Buckley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 165

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Buckley v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 165 PARTIES: JOSHUA BUCKLEY (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO: GAR712-24 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 7 April 2026 HEARING DATES: 24 March 2026 and later written submissions on 26 March 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Roney KC ORDERS: The decision of the Respondent made on 27 September 2024 to refuse a weapons licence to the Applicant is upheld and the application for review is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – FIT AND PROPER PERSON – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – where an application made for a weapons licence – where Weapons Licensing issued a notice of rejection of the application on the basis that it was not considered to be in the public interest – where the authorised officer had regard to the respondent's criminal, domestic violence and dispute history and determined that the respondent was not a fit and proper person to be issued a weapons licence – where the respondent filed an application to review that decision – where proposed use by weapons to hunt feral animals– whether matters stated in or in connection with his application for the licence were false or misleading concerning substance abuse and alcohol use – significance of making false statements when applying for a licence – where potential historic use of weapons for hunting with a family member on private property without proper understanding of the requirements for a weapons licence – where recent road rage incident raised concerns -- 1 of 23 -- 2 FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING – RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS TO WEAPONS ACT – where the applicant was charged and found guilty of an assault offence where no conviction was recorded and charged with attempted arson but no evidence offered and charge dismissed – retrospective amendments to the Weapons Act by Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 – whether such events can be taken into account in decision to grant or refuse weapons licence – meaning of the expression an offence that involves the use or threatened use of violence WORDS AND PHRASES – offence that involves the use or threatened use of violence Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 75 Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 (Qld) Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), s 3(1)(b), s 3(2), s 10(2)(c), s 11, s 28A Weapons Regulation 2016 (Qld) Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 BIL v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150 CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43 Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93 Humphreys v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 294 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 XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: T Fergusson, QPS -- 2 of 23 -- 3 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Applicant made an application dated 13 July 2024 for the issue of a firearms licence pursuant to the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (“the Act”). On 27 September 2024, an officer within Queensland Police Service (“QPS”) rejected the application. He has applied to review the decision. [2] This decision is, I believe, the first to consider the recent legislative changes enacted in the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 (Qld) (“the 2026 Amendments”) such that this tribunal is to take account of criminal activity, which has violence or threatened violence as an element which has resulted in charges being brought, and guilty findings being made but where no conviction was recorded and where charges were brought but no evidence presented and an acquittal followed. The 2026 Amendments commenced a few weeks ago on 11 March 2026. [3] The reasons given for rejection were that it was considered by the authorised officer that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence under the Act as he had stated in or in connection with his application for the licence a false or misleading matter and it was not considered to be in the public interest that he hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons. It was considered that he had provided misleading information in relation to this part of the application by failing to disclose his recent and past criminal and domestic violence history. [4] The reasons provided: Your medical history: You were the subject of Police attendance on 31 July 2015. I note Police made entry into the address and observed you semi-conscious in the bathroom. I note Queensland Ambulance Service Officers treated and transported you to Gold Coast University Hospital under an Emergency Examination Order (EEO). Your domestic violence history: On the 6 August 2001 a Domestic Violence Order was made naming you as the defendant in New South Wales. On the 14 February 2002 a Domestic Violence Order was made naming you as the defendant in New South Wales. On 19 January 2009 a Domestic Violence Order was made naming you as the respondent. On 31 August 2015 a Domestic Violence Order was made naming you as the respondent. On 2 February 2018 a Domestic Violence Order was made naming you as the respondent. Your criminal history: You were found guilty and received non conviction proved on 14 February 2002 for the charges of common assault, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and contravene apprehended domestic violence order in New South Wales. You were found guilty and received no conviction recorded on 22 July 2005 for the charge of Serious assault - police officer. You were found guilty and received no conviction recorded on 24 February 2017 for the charge of Contravention of domestic violence order (2 counts). You were found guilty and received no conviction recorded on 2 February 2018 for the charge of Contravention of domestic violence order. -- 3 of 23 -- 4 You are advised that the conviction of offences, whether recorded or not, relating to charges for traffic or criminal is a consideration in deciding whether you are a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Provided false and misleading information I considered that pursuant to section 158 of the Act you have provided false and misleading information by failing to disclose your medical history, attempting to downplay the seriousness of the offences you have been charged with and your domestic violence history and pursuant to section 157 of the Act any licence issued as the result of that false or misleading information would be void. [5] He has applied for a review of that decision. By the time of the hearing the real issues said to justify refusal of a licence had changed significantly. [6] The police service submitted that the Applicant “ticked all the boxes” for demonstrating unfitness, including committing offences involving violence including on a police officer, a history of domestic violence issues, a history of other offences including arson, the provision of false and misleading material on his application for the licence, including that he had been helped through rehabilitation for alcohol abuse and was treated for alcohol related problems. [7] It is submitted for the Respondent that there was a risk to public safety involved and points to two incidents involving fires he is said to have started, although it concedes that these are historical and very dated. As I shall mention shortly the evidence of what occurred there is scant and unreliable and did not result in his being successfully prosecuted for his role, if any in those incidents. [8] The Respondent points to a recent “road rage driving incident” and points to the peculiar circumstance