Diamond v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 121

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Diamond v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 121 PARTIES: JY ROBERT DIAMOND (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO: GAR211-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 12 March 2026 HEARING DATE: 15 January 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Chapple ORDERS: The decision by the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing to revoke the Applicant’s Firearms Licence Number 26527877 is confirmed. The decision by the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing to revoke the Applicant’s Firearms Licence Number 30040375 is confirmed. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – firearms – licensing and related matters – revocation of licence – fit and proper person – public interest Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 10B, s 29, s 142 Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor (No 2) (1995) 131 ALR 657 TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unit & Anor (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505 Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Mr Terry Fergusson, Senior Review Officer, Weapons Licensing Group, Queensland Police Service -- 1 of 11 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] Mr Diamond (‘the Applicant’) was the holder of Category A and B weapons licence number 2657877 expiry 30 November 2027 and Category H weapons licence number 30040375 expiry 30 November 2026 (‘the weapons licences’) and had been a weapons licence holder since 2005. [2] On 25 January 2023, the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘the QPS’) issued two revocation notices, served on the Applicant on 19 February 2023, (‘the revocation decisions’) notifying that the weapons licences are revoked on the ground that the Applicant is no longer considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence and setting out the information relied upon in making the revocation decisions. On the same date, the QPS seized a Glock hand gun from the Applicant’s car and seized the remainder of the Applicant’s weapons and ammunition from his home at Mt Nathan, Queensland. [3] On 14 March 2023, the Applicant filed in the Tribunal an application to review the revocation decisions. Applicable legislation [4] Relevantly, section 10B(1) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the WA’) provides that: 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) 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 (c) whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and (ca) 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 (d) the public interest. [5] Section 29(1)(d) of the WA provides that a licence may be revoked where an authorised officer is satisfied the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. [6] Under section 142(2) of the WA, a person aggrieved by certain decisions (including a revocation decision) may apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’). -- 2 of 11 -- 3 QPS’s case [7] The QPS states the incident that gave rise to the revocation decisions occurred on 25 January 2023. Police received a ‘triple zero’ call from the Applicant’s wife who informed them the Applicant had been engaged in a heated discussion with his accountant regarding ongoing matters that could result in the couple losing their house, he punched numerous holes in the walls of the house and damaged a door in anger and frustration, he told her he was going to the accountant’s office to shoot him, he then removed the Glock hand gun with magazines from the gun safe, went to his car and drove away. Police intercepted the Applicant at McDonald’s Ashmore drive- through where the Glock hand gun was seized from his car, and the Applicant was taken into custody. The Applicant told Police that he was on his way to the pistol club to shoot his pistol but had turned around when he realised he didn’t have a booking. Police allege the Applicant had driven his car towards the accountant’s Bundall office where he believed the accountant was located. [8] The Police incident log for 25 January 2023 records at 16:21:54 that Police spoke with the accountant’s partner who advised that the accountant wasn’t at [the office] that day, however had received a call from the Applicant that day who said something like he was going to call or go to [the office] every day until he gets what he wants. [9] When Police later questioned the Applicant’s wife, she told them the Applicant was under extreme financial stress, and he had paid a fair bit of money to get some legal documents from the accountant who was refusing to hand them over. She said the Applicant had been fighting with the accountant over the phone before she left home to collect children from the bus stop; their son, who remained at home, rang her when he saw the Applicant leave in his car with a hand gun. She then rang the Applicant who screamed at her and told her he was on his way to the accountant, and he was going to “put a bullet in [his] head”. [10] When Police later questioned the Applicant, they told him his wife had made the ‘triple zero’ call and he confirmed he was under financial stress. The following comments are taken from the transcript: [Applicant]…as far as the