He had a laceration to his wrist and was carrying a paper bag containing broken glass. He made comments to family members about self-harm. His family identified him as being at risk. Mr Bryant was placed under an Emergency Examination Authority and taken for psychiatric assessment. [15] The Tribunal accepts that this incident was serious. It appropriately gave rise to concern about whether Mr Bryant should continue to hold a firearms licence. The combination of self-harm behaviour, alcohol intoxication and a firearm in the home presented a genuine risk to Mr Bryant’s own safety at that time. Mr Bryant’s rehabilitation [16] After the incident, Mr Bryant took immediate steps to address the underlying issues. He undertook the following rehabilitation: (a) a six-day medically supervised detoxification program at Royal Brisbane Hospital; (b) a six-week residential rehabilitation program at Lives Lived Well (Logan House), which included daily group sessions, case management, psychoeducation about substance use, relapse prevention planning, and emotional regulation training; (c) completion of the Queensland Traffic Offenders Program in August 2023; (d) ongoing psychological treatment with Mr Christopher Barlow, psychologist, commencing in 2023 and continuing into 2024; (e) completion of a Personality Assessment Inventory on 18 September 2024; and (f) a medical certificate from his treating general practitioner, Dr Susanna Matthysen, dated 25 November 2024, confirming his mental fitness. [17] Mr Bryant was diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, which Mr Barlow described in his testimony as situational and severe at the time of the incident. Mr Bryant was treated for depression with medication. He is currently off all medication and under medical supervision. [18] Mr Bryant did not tell the Respondent about his depression diagnosis when it was made. That diagnosis occurred after he obtained his licence, but before the May 2023 incident. Evidence Medical and psychological evidence [19] Mr Barlow provided a report dated 13 December 2024. He had seen Mr Bryant on multiple occasions in 2023 and 2024. Mr Barlow expressed a clear and unequivocal opinion that Mr Bryant had fully rehabilitated and is mentally fit to regain his firearms licence.11 11 Report of Mr Christopher Barlow, Psychologist, dated 13 December 2024. -- 4 of 7 -- 5 [20] Mr Barlow explained that the underlying cause of Mr Bryant’s alcohol use disorder was job-related stress, and that Mr Bryant had used alcohol as a coping mechanism. Mr Barlow guided Mr Bryant through detoxification and rehabilitation. He considers that Mr Bryant now understands his alcohol abuse, and that his insight has improved markedly. [21] In cross-examination, Mr Barlow drew a distinction between alcohol use disorder, which he described as temporary, and alcoholism, which is chronic. He acknowledged some concern when told that Mr Bryant had consumed alcohol while on holiday in Rome. [22] Dr Matthysen provided a medical certificate dated 25 November 2024. In her opinion, Mr Bryant is mentally fit to hold a firearms licence.12 Mr Bryant’s evidence [23] Mr Bryant testified about how he would manage future stressors. He has learned breathing and grounding exercises. He has the support of Mr Barlow, his general practitioner, and Lives Lived Well. Mr Bryant started new employment at Humes Doors in April 2024. [24] Mr Bryant’s father, Mr John Bryant, provided a statutory declaration confirming his support. Mr John Bryant is a significant protective factor here and has taken responsibility for the secure storage of any firearm. [25] Mr Bryant wants to possess a firearm for sports or target shooting. He previously shot at Belmont range. The Tribunal accepts this is a genuine reason for possession under s 11 of the Act.13 The Respondent’s case [26] The Respondent submitted that the Act places public and individual safety first. It noted the May 2023 incident’s seriousness, including the family’s assessment that Mr Bryant was at risk of self-harm. [27] The Respondent expressed concern that Mr Bryant admits he still occasionally drinks alcohol. It noted that he had not disclosed his continued drinking to his treating doctor. The Respondent argued this undermines the reliability of his support network. [28] The Respondent noted that Mr Barlow acknowledged concern about continued drinking. It also pointed out that a firearm would ordinarily be stored at home, creating a risk of misuse during any future mental health crisis. The Respondent’s primary concern was for Mr Bryant’s own safety, rather than the general public’s safety. [29] The Respondent maintained the revocation should be affirmed. However, it indicated it would consider conditions on a licence as an alternative. Findings [30] The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Bryant has made genuine and comprehensive efforts to rehabilitate. The combination of medically supervised detoxification, residential rehabilitation, psychological treatment, and formal psychological assessment 12 Medical Certificate of Dr Susanna Matthysen, dated 25 November 2024. 13 The Act s 11(a). -- 5 of 7 -- 6 demonstrates a sustained commitment to addressing the issues that led to the May 2023 incident. [31] The medical evidence supports the conclusion that Mr Bryant’s mental health has significantly improved. Both Mr Barlow and Dr Matthysen give clear opinions that Mr Bryant is mentally fit. The Tribunal gives weight to that expert evidence, while noting Mr Barlow’s qualification about continued drinking. [32] The Tribunal accepts the approach taken in Williams v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing, where the Tribunal accepted that a person’s risk could be as low as clinicians could assess, while acknowledging that there is never “no risk”.14 The question is not whether any conceivable risk exists, the question is whether the risk is low enough to satisfy the “virtually no risk” standard. [33] The Tribunal shares some of the Respondent’s concerns. In particular: (a) The period of Mr Bryant’s demonstrated sobriety (approximately 18 months) is significant but relatively short, given the nature of alcohol use disorder and the inherent risk of relapse. (b) Mr Bryant’s admission that he consumed alcohol on holiday raises legitimate questions about the sustainability of his recovery. (c) His failure to disclose that continued drinking to his treating doctor undermines the reliability of his support network. (d) Unsupervised access to a firearm stored at home remains a valid concern if Mr Bryant experiences another mental health issue. [34] The appropriate outcome here is not a binary choice between confirming the revocation and restoring the licence without conditions. The Act allows for conditions where the circumstances call for a more nuanced approach.15 [35] The Tribunal is satisfied that, with appropriate conditions, Mr Bryant can engage in sports or target shooting in a way that adequately protects his safety and the public’s safety. The key protective measure is to ensure Mr Bryant has no unsupervised access to firearms or firearm storage. [36] Restricting Mr Bryant to using firearms only at approved shooting ranges under range officer supervision, and prohibiting him from owning or acquiring firearms, substantially eliminates the risk of unsupervised access during any future mental health crisis. [37] The requirement for an annual medical certificate provides an ongoing check on Mr Bryant’s health. The obligation to maintain sobriety and to notify the Respondent within seven days of any relapse supports that protective framework. [38] These conditions are proportionate to the identified risks. They allow Mr Bryant to pursue his genuine interest in sports or target shooting while protecting public and individual safety. They can be reviewed after two years of demonstrated stability. 14 Williams v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 464, [45]. 15 The Act s 15(4)(a)(i), (iv). -- 6 of 7 -- 7 Conclusion [39] The Tribunal finds that Mr Bryant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, subject to conditions noted in the Orders. [40] The decision under review is set aside. Mr Bryant is to be issued a firearms licence (Category A) subject to the conditions in the Orders. Those conditions may be reviewed on application after two years from the date of this decision. -- 7 of 7 --