that initially, he had no recollection of any such incident, but then claims to have a recall of an entirely different incident and gave a version of events about it that only emerged for the first time in his evidence here. [9] It submits that he needs to show that he has developed self-awareness about his conduct and knowledge about the safe and proper use of weapons before he ought to be permitted a weapons licence. [10] At the time he made his online application for the licence some four years ago, the Applicant had had a significant history of committing, admittedly, relatively minor criminal offences, but a considerable history of domestic violence charges and incidents where there was no proceeding but police intervention. [11] At the ninth page of the online application, which was done online with the assistance of another person, he was asked “have you in Queensland or elsewhere ever been charged with any offence, this includes any traffic and/or criminal offence(s) that resulted in a Court attendance? (Please tick yes even if you were charged but not convicted or a conviction was not recorded).” He answered “Yes” and provided as the details “DVO was put against me in February 2018. Court appearance was for DUI in 2017”. [12] That question, even if properly answered, would not be particularly informative to someone conducting a review as to whether he was a fit and proper person because it would not necessarily reveal Domestic Violence proceedings or orders or criminal history, but merely whether a person had been charged and it would not indicate -- 4 of 23 -- 5 whether a person was convicted. Indeed, they may well have been acquitted or the charges not proceeded with. [13] The Respondent submits that this lack of candour and honesty in relation to his history is indicative that he is not a fit and proper person. The reasons for refusal of his application listed a full criminal and Domestic Violence proceedings or orders history which included many matters where no conviction had been recorded. What does the Applicant’s material say is the basis for the review? [14] The Applicant says that in 2022, his grandfather passed away and left his father Garry Buckley, both who have gun licences, with some firearms that his grandfather told his father must be given to him and his father also has received notice that he has too many firearms and needs to sort out storage for them – all something that could be resolved if he had his own gun licence. His grandfather was a professional shooter and taught him how to use firearms for the first time at the age of 10 and how to hunt with them. During his teenage years he would go work with him on school holidays shooting kangaroo and pigs under his professional shooters licence supervision. [15] He says that his great-grandfather started this legacy, and he does not want to be the one to break it. He says the hardest thing he finds as a parent is to teach his children to care about the legacy because it: Shapes who we are and where we are from and sometimes teaches us the path forward. Without my gun license none of this would be possible and that would not suffice. I am no risk to the public or anyone for that matter. [16] On paper, his application seems to have considerable merit. He had solicitors with whom he spent a considerable sum, but whom he could not afford to keep on the record to appear for him or to prepare his material in this application. That included some impressive references from his supervisors at his place of employment and other references, which attested to his good character. [17] He also relied upon a psychologist report written in April 2025, almost a year ago. It described his version of a number of the events that had occurred to him, his relationship problems, his alcohol and substance abuse and mental and physical health history. It did not deal with recent events obviously. [18] It said: Mr Buckley indicated that he has used weapons, namely rifles, from a young age. Mr Buckley spoke of multiple family holidays with his father, and grandfather, to rural properties in western New South Wales (NSW) where they would engage in hunting, sometimes on a contract basis, to cull wild animals on properties. Both his grandfather and father held an appropriate weapon's license. 3.5 His grandfather purchased a property in this western NSW area. After his grandfather passed, Mr Buckley's father inherited the property, however much to his sadness and surprise, due to business dealings, his father was unable to retain the property. It was sold. They continue to visit the area having developed a number of friendships and acquaintances. 3.6 Mr Buckley indicated that with his grandfather now passed, all rifles he owned, which Mr Buckley has used over many years, have been inherited by his father. Mr Buckley expressed his father was now at risk of having excess. As such, this has motivated Mr Buckley to obtain his own weapons license. He -- 5 of 23 -- 6 suggested he and his father hoped to divide up the rifles and retain them within the family. 3.7 Mr Buckley further identified that hunting and owning the rifles was a tradition he hoped to be able to pass down to his son. He reported that he has taken his son William hunting on one occasion in the company of his father. [19] In relation to the alleged provision of misleading information in his original application and, in particular, its failure to identify his substance abuse history, it concluded: Mr Buckley stated he completed the application with the secretary of his gun club and was guided, to some extent, by him. Mr Buckley maintained when accounting for his criminal history, he provided an honest recollection and with hindsight, accepted omitting information. He maintained he'd simply not thought of all instances or considered them as meeting the parameters required to document. That is, he advised for multiple matters he had not physically attended court and his legal representatives "handled things". He was aware that he had not been convicted of any offences. 3.12 Regarding the EEO and omission to include this in his application, similar to his criminal history Mr Buckley expressed significant regret that it was perceived he had been deliberately misleading. He maintained that had he appreciated the significance of this as being a mental health related event, he certainly would have included relevant information. According to Mr Buckley, his oversight was driven by his understanding and belief that he had no mental health concerns and this was an issue of 'intoxication'. He reiterated that he was discharged from the hospital without follow up care provision [20] It concluded that: Mr Buckley would be considered, retrospectively considering his risk markers, to have been low risk in 2018 the time of his most recent DVO commencement. A standard approach to risk assessment across validated and widely accepted risk measures such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and or Static 99-R (actuarial risk measure for sexual offenders) appreciates time in the community, coupled with being offence or breach free, as indicative of risk reduction. Tools often utilise a 'step wise reduction' or 'halving' over periods of time (seven and five years respectively for aforementioned tools). As such, Mr Buckley could be considered to now be, below low risk, though such a category is an abstract construct. 5.6 On the basis of interview, psychometric assessment, collateral material reviewed I am of the opinion that there is no meaningful risk which would prohibit Mr Buckley from having unrestricted access to a firearm. He has operated firearms from a young age, without any identified issues, and provides a clear rationale as to his desire to now obtain a weapons license of his own. I opine that there are no salient risk markers pertaining to Mr Buckley having unrestricted access to a firearm via a weapon's license. There is no meaningful risk that I am aware of, pertaining to him holding a weapons license. 