accountant is concerned, I’d like to shoot in [sic] sure. But I can’t, I’m not going to…I was planning on shooting some paper to blow off some steam. That’s why I was heading down to the range. [Police]…let’s hope…you can understand how serious it is when you know things like this come up and get said… [Applicant] Yeah of course. No, I understand. Quite serious. No animosity… [Applicant]…I appreciate what you’re doing. I understand why. [Police]…if anything like this happens in future, there are charges for threats against people or threats to kill… [Applicant] As [sic] I’ve been on the phone with [the accountant] today. I didn’t threaten him… [Applicant]...I didn’t make any threats to him and I’m not intending to hurt him. Don’t worry. I’d like to <laugh> but I’m not that guy. Yeah I’m not gonna go and hurt somebody. That’s the wrong thing to do. Yeah. [Applicant] All I’ve done is repeatedly ask him to provide the information he’s supposed to. -- 3 of 11 -- 4 [Applicant] I appreciate what you guys gotta do for your job. So I understand why you’re here and why you’re doing it and like I said, I’d prefer for this than for somebody to get shot next week. Yeah. With the next guy. You’ve gotta apply the same rules to everyone. [11] Robert Dank, the manager of the Southport Indoor Pistol Club, provided a signed statement to Police on 10 August 2023 stating the Applicant was registered as a Category AB member of the club on 2 September 2009, he was upgraded to a Category AB and H member on 30 June 2016, he last attended the club for a competition on 8 June 2022, and he had not been a member since 30 June 2022 when his membership lapsed. Mr Dank also stated that a member must book online before attending the club to ensure there is an opening for a time period; on 25 January 2023, the Applicant had no bookings with the club and no transactions were recorded relating to the Applicant. [12] After the Applicant provided an invoice for $364.65 from the club dated 7 March 2023, described as membership fees 2022/2023, as evidence his club membership was current on the day of the incident, the QPS sought further clarification from Mr Dank. In an email to the QPS dated 19 January 2026, Mr Dank advised: (a) On 8 September 2021, the Applicant paid membership fees to 30 June 2022. (b) On 25 January 2023, the Applicant was overdue six months and because he was delinquent more than two months, he was no longer considered a member. (c) On 7 March 2023, the club sent the Applicant an invoice, INV-0591 for membership fees. The club doesn’t send invoices normally, so this would have been at the Applicant’s request, however there is no record of the request. (d) On 27 August 2023, the Applicant paid $364.65 to the club via direct bank transfer, with no reference in the transaction description. (e) On 27 August 2023, the Applicant paid $429.00 via the club website using PayPal. On 28 August 2023, the club refunded the amount via PayPal and advised the Applicant by email that they could not accept his renewal payment due to his licence being revoked. (f) On 28 September 2023, the $364.65 payment was reconciled against INV-0591, but never recorded as a membership fee payment. The Applicant never asked for a refund of this amount, and never responded to the club’s email of 28 August 2023. [13] The Applicant’s shooter participation card was located in one of the hand gun cases seized by Police from the Applicant’s home on 25 January 2023. The card records the Applicant’s pistol shoots at the Southport Indoor Pistol Club on eight separate dates from and including 10 May 2022 to 8 June 2022. [14] The only ammunition seized by Police from the Applicant’s home on 25 January 2023 was two 9 mm rounds, loose, not packaged. [15] The QPS relies on subparagraphs (ca) and (d) of section 10B(1) of the WA as grounds for the revocation decisions, stating that it is not in the public interest for someone who can’t control their emotions and who expresses a desire to commit murder with a weapon, to retain a weapons licence, and the public would expect the police to do everything they can to ensure public safety. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 [16] After questioning the Applicant and his wife separately, Police considered that domestic violence was not an aspect of the Applicant’s actions on the day of the incident. [17] The QPS does not rely on the Applicant’s traffic history or weapons storage offences (no conviction recorded) in maintaining the revocation decisions. Applicant’s case [18] In an unsigned statement dated 5 January 2025, the Applicant stated, relevantly, as follows: (a) On the day of the incident, he was frustrated at the issues with his accountant; the consequences for his family and their housing situation were extreme and it was a very stressful period. (b) To relieve stress, he has gone to the Southport Indoor Pistol Club. He has provided a club invoice dated 7 March 2023 for membership renewal fees to prove his continuing membership at the time of the incident. He can’t explain the administrative discrepancy. (c) He has previously attended the club without a booking; if stalls are available, a booking is not required. (d) It is his usual practice not to carry ammunition, which he only realised when he arrived at the club. He didn’t have the funds to pay for the range fees and ammunition