6.3 It is my opinion that the public can be confident that Mr Buckley will appropriately and without cause for concern hold a weapon's license. That is, Mr Buckley can exercise continuous responsible control over firearms and have unrestricted and unsupervised access to them. -- 6 of 23 -- 7 The relevant law and whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence [21] 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. [22] 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. [23] 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. [24] 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. [25] 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. [26] 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 -- 7 of 23 -- 8 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. [27] In Magarry v Queensland Police Service, 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. [28] In Magarry, the Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Magarry’s renewal of his firearms licence and revoke his collectors licence in far more serious circumstances than those arising in the matter before me. [29] The Senior Member’s decision was confirmed on appeal in Queensland Police Service 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. [30] 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 -- 8 of 23 -- 9 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. [31] I adopt and apply those principles to the facts here. [32] Until the 2026 Amendments, considering convictions for offences, whether recorded or not, and treating a failure to disclose unrecorded convictions as relevant was in error having regard to what the Court of Appeal decided recently in Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93 (“XPR”). The Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (Qld) (“CLRO Act”) provides periods after which certain convictions need not be disclosed by a person. Sections 4 and 5 provide limitations on the non-disclosure of convictions or charges. [33] In in XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1 this Tribunal found that by reason of s 12(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (“PSA”), the facts and circumstances of an offence in respect of which a court exercises jurisdiction not to record a conviction, could not be taken into account because the legislative regime of the PSA is intended to protect an individual from the stigma attached to a conviction where a sentencing judge or magistrate decided no conviction should be recorded, apart from specific exemptions such as court records, later criminal proceedings and the legitimate performance of the functions of specified authorities. [34] QCAT further found that the reference in s 10B of the Act to the authorised officer being able to take into account “other things”, was not sufficient to operate as a further exception to the operation of s 12(3) of the PSA. QCAT held that when applying s 10B of the Act, regard could not be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction had been recorded, or to the facts and circumstances of those offences. Section 5(2) of the CLRO Act specifically provides that a person should not be required or asked to disclose, and if so required or asked, shall not be obliged to disclose for any purpose, a conviction that is not recorded. That provision was a further protection for the rehabilitative intent of s 12(3) of the PSA. [35] The Court of Appeal upheld that decision and found: [84] It is clear that the PSA establishes a legislative regime which is intended to protect an individual from the stigma attached to a conviction in respect of which a sentencing judge or magistrate decided no conviction should be recorded. It would be a curious result indeed if parliament intended that no record of a conviction is to be maintained (other than for sentencing and appeal purposes) but a licensing authority that happens to know about it is free to draw upon its own records regarding the facts of the conviction and the facts and circumstances leading to the conviction. [85] Rather, what parliament has done is to create a prohibition on the recording of nonrecorded convictions, apart from specific carve outs (that is, the courts record, later criminal proceedings and for the legitimate performance of the functions of the department, prosecuting authority or legal representative). If parliament intended for there to be further exceptions, it could have created further exceptions, either in the PSA or in the legislation being applied. It has not done so. [86] We do not consider that the reference in section 10B to being able to take into account “other things” is sufficient to operate as a further exception to the operation of section 12(3). It does not do so expressly, and it does -- 9 of 23 -- 10 not do so by necessary implication. To hold otherwise would be to impermissibly traverse the prohibition which flows from section 12(3) of the PSA. In this regard, we agree with the observations made in Grobler v Queensland Police Service. [87] We therefore conclude that when applying section 10B, regard can not be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded, or the facts and circumstances of those offences. [36] Since s 5(2) of the CLRO Act specifically provided that a person should not be required or asked to disclose, and if so required or asked, shall not be obliged to disclose for any purpose, a conviction that is not recorded, in my view it is erroneous to treat the failure to disclose such offences as lacking candour or insight. Recent legislative changes – Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 (Qld) [37] The 2026 Amendments have brought back the position from where it stood since the decision in XPR, such that this Tribunal is to take account inter alia of criminal activity, which has violence or threatened violence as an element which has resulted in charges being brought, or guilty findings being made, but where no conviction was recorded. The 2026 Amendments commenced a few weeks ago on 11 March 2026. [38] The 2026 Amendments amended section 10B(1) of the Act, with the amendments underlined in what follows: 10B Fit and proper person—licensees (1) In deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, an authorised officer must consider, among other things— (a) the mental and physical fitness of the person; and (b) if the authorised officer is aware the person has a conviction for a relevant offence, including a conviction that is a spent conviction, a conviction that has not been recorded or a conviction that has been quashed or set aside- (i) the conviction; and (ii) any information about the circumstances of the offence or conviction to which the officer has access; and (c) if the authorised officer is aware the person has been charged with a relevant offence, including a charge that has been withdrawn, discharged or struck out— (i) the charge; and (ii) any information about the circumstances of the offence or charge to which the officer has access; and (d) whether a domestic violence order has been made, a police protection direction or police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and (e) whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a -- 10 of 23 -- 11 licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and (f) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates- (i) the person is a risk to public safety; or (ii) that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and (g) the public interest. [39] Sections 10B(1)(d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act were in section 10B before but have now been renumbered. [40] The effect of the new provisions is to permit in some circumstances what the decision in XPR did not permit, and relevantly here, where a charge was brought but not proceeded with, no evidence being presented on an attempted arson charge in 2024 so as to be caught by the new section 10B(1)(c) and an assault police offence in 2005 for which the Applicant was found not guilty, but no conviction entered so as to be caught by the new section 10B(1)(b). [41] In the Explanatory Memorandum for the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026 (“the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill”) it was relevantly provided: Broadening the scope of considerations made by an authorised officer when making firearms licensing decisions The Bill amends the Weapons Act to ensure that authorised officers have the legislative authority to consider all relevant aspects of an applicant’s suitability when making determinations as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence or be an associate of an applicant for a dealer’s licence under sections 10B (1) and 10C (1) of the Weapons Act. The Bill addresses the Court of Appeal decision in Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93 which determined that authorised decision makers cannot consider non-recorded convictions when conducting an assessment to determine if a person is fit and proper. Additionally, the Court found that section 5 of the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 (CLRO Act) further prohibits requiring or requesting disclosure of non-recorded convictions, except in narrowly defined circumstances not applicable under the Weapons Act. These provisions prohibit an authorised officer from asking an applicant about certain aspects of their criminal history and provides that a person has no obligation to disclose that information. This renders invalid any inquiries by an authorised officer into an applicant’s criminal history under section 14(1)(a) of the Weapons Act. The amendments rectify these anomalies. The objectives are achieved by: • amending sections 10B(1) and 10C(1) of the Weapons Act to include a provision that an authorised officer must also consider, among other things, relevant aspects of an applicant’s history to which the authorised officer has access, including history related to the carriage, discharge, possession, storage or use of a weapon; involving the use or threatened use of violence or involving the possession or distribution of blueprint material for the manufacture of a firearm on a 3D printer or an electronic milling machine. This includes convictions for which the -- 11 of 23 -- 12 rehabilitation period under the CLRO Act has expired or convictions for which no conviction is recorded under section 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (PSA) (spent convictions); quashed or set-aside convictions, charges, discontinued charges, and the circumstances of charges or any conviction; • amending sections 13 and 14 of the Weapons Act to clarify that an officer in charge of police or an authorised officer may make an inquiry or investigation into relevant aspects of an applicant’s criminal history, including convictions for which the rehabilitation period under the CLRO Act has expired or convictions for which no conviction is recorded under section 12 of the PSA; quashed or set-aside convictions, charges, discontinued charges, and the circumstances of charges; • ensuring that the provisions operate notwithstanding the provisions of the PSA, the CLOR Act and other legislation; • providing for transitional regulation-making power; and • validating previous decisions with retrospective operation, declaring that a decision made by an authorised officer made at any time before the commencement of these provisions is valid as if the provision had been in force the day the decision was made. [42] The last paragraph of page 18 the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill states that the retrospective amendment is curative in nature, and it seeks to clarify and confirm the original intent of the Weapons Act, which has, since its inception, been interpreted and applied by authorised officers to include consideration of relevant aspects of a person’s criminal history when assessing whether a person is a fit and proper person. Page 44 the Explanatory Memorandum discusses the need for the amendments to be used in relation to existing undecided applications and reviews such as this one. [43] Those changes bring into account circumstances in which a charge has been brought in respect of an offence involving a person having used or threatened the use of violence, including those which have been withdrawn, discharged or struck out such that any information about the circumstances of the offence or charge must be considered. The expression “history …involving the use or threatened use of violence” is not defined. [44] The First and Second reading speeches for the Bill given by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services do not provide any particular insights that assist in construing these provisions in this case. In the first reading speech the Minister did say: The other aspect to this bill delivers a suite of reforms that ensures our laws are the strongest in the nation when it comes to disrupting and deterring criminal conduct involving weapons and hate crimes. This bill will meet these objectives by strengthening responses to hate crimes, strengthening the penalties for offences involving the misuse of firearms and weapons, giving more powers to police to assess the suitability of applicants for weapons licences, and providing additional mechanisms to prohibit extremists and organised crime syndicates from obtaining weapons. It will also impose limitations on most non-citizens accessing and using firearms and improve information-sharing and disclosure arrangements. I want to make clear from the outset that the reforms contained in this bill are not targeting law-abiding firearms owners. Rather, they are intended to -- 12 of 23 -- 13 minimise, to the greatest extent possible, the risk of firearms falling into the wrong hands while prioritising the safety of the Queensland community. [45] There is an issue about whether the attempted arson charge was a relevant offence within the meaning of the term in the dictionary to the Act. That requires the offence to be one where conduct involved the use or threatened use of violence. If it was not, then the amendments to section 10B(1)(c) do not permit reference to it. [46] The Schedule 2 dictionary defines “relevant offence” as follows: relevant offence means an offence, under a law of Queensland or another jurisdiction, that— (a) involves the carriage, discharge, possession, storage or use of a weapon; or (b) involves the use or threatened use of violence; or (c) involves the possession or distribution of blueprint material for the manufacture of a firearm on a 3D printer or an electronic milling machine. [47] It is a relatively common occurrence to encounter in applications of this kind to see Weapons Licensing at the Queensland Police Service engaging in careful scrutiny of often significantly aged historical criminal and traffic history by applicants. Of course, the history of applicants, going back decades before a hearing, when the focus is on whether someone is a fit and proper person at present to hold a weapons licence, is a matter of relevance but not of primary significance particularly where there is medical and other reliable evidence of the applicant’s present mental health and character. [48] In a way not significantly different to many other cases which come before this tribunal, the Applicant here has a significant history of alcohol abuse, drug use and a history of criminal activity, some of which resulted in charges and convictions, some of which did not, as well as relatively insignificant conduct involving violence towards others, physical altercations arguments and broadly described