so decided to drive home instead. (e) He denies making any threat to shoot his accountant on the day of the incident or any other day. There were no independent witnesses or other evidence of the threat. The allegation is based on a single report from his wife; they have a difficult relationship due to various stressors and are currently separated. (f) On the day of the incident, he was travelling in the opposite direction and away from his accountant’s office, at least several kilometres from Bundall. (g) When he stated to Police that he “would like to shoot” his accountant, he appeared nervous and to laugh; it was a poorly expressed statement of frustration made under pressure rather than an expression of intent to cause harm. [19] In oral evidence at hearing, the Applicant stated, relevantly, as follows: (a) On the day of the incident, he had not spoken to his accountant at all, he was speaking to a solicitor in the accountant’s firm. He was trying to obtain company financial documentation he had paid $10,000 under a legal agreement to be produced. He told the solicitor they needed to have their client honour the agreement. The only threat he made at any time was that he was going to camp outside his front door and tell his incoming clients that he is not an honest practitioner. (b) He was very upset, there’s been a large amount of financial stress that has been ongoing for probably eight years and is still ongoing. (c) In the spur of the moment, he punched a hole in the bedroom wall; that was part of his motivation for going to the pistol club, for stress relief, to decompress. -- 5 of 11 -- 6 His son came into the house when he was leaving holding the hand gun case, but he did not tell his son where he was going. (d) He left the house and drove to the Southport Indoor Pistol Club. Twelve months prior the club changed from a paper to online booking system. You’re required to fill out the booking online for record-keeping purposes, but you can also complete the details on the premises without a booking if a lane is available. (e) He does not accept Mr Dank’s assertion that he has not been a member of the club since 30 June 2022 because the club issued an invoice for membership fees for 2022/2023 in March 2023. There was no point paying the invoice because he was no longer allowed to hold a pistol licence. (f) When he got to the club, he hadn’t purchased ammunition prior at the gun shop and he doesn’t normally transport ammunition with his firearms, and he didn’t have enough funds available to purchase at club rates and pay the range fees. He looked at his financial position and decided not to go inside the club; he didn’t want to look busted broke to people at the club. (g) Police seized quite an amount of ammunition from home. He doesn’t like travelling with ammunition and his firearm together. He had hand gun ammunition for the Glock at home on the day of the incident. He could have very easily taken the ammunition with him, but he generally chooses not to. He could have taken the ammunition to the range separately and stored it there, but it is not something he did in this instance. (h) After he left the club, he drove towards home. When intercepted by Police, he was travelling away from the club and the accountant’s office and heading back home. He turned left from the club (it is left turn only) and took the back road past Benowa Gardens shopping centre up to Southport-Nerang Road and did a u-turn at the lights to go into McDonald’s Ashmore because it is on the opposite side of the road. (i) He cannot account for his wife telling Police that he had told her he was going to put a bullet in the accountant’s head. (j) He was never asked by Police if he threatened to shoot the accountant. One of the officers (Hogg), in a conversation that was not recorded, told him he can’t go around threatening to shoot people. He agrees, after that, he said “I’d like to shoot him, sure”. (k) He did not seek counselling or psychological help following the incident. It was one incident, not a regular occurrence. He has a clean criminal record, no violence, and he doesn’t consume alcohol. He has lost his temper once or twice in his life, but he has not harmed, shot, stabbed or assaulted anyone. [20] To support his assertion that he had insufficient funds to pay for ammunition and range fees at the Southport Indoor Pistol Club on 25 January 2023, the Applicant provided a copy of a National Australia Bank bank statement relating to an account held in his name for the period 7 January 2023 to 7 February 2023. The statement shows an account balance of $515.57 in credit as at 25 January 2023. The statement also shows the following transactions occurred on that date: (a) Origin Energy Ho [sic] $150.00 (funds transferred 25.01.23) -- 6 of 11 -- 7 (b) 7-Eleven Nera [sic] $30.00 (funds transferred 27.01.23) (c) Outdoor Supacentre Vars [sic] $59.50 (funds transferred 27.01.23) (d) Red Rooster Burl Wat [sic] $14.00 (funds transferred 30.01.23) (e) McDonalds Ashmore $15.50 (funds transferred 30.01.23) Consideration and findings [21] I am satisfied the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Applicant’s review application. [22] There are multiple inconsistencies and gaps in the Applicant’s evidence that raise reasonable and significant questions about its veracity. [23] The Applicant claimed