domestic violence or domestic conflict. The lighting of fires and attempted arson [49] In this case I am asked to take account of allegations that there was a suggestion that he had engaged in setting fire to rubbish bins in 2004 adjacent to commercial buildings, leading to a charge of attempted arson but in respect of which, ultimately, no evidence was offered and he was acquitted. [50] The police records show that the fire was in bins adjacent to a commercial building consisting of a two-level premises containing a number of souvenir shops with an Asian restaurant occupying the second floor. Located at the rear of the building was a small-covered staff carpark covered by the roof of the first floor allowing an extension of the second floor. [51] The police recorded the Applicant as saying that he was in his bedroom at the time of the fire. His bedroom was located on the fifth floor of the apartments immediately to the west of the scene address. He phoned the Fire Service when he smelt burning plastic. He also stated he did not see any suspects leaving the scene address. [52] The objective evidence is that at the time these bins were found to have been on fire, it was the Applicant who had reported the fire and called for Fire Services to attend, -- 13 of 23 -- 14 and there was no objective evidence that he was in the vicinity of these bins when they were lit. [53] There were no witnesses who observed him lighting the bins, and there was nothing else to implicate him in the commission of those offences, except for evidence from a DNA sample found on a match box in the vicinity. [54] It was not recorded why it was that the police did not proceed with this offence, however, as the Respondent conceded, it was likely related to the limited use to which that DNA evidence could be put having regard to its movability on the match box. There would have been an issue proving intent as well in my view. No motive was suggested and there were no admissions made to anyone by him. [55] Critically, the offence with which he was charged was not to have actually engaged in arson but an attempt to commit arson. This must then have been referable to an attempt to burn the retail shop adjacent to the bins, not the bins themselves. This is significant in terms of a consideration of whether the conduct involved the use or threatened use of violence. The alleged and unproven offence here was in my view not one where the conduct involved the use or threatened use of violence. It was not suggested that lighting the bins was in furtherance of some violent act. [56] The Respondent submits that the attempted arson charge was a relevant offence within the meaning of the term in the dictionary to the Act in that it was an offence where the conduct involved the use or threatened use of violence. It submits that the circumstance of the attempted arson charge that was preferred against the Applicant, it is noted that the wording of the charge is “wilfully and unlawfully set fire to two wheelie bins and a cardboard waste bin which was so situated that a building namely a commercial premises located at 40-42 Hanlan Street Surfers Paradise was likely to catch fire from it”. Paragraph 4 of the police facts in relation to the offence stated that “40-42 Hanlan Street was a commercial building consisting of two level premises containing a number of souvenir shops with an Asian restaurant occupying the 2nd floor.” [57] I was taken to no authority which dealt with the meaning of the expression “an offence involves the use or threatened use of violence”. There are numerous dictionary meanings of the word violence and it is used across many statutes. For example, section 75 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (“the Criminal Code”) states: 75 Threatening violence (1) Any person who— (a) with intent to intimidate or annoy any person, by words or conduct the threatens to enter or damage a dwelling or other premises; or (b) with intent to alarm any person, discharges loaded firearms or does any other act that is likely to cause any person in the vicinity to fear bodily harm to any person or damage to property commits a crime. [58] That suggests that violence in that context is an act that is likely to cause any person in the vicinity to fear bodily harm to any person or damage to property. That is not the context here but it assists insofar as it suggests that violence need not be directed toward a person but can be damage to property. -- 14 of 23 -- 15 [59] The Respondent submits that this offence is an offence of violence as it displays the following elements of violence: Danger to life: The punishment for arson (Criminal Code s461) is life imprisonment. The punishment for attempted arson (Criminal Code s462) is 14 years imprisonment. The penalty is so severe due to the possibility of causing death, significant injury and irreversible damage. Death could be caused to occupants of the building or firefighters who are forced to fight any subsequent fire. A prime example of a similar incident is the Palace Backpackers Fire in Childers in 2000 that resulted in the death of 15 persons. Although in this instance the applicant charge relates to a commercial premises, there is no certainty that persons were not in the Asian restaurant at the time. Intent and risk: The offence involved in the setting fire to objects that were likely to set fire to a commercial building. In this instance the person setting the fire has no regard to the risk to others. [60] I will proceed without deciding the issue, on the basis that arguably attempted arson in those circumstances is an offence that involves the use or threatened use of violence and can be damage to property not just to persons. [61] In relation to that charge, which he vehemently denies having committed and denied at the time having committed, I am not persuaded that it reflects poorly upon his fitness to hold a weapons licence 22 years later. [62] The second event involving him setting fire to things is said to have occurred on 16 January 2009, 17 years ago. No charges arose out of it. It also involved property being set on fire, in this case, property in his garage belonging to his father. No charges were laid. [63] Police records at the time suggested that his father had been sent messages from the Applicant, threatening to set fire to material in the garage and then the material was set fire to and police spoke to the father and the Applicant on that occasion about the incident. [64] His father, Garry Buckley, gave evidence about this incident. I do not regard Garry Buckley as a reliable witness. He was evasive and changed his story where he thought it needed to be changed to be in the best interests of the application his son had brought. It is significant that he was passionate about the idea that his son should be permitted to have a weapons licence to follow on in some family tradition of hunting with weapons, which the Applicant, his father and grandfather had some history with. [65] He said in his statement that: Joshua has been shooting since he was as young as 10 with me and his grandfather just as I was shooting from a young age with my father and grandfather. So, it is a legacy of our family that we all have our gun licence same as Joshua's son will apply for his licence when he becomes eligible. He has been shooting for my grandfather for many years, my father was a professional pig and Kangaroo shooter, so Joshua was made aware of gun laws and gun safety and taught to respect them. He is of sound mind so he understood this very well. We also go target shooting at Ripley's Riffle Club and wants his own licence so he can shoot without me instructing him or being with him all the time. -- 15 of 23 -- 16 He has always had a job and now has a family with a wife and 3 children; he always puts them first before himself. It is extremely important the he carries on the family tradition in shooting and gets his licence. As he grew up, he had a few issues but these have now been resolved and he has always respected weapons and understand the privilege having a gun is. As I get older there will be a time like my father and his father before him that shooting will be too hard for me and when I wish to transfer my rifles, I would like them to go to Joshua, as many of the guns are precious to our family and been in the family for years and they are cherished by Joshua. When my father was sick before he died, he asked me to make sure that Joshua gets his licence so he can carry on the family legacy. [66] When challenged about his version of events of the fire in the garage, Garry Buckley was prone to obfuscate. When dealing with the property being burnt in the garage, he denied that it was he that had made a complaint to the police and said to the police that they should drop it. On the one hand he seemed to want to suggest that his son had not in fact been responsible for burning his property in the garage, but when invited by the police to speak to his son that night, he said to the police that if he did, he would go and punch him up. [67] But then in evidence in this tribunal, he contended that there was no evidence that his son had lit the fire. Why he would want to punch up his son in circumstances in which he said his son had not lit the fire which led to his property being burnt is perplexing. When challenged on why he would have said he would punch him up he then said that he assumed his son had lit it. He also claimed not to recall if his son had threatened to torch these goods. It was suggested that no texts had ever been sent to him threatening this conduct before it happened. [68] When cross-examined about this, he initially said he couldn’t recall telling the police a text had been sent. He said that perhaps the answer was that the police got it wrong as to whether his son had, in fact, lit the fire and vehemently denied having been set a text. [69] He did concede that it was true at that time that his son had become very self- destructive on alcohol, and that indeed, this was something he had actually told the police at the time. [70] The police report noted that on previous occasions, the Applicant had become intoxicated and destroyed items of property in his house. [71] The Applicant himself told the Tribunal in relation to this incident that at the time he was intoxicated, and had serious problems with alcohol abuse but that he was a different man now, but couldn’t remember what happened on that occasion. [72] Even accepting that he most likely did light a fire to property in the garage, I am not persuaded that it reflects poorly upon his fitness to hold a weapons licence 17 years later. I do not consider that this event materially bears on whether he is presently a fit and proper person to hold a licence. He has no subsequent history of lighting fires Alcohol abuse and rehabilitation [73] Were it not for more recent events, it might well have been possible to explain away his history as the conduct of a relatively young man who was having serious problems -- 16 of 23 -- 17 with alcohol abuse and other things that were occurring in his life and which occurred some 20 years ago. [74] I accept the evidence of the Applicant and his father that he has become a teetotaller after going through some form of alcoholic rehabilitation for what was said to be for a lengthy period of about six months and that he has not touched alcohol for some nine years despite alcohol being around him and his father drinking alcohol in his presence. [75] There is no evidence of his having engaged in alcohol abuse since he went through rehabilitation. [76] I acknowledge and find that he has been quite successful in rehabilitating himself not only from a history until some nine years ago of alcohol misuse and offending around it, but also that recently he has been through a traumatic matrimonial breakdown with serious conflict involving his ex-partner and their children, ongoing stress anxiety surrounding that, which he has largely managed to successfully emerge from. His former partner has given him a glowing character reference. The Applicant’s general character and whether he has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities surrounding weapons use [77] I accept that he may well be now reformed in terms of his propensity to engage in alcohol consumption and poor social behaviour, however the recent incident of “road rage” suggests he still has an inadequate understanding of the responsibilities of holding a licence and the requirements to abide by the law. [78] For the last nine years he has held the same job. He has a character reference from his direct supervisor at the place where he works. It says: What stands out most about Joshua is his attitude. He approaches each task with energy and professionalism, taking pride in completing work correctly and efficiently. This mindset has made him a positive influence on the team, particularly for less experienced staff who look to him as a role model for how to approach their work with commitment and accountability. Joshua’s passion for getting the job done well, combined with his reliability and consistency, makes him a valued member of the warehouse team. [79] He has another character reference from another direct supervisor at the place where he works. It says: I have had the opportunity to work closely with Joshua in a professional capacity and have consistently found him to be an exceptional employee. He performs all assigned tasks to a high standard, demonstrates strong reliability, and approaches his work with a positive and cooperative attitude. Joshua is proactive in his role and is always willing to assist with additional duties when requested. His work ethic and commitment to the team make him a valued member of our organisation. In the workplace, Joshua always conducts himself in a respectful and professional manner. He interacts well with colleagues and contributes positively to the team environment. I have never observed any behaviour that would suggest aggression, volatility, or an inability to manage conflict appropriately. -- 17 of 23 -- 18 I am aware of Joshua's past legal history, having reviewed the relevant information. Based on my professional experience working with him, I have not seen any indication of aggressive tendencies or concerning behaviour in the workplace. On the contrary, he has consistently demonstrated a calm, responsible, and dependable demeanour. Based on my experience with Joshua, he is a person of good character who takes his responsibilities seriously. I have no hesitation in supporting his application. [80] I accept that he is generally a person of good character with some relevant albeit aged criminal history which occurred more than a decade ago. The recent road rage incident [81] More recent events raise serious concerns as to whether he is a fit and proper person to presently hold a weapons licence. There are recent incidents which suggest that he still engages in some antisocial behaviour, and of particular concern, dealing with another road user, three few weeks before the hearing of this application. [82] The incident in question might be described as a road rage incident. He was with his two relatively young children at the time, driving in the general area of Beenleigh on the M1 highway, which is the major route between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and a very busy and highly trafficked road. [83] The report concerning it came from his estranged spouse. She recounted something their 13-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son had told her. The police records suggest there was another child aged five in the car. [84] The older children said that the Applicant was driving on the M1 when he found himself behind