in his unsigned statement dated 5 January 2025 and in his oral evidence that he never told his wife during a phone call that he was going to shoot the accountant or put a bullet in the accountant’s head (‘the comment’), and he can’t explain why she rang Police and reported that he had made the comment to her, other than offering that they had a difficult relationship which was under significant stress due to ongoing financial matters and they have since separated. The Applicant does not contest that his wife made the phone call to Police. The transcript of the Police questioning of the Applicant on the day of the incident shows that at no stage did the Applicant deny to Police that he had made the comment to his wife. Rather, he told Police that he’d like to shoot the accountant but he knows he can’t and he wasn’t going to, that he didn’t make any threats to the accountant when he was on the phone to him that day and he isn’t intending to hurt him, and that he understood the seriousness of the matter and the job Police had to do in the circumstances. [24] The Applicant claimed in his oral evidence that he was never asked by Police whether he had made the comment to his wife. The transcript of the Police questioning of the Applicant on the day of the incident shows the Applicant was aware the comment had been reported by his wife and he had ample opportunity to deny that he made the comment to her, however he did not do so. [25] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the Applicant made the comment to his wife. [26] In its opening statement at hearing, the QPS claimed the Applicant had also made the comment to his son. During his oral evidence, the Applicant argued that this claim had never previously been made. I note the QPS did not continue to press the claim. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to make a finding on this issue. [27] The Applicant told the Police on the day of the incident that he had been talking to his accountant on the phone. His wife told Police that she was at home when the call occurred. The Police incident log records that the accountant’s partner confirmed the accountant had received a call from the Applicant that day and the Applicant had said something like he was going to call or go to the office every day until he gets what he wants. In his oral evidence however, the Applicant claimed he had not spoken to the accountant at all that day; rather, he had spoken to a solicitor in the firm. There is no evidence before the Tribunal from the accountant or the solicitor, however I consider the recorded evidence of the accountant’s partner persuasive. -- 7 of 11 -- 8 [28] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the Applicant had a phone call with the accountant on the day of the incident and that he told him something like he was going to call or go to the office every day until he gets what he wants. [29] The Applicant concedes that on the day of the incident he was angry and frustrated with the accountant and that he kicked a hole in the bedroom wall. [30] The Applicant told Police on the day of the incident that he had driven to the Southport Indoor Pistol Club to let off steam or decompress following his phone call with the accountant, but turned around when he realised he didn’t have a booking. In his unsigned statement dated 5 January 2025 and in his oral evidence, the Applicant claimed he didn’t have the funds to pay for the ammunition and range fees, so he decided to drive back home. The Applicant also claimed in his unsigned statement dated 5 January 2025 “it is my usual practice not to carry ammunition with me, which I only realised when I arrived at the club”. I consider this statement internally inconsistent. The Applicant made a point during his oral evidence of explaining his usual practice of not carrying ammunition and weapons together. In light of his usual practice, it is not credible that, having travelled to the club with his hand gun, the Applicant would only have realised at that point that he did not have any ammunition. [31] I accept the evidence of Mr Dank without qualification. [32] The Applicant provided the Southport Indoor Pistol Club invoice dated 7 March 2023 for 2022/2023 membership fees as evidence that he was a member of the club on the date of the incident. Mr Dank said it was not the club’s usual practice to issue invoices, and he believed the Applicant had requested the invoice be sent to him, though there was no record of the request. In his oral evidence, the Applicant said there was no point paying the invoice because he was no longer allowed to hold a pistol licence. However, Mr Dank’s email of 19 January 2026 advised that the Applicant had paid the amount of the invoice ($364.65) on 27 August 2023 without identifying what the payment related to and, on the same date, paid another amount of $429.00 through the club website as membership fees; and the Applicant was advised by email that the club could not accept his renewal payment due to his licence being revoked. [33] Mr Dank’s email of 19 January 2026 also advised that on 25 January 2023, the date of the incident, the Applicant was no longer considered a member because he was delinquent more than two months. The Southport Indoor Pistol Club public website is instructive in this regard. On the ‘Renewing Membership’ page, it states: To renew your membership, you must already be a member of Southport Indoor Pistol Club. If your membership has expired by more than 2 months, you are considered to have left the club and you will need to re-join, rather than simply renew. If this is the case, please contact the club. [34] I note the Applicant’s weapons licences were subject to a condition that required the Applicant to be a financial member of an approved club, regularly attend the club and participate in the sport of target shooting as a club member. [35] I accept on the evidence the Applicant’s Southport Indoor Pistol Club membership commenced on 2 September 2009 and expired on 30 June 2022, his last range shoot was on 8 June 2022, he had made no booking for 25 January 2023, and he was not a member of the club on the date of the incident. -- 8 of 11 -- 9 [36] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities: (a) The Applicant, as a longstanding member of the club, was aware that if he wished to renew his membership for 2022/2023, it was incumbent on him to do so within two months of 30 June 2022. (b) The Applicant was aware he had not renewed his membership within time and, as a result, he would be considered to have left the club. (c) The Applicant was aware he was not a member of the club on the date of the incident and aware that he would not be permitted to shoot at the club on that date because to do so would involve having to go through a process of re-joining the club, not simply renewing his membership and paying the renewal fee. (d) The Applicant was aware he was non-compliant with the condition on his weapons licences. [37] Given the above findings, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the Applicant went to the Southport Indoor Pistol Club on the day of the incident as he claims. [38] The Applicant has said in all of his evidence that he drove from home on 25 January 2023 with his Glock hand gun to the Southport Indoor Pistol Club, then turned around and headed back home, stopping only at McDonald’s Ashmore, where he was intercepted by Police and the gun was seized. However, the bank statement the Applicant has provided indicates that on that day, in addition to transacting at McDonald’s Ashmore, he transacted at 7-Eleven at (what appears to be) Nerang, Outdoor Supacentre at (what appears to be) Varsity Lakes, and Red Rooster at (what appears to be) Burleigh Waters, the latter two locations being further south of the accountant’s Bundall office. [39] I have set out my findings regarding the Applicant’s evidence. These findings raise serious concerns about the Applicant’s actions and intentions on the day of the incident. He had a phone call with the accountant during which he told him he would call or go to his office every day until he gets what he wants. During and following the call, the Applicant was angry and frustrated. The Applicant kicked a hole in the bedroom wall then took his Glock hand gun from the gun safe and left the house. When his wife called him, he told her he was going to shoot the accountant or put a bullet in the accountant’s head. The Applicant drove away from the house, with the Glock hand gun in his car. The bank statement suggests the Applicant visited three locations south and north of the accountant’s Bundall office, in addition to McDonald’s Ashmore. Other evidence does not support the Applicant’s claim that he drove to the Southport Indoor Pistol Club. The fact the Applicant was not carrying ammunition in his car and did not attend the accountant’s office on the day of the incident does not ease my concerns about the Applicant’s actions and intentions that day. In light of the evidence and surrounding circumstances, I consider there was a real risk the Applicant would use the Glock hand gun unlawfully on the day of the incident. [40] The Applicant did not seek to cross-examine his wife. However, I consider it is reasonable to conclude that the Applicant’s wife, fully aware of the Applicant’s heightened emotional state on the day of the incident and the surrounding circumstances, was so concerned about the Applicant’s comment and actions that she elected to call Police on the ‘triple zero’ emergency phone line. -- 9 of 11 -- 10 [41] When questioned by Police on the day of the incident, the Applicant appeared by his responses to understand and accept the seriousness of the matter. Curiously, he volunteered to Police that “so far as the accountant is concerned, I’d like to shoot him, sure” when he was being questioned about his actions that day after leaving the house with the Glock hand gun in the car. Since that time however, the Applicant has denied he made the comment to his wife. In his unsigned statement dated 5 January 2025, the Applicant acknowledges the seriousness of firearms regulation and accepts responsibility for the incorrect storage charge however he makes no reference to accepting responsibility for the incident the QPS relies upon in making the revocation decisions. In his oral evidence, the Applicant sought to minimise the incident as a one- off. He argued he has no history of violence, no mental health or anger issues, he doesn’t drink alcohol, and he has lost his temper only once or twice in his life. Meanwhile, he volunteered that the large amount of financial stress he was under on the day of the incident, and for the previous