a vehicle in front of him that was traveling slower than other traffic. The Applicant is said to have then moved from the fastest lane to the slowest lane at high-speed, performing a sharp manoeuvre that almost caused a collision. The children allegedly recounted that after overtaking the vehicle, he drove in front of the slower vehicle and began breaking suddenly hitting his brakes unexpectedly while travelling in excess of 100 kph. This was done supposedly to intimidate or upset the other driver. [85] The report also suggested that he was swearing and yelling and making rude hand gestures to the other driver. It is important to note that this incident occurred on 1 March 2026, 23 days before the hearing before the tribunal. [86] The police did not take a statement from, or interview, the children themselves. It would appear the evidence is of what his ex-partner said the children told her. [87] Also of significance, was that on the day before the hearing in this Tribunal the police had spoken to the Applicant about the incident. When they spoke to him, he was aware that he was named in a traffic complaint as he had spoken to another police officer already about it, but claimed that he did not recall any incident involving unsafe driving or abrupt lane changes or cutting across lanes as alleged. He told police on that day, as he initially said in his evidence here, that he has spoken to his children about the incident, and none of them had expressed concern about feeling unsafe and that the children had mentioned some children in another vehicle taking a photo. He told police the day before, and he initially gave evidence before me, that he could not recall any such incident and could not provide further detail about it. -- 18 of 23 -- 19 [88] But then, after initially saying that he couldn’t remember such an incident, he volunteered in his testimony that he could recall an incident a few weeks ago when heading northbound, at the Beenleigh off-ramp, where a car in front of him cut across in front of his vehicle, with his children in it, and he was forced onto the shoulder of the road and he was “pretty cranky”, and there was a lot of swearing on his part. He even said that his children were stunned and in silence after the incident because it was so close to being an accident. He did not mention this incident to the police. [89] I do not believe his evidence that he was not involved in an incident that involved a serious encounter with another road user which involved him intimidating that road user, but in respect of which he had forgotten about that incident when police spoke to him the day before the hearing. [90] In and of itself, the fact that he was involved in such an incident, whichever version one was prepared to find had occurred, might not by itself be enough to lead to the conclusion that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. But the false denial of any knowledge of such an incident and then the recitation of an alternative version of it in this Tribunal leads me to the conclusion that I cannot generally treat as reliable his evidence that he has reformed his ways in terms of no longer engaging in aggravated conduct towards others when put under stress. It causes me to seriously question whether he would be a responsible user of a weapon were he given a licence to hold one. Recent unlicenced use of weapons [91] The false denial of any knowledge of such a driving incident also seriously casts doubt on the truthfulness of his assertions that he has not engaged in hunting on private property in Queensland in relatively recent times and certainly within the last decade when he did not hold a weapons licence. [92] The fact that he had, or may well have done so, only emerged in the course of the hearing, when his father gave evidence in describing how since the Applicant had stopped drinking, his behaviour had improved “1000%” and that he had no concerns that he was a fit and proper person since he had done so. He went so far as to give an example of his having gone shooting with him in what he described as in the last months, describing two kinds of shooting activity, that at the shooting range and also pig shooting on private property. [93] But his father gave evidence, when challenged, on how that could have occurred, that he was the holder of a weapons licence and had allowed the use of the weapon by his son under his supervision of weapons that belonged to the father and when the shooting had occurred at the range, he had completed the forms to permit that to occur. [94] Later, when he gave evidence himself, the Applicant vehemently denied ever going pig shooting in recent times and only did so in the presence of his grandfather long ago and then in New South Wales where that is supposedly permitted without a weapons licence. When the Respondent challenged his lawful entitlement to do so in Queensland his answer was to point to the position in New South Wales on private property. He appeared to proceed on the basis that the same law applied in Queensland but it does not. [95] After the Applicant gave evidence that he had been out shooting several times with his father and grandfather and initially mentioned that it was around easter of 2025 -- 19 of 23 -- 20 that his own son had been present at some shooting event, he referred to the shooting range, and said he had last been pig shooting 15 years ago. [96] His father was in the hearing room to hear this evidence. [97] When it was put to the Applicant that his father said he had used guns and gone pig shooting as recently as a month ago, he became aggressive and insistent that his father had not said that, or that he should be believed about the reforms he had made to himself over time. [98] Then the story changed so that the proposition then became that he had been hunting with his father shooting pigs in the presence of his young son recently, but that he himself had not used a gun at that time. [99] Were that true, there would have been no need for his father to have sought to have justified his son’s conduct by saying the use of the weapons for hunting was authorised by his presence and that they were his weapons. [100] The father heard all of this evidence and, when called to give further evidence, repeated the newer version, that they had gone pig shooting last month under his supervision and that, although his son had been hunting, he had not been shooting but that he had been shooting in New South Wales in 2010. He now said that the Applicant had never shot a gun in Queensland except at the shooting range. [101] I find difficulty accepting the Applicant’s evidence that he has not recently been hunting with his father. Unlawful possession/use of a firearm at a shooting range [102] After the hearing had ended, and in circumstances where the issue was not put to the Applicant or his father when they gave evidence, the Respondent submitted that this evidence showed unlawful possession/use of a firearm. It referred to evidence given during the hearing by the Applicant and his father in relation to the Applicant using firearms on an approved range since his weapons licence application was rejected. [103] Section 53 of the Act provides an unlicensed person may physically possess and use a firearm on an approved range under certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is that the person is not an excluded person (s 53(2)(b)(ii)). Section 53 (8)(i) identifies a person as an excluded person if the person has been refused a licence, within five years before the day the person signs the approved form under this section because the person is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. [104] The Applicant’s licence application was refused on 27 September 2024 on the basis that he was not a fit and proper person. This means, it submits, that the Applicant is an excluded person until 28 September 2029. Included with the later filed material is a copy of a form 33 that is required by s 53(2)(b) of the Weapons Act, to be completed by an unlicensed person attending a range. The relevant section of this document is section 4 where the person is asked a series of question to confirm they are not an excluded person. The second last question asks, “Have you ever been refused a license in the last 5 years?” Section 4 of this form also requires the person to declare the information is correct in every detail and that they are not an excluded person as per s 53 of the Weapons Act. [105] It submits that if the Applicant is falsely declaring on these forms that he is not an excluded person, he is further committing an offence against s 158 of the Weapons -- 20 of 23 -- 21 Act, by stating in a document required to be kept under this Act that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular. [106] There is however no declaration by him before me that contains such a statement. [107] Since there is however no declaration by him before me that contains such a statement, I am not prepared to speculate that such an offence may have occurred. These matters do however fortify my sense that his evidence before this Tribunal indicated that he may not have a sufficient understanding of the responsibilities associated with using a weapon even at a shooting range, or with holding a weapons licence and being committed to hold firearms particularly if he is intending to do so in the presence of his father as apparently, he does. Findings and disposition [108] The principles underlying the Act are specified to be 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. A proper understanding of the requirements for the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons is therefore a feature to be considered in deciding if a person is fit and proper to hold a licence. [109] Sadly, during his evidence before this Tribunal I formed the view that he clearly did not have a sufficient understanding of the responsibilities associated with using weapons and holding a firearms licence and being committed to hold firearms. [110] He is required to give a genuine reason, that is to indicate that he will use the weapons for an approved purpose. In that regard, he has identified hunting. Many persons who engage in hunting of feral animals associate with a sports or target shooting association and that if a genuine reason is shown then he would be eligible for a licence which would permit hunting of feral animals even though one need not specifically indicate that as one of the genuine reasons. [111] In my view, it is significant that the Applicant’s intended use of these weapons on private land does not reveal an understanding of the extent to which a weapon could be used on any such land. [112] Section 10 of the Act 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. 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. I am not persuaded that he presently does have an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of weapons or has access to secure storage facilities for a weapon although that is something he could undoubtedly attend to and then potentially reapply for his licence. [113] I have to say that I had been greatly troubled by this application. Because on paper, the Applicant appears to be a genuine person, recognised by others as being of good character and has to some degree reformed his life after a period of alcohol and substance abuse, a breakdown in his marriage and family situation and some relatively insignificant criminal activity. -- 21 of 23 -- 22 [114] I am, however, deeply troubled by the apparent inconsistency between what the psychologist has said about his character and personality and what I perceive to be a lack of frankness in his evidence in this Tribunal compounded by the lack of frankness of his father, who it appears to me, is partly driving this application for him to obtain his weapons licence, potentially because his father might lose his capacity to use weapons. [115] Any person who might engage in the sort of road rage, which it has been suggested has occurred only a weeks a few weeks earlier, involving him having his three young children in the car, significant speed on a very busy highway, and a very aggressive and confrontational way of dealing with another driver, whose only fault was to drive too slowly for what the Applicant perceived to be appropriate, is a matter of very considerable concern. It cannot simply be explained away as arising out of a matrimonial breakdown or a squabble in the car which might have produced a temporary loss of control, but rather shows impatience and aggression when his perceived expectations were not met. [116] Ultimately, it is for the Applicant to persuade the Tribunal that he is a fit and proper person. In circumstances where I hold serious doubts as to the veracity of the information that has been presented to the Tribunal, I am not so persuaded. [117] Having made his application unsuccessfully and having failed to have successfully reviewed that decision, the Respondent says he may reapply for a weapons licence in October 2027. If he does so reapply, and he has shown that there have been no recent incidents of aggression or violence and the like in the interim period, one would hope that whomever deals with his application reads these reasons and treats him favourably having regard to any psychological evidence as to his then psychological state and the character evidence from his workplace supervisors. [118] I do not regard his history in the domestic violence context or other assaults as of any particular significance in demonstrating the current state of his character and personality. Not only because they are so dated, but also because some of them are relatively insignificant and occurred when he was much younger and affected by substances. Alcohol or other substance misuse arose in the context of a stressful marriage break down, which he attributes to his former wife having a hurtful affair with another family member, but then needing to live under the same roof after that event. [119] I accept the evidence he was assisted in completing the form by another person and that he did not intentionally provide misleading information about medical history, misuse of substances or his treatment for it. [120] I accept that he has made a serious attempt to rehabilitate himself and that he has been through a lot in his life, and in recent times. [121] Having said that, for the reasons I have already expressed, I am not persuaded that he is presently a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, particularly in circumstances in which he would be likely to be using weapons in the presence of his father whom I perceive to be a poor role model for the Applicant in relation to weapons use. [122] Neither party referenced the significance of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) which commenced on 1 January 2020. In deciding this Application, and like applications, I am acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity: see Scott v Queensland -- 22 of 23 -- 23 Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330; BIL v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150. I accept that a decision under the Act impacts the Applicant’s rights. I do not consider that a decision to refuse him a licence is incompatible with human rights as the limitations on those rights are reasonable and justifiable. [123] Taking all these factors into account, I determine that the Applicant has not shown that he is presently a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. I determine that it is not in the public interest for him to hold such a weapons licence or have access to weapons. The decision to refuse a weapons licence is upheld. The application for review is dismissed. -- 23 of 23 --