eight years, was still ongoing. [42] I consider the Applicant has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate a failure to acknowledge and appreciate the seriousness of his actions or a wilful disregard for the seriousness of his actions, and the circumstances that contributed to his actions on the day of the incident remain extant. [43] A weapons license may amongst other requirements only be issued to a person who is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The determination of whether a person is or is no longer a fit and proper person is in accordance with s 10B of the WA. The matters the decision maker must consider include whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to indicate the person is a risk to public safety or that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest, and the public interest. [44] In TS v Department of Justice and Attorney General – Industry Licensing Unit & Anor (No 2) [2015] QCAT 505 (‘TS’) at [12] the Tribunal summarised some of the relevant cases that have considered the meaning of ‘fit and proper person’ as follows: • Whether a person is fit and proper is ‘one of value judgment. In that process the seriousness or otherwise of particular conduct is a matter for evaluation by the decision maker. So too is the weight, if any, to be given to matters favouring the person whose fitness and propriety are under consideration.’ • The concept of ‘fit and proper’ must be looked at in the context of the activities that the person is or will be engaged. ‘…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 public will have confidence that it will not occur.’ Although not an exhaustive list, character (indication of ‘likely future conduct’) or reputation (indication of public perception as to ‘likely future conduct’) may be ‘sufficient’ to find a person is not ‘fit and proper’ to undertake certain activities. • The expression ‘fit and proper’ must be given the ‘widest scope;’ and determined upon its own circumstances. • The applicant must show not only that he is ‘possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities evolving upon him’ as the holder of a particular licence but must also show he has ‘sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public….’ -- 10 of 11 -- 11 • ‘Fitness and propriety are flexible concepts.’ It involves an assessment of the person’s ‘knowledge, honesty and ability in the context of the role they are seeking to undertake….’ • The discretion vested in determining whether a person is ‘fit and proper’ must be exercised to ‘give wide scope for judgement and allow broad bases for rejection.’ [footnotes omitted] [45] In Ward v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 (‘Ward’) the (NSW) Tribunal held that it could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm. However, in the context of the Act the Tribunal must be satisfied there is virtually no risk. [46] The WA does not define the factors which must be taken into account when considering the public interest. In Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor (No 2) (1995) 131 ALR 657 (‘Comalco’) the court held that in determining the public interest it is necessary the interests of the whole community are matters for consideration and reference to public interest is to amplify the scope and purpose of the legislation. [47] TS states the discretion to determine whether a person is fit and proper allows broad scope for judgment and rejection. It involves an assessment of the person’s knowledge, honesty and ability. The Applicant had been a member of the Southport Indoor Pistol Club, licence holder and owner of multiple weapons for many years. I have made specific findings around his failure to renew his membership of the club. I consider the Applicant was fully aware of his strict legal responsibilities, however it appears the financial and other stressors in his life caused him to neglect or flout these responsibilities. Compounding the seriousness of his actions on the day of the incident, the Applicant has sought to construct an alternative narrative of what occurred that day to deflect the seriousness of the matter and to cast his actions in a more favourable light. I consider these transgressions reveal such deficits in honesty, character and integrity that the general public would reasonably lack confidence that an incident of similar or more serious nature would not occur again. [48] Applying the principles of TS, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the Applicant meets the requirements of a fit and proper person. [49] Ward requires me to be satisfied there is virtually no risk associated with the Applicant continuing to hold the weapons licences. Based on my findings and the application of the TS principles, on the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied. [50] Comalco informs the principles and object of the legislation set out in section 3 of the WA: 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 to prevent the misuse of weapons. [51] I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities it is not in the public interest that the Applicant hold a licence and the Applicant is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence. [52] I find the correct and preferable decision is to confirm the QPS revocation decisions. I order accordingly. -- 11 of 11 --