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

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Doherty v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 380 PARTIES: KRISTOPHER DOHERTY (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENCING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR617-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 7 October 2025 HEARING DATE: 30 September 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Roney KC ORDERS: The decision of the Respondent made on 14 June 2023 to refuse a firearms licence to the Applicant is set aside and the application for review is upheld. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – FIT AND PROPER PERSON – GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – where police identified the applicant as not a fit and proper person to hold an occupational gun licence – where applicant for a weapons licence had a history of depressive illness – proposed use of weapons for sporting shooting club and to reduce feral animals – whether representative of the Police could require expert opinion from the Applicant that at the time of assessment that there is no real risk to public and individual safety– whether an Applicant must show that there is “virtually no risk to public safety” were the licence granted Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3(1)(a), s 3(1)(b), s 3(2), s 10(2)(c), s 11, s 28A, s 151 AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 BIL v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2022] QCAT 150 -- 1 of 12 -- 2 CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43 Humphreys v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 294 Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 Queensland Police Service v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147 Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330 Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 Webb v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 110 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: T Fergusson, QPS REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Applicant made an application dated 20 January 2023 for the issue of a firearms licence pursuant to the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’). In the application he was required to report any medical history or ongoing condition he had. A doctor’s report from Dr Chaudhry apparently made after 2021 but otherwise undated, identified a history of matters he had suffered by year. In his past he had engaged in marijuana use, had ADHD, depression, and a number of other significant conditions not relevant for present purposes. [2] The Respondent then sent him an email of 2 May 2023. In that email it was provided that: Your application for a firearms licence is currently held with Weapons Licensing awaiting determination. The Weapons Act 1990 provides that a licence may only be issued to a person if that individual meets the established legislative criteria, including that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Whether a person is fit and proper requires consideration to be given to, amongst other things, matters including the individual's mental and physical fitness, whether a domestic violence order has been made or police protection notice issued and whether the authorising of that person to possess a weapon is contrary to the interests of the public. Before the application is decided, an authorised officer with whom an application for a licence is lodged may- (a) make an inquiry or investigation about the applicant or the application; and (b) require the applicant to give the officer further information the officer reasonably needs to be satisfied about the applicant's identity or physical or mental health. In deciding the application, the authorised officer may consider anything at the officer's disposal. As a result of inquiries conducted by this office in connection -- 2 of 12 -- 3 with your application, there are concerns regarding your suitability to possess a firearms licence. These concerns are: Medical History. It is noted that you provided a letter from you doctor with your application that outlines your previous medical history which includes marijuana use, ADHD, Depression, Autonomic Neuropathy, Spondylolisthesis, Type 1 diabetes, Neuropathic pain, and Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease In connection with your application there is insufficient independent evidence to establish that you have developed sufficient skills and strategies to prevent a return to your previous conduct. A return to that conduct would be contrary to the public interest. [3] The meaning of the proposition that he had produced insufficient independent evidence to establish that he had developed sufficient skills and strategies to prevent a return to his previous conduct is elusive since the only conduct referred to was marijuana use, with the rest being medical conditions. [4] The email of 2 May 2023 requested him to provide a medical report and recommendation issued by a doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. It specified that the medical report must detail, as a minimum, his medical history, sufficient details of any mental/physical health condition and his level of insight into that condition, the period he had been treated by the medical practitioner, the medical practitioner's opinion in relation to his fitness and propriety to possess or use firearms and the reason for coming to that conclusion. It mentioned for example support strategies in place to prevent or mitigate a future incident, whether the person is a fit and proper person to unconditionally hold a firearms licence having regard to whether the person may present a risk to themselves or the public and whether the community can have confidence that no improper conduct will occur with respect to a firearm if the applicant were to be issued a firearms licence and the basis for this opinion. It also asked for “an expert opinion that at the time of assessment, there is no real risk to public and individual safety” and an acknowledgement from the medical practitioner indicating they have reviewed (that email) document. [5] The email of 2 May 2023 also specified that the report and recommendation must include a statement or opinion that he is a fit and proper person to exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms and have unrestricted and unsupervised access to them. [6] In my view there is nothing in the Act which imposes any duty on an Applicant to provide expert evidence that meets some or other standard or which mirrors the language of the Act in terms of showing fitness and propriety to possess or use firearms and the reason for coming to that conclusion. It is also a significant over- reach to expect medical practitioners to give an opinion that there is no real risk to public and individual safety if a weapon were issued. I doubt any medical practitioner would have the expertise to give such an opinion. [7] It said that the writer was “guided by the principles contained in the decision of Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 (‘Ward’) which states: ‘The Tribunal 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 that there is virtually no risk’. To ensure all relevant information is considered, you should make your doctor, psychologist, or -- 3 of 12 -- 4 psychiatrist aware of any previous incidents that have occurred which may affect their decision”. [8] As I discuss later in these reasons, the proposition that one must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk before a weapons’ licence is to be granted is not consistent with the accepted construction of what must be established, namely whether an individual is a fit and proper person to hold a licence under Queensland law. 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. There is nothing in the Act per se that says that one must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk before a weapons licence is to be granted or specifically how risk is to be approached. [9] In the Applicant's response dated 13 May 2023 he attached a report from a well credentialled Clinical Psychologist Johan Schoeman of 8 May 2023. It was addressed to Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing. It did not say what the email of 2 May 2023 had invited be said. It said he had been treating Mr Doherty since April 2020 and said that Mr Doherty had Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)-Inattentive type, Persistent Depressive Disorder and Substance Use Disorder (Cannabis). It then said: Mr Doherty has been very compliant with treatment. Mr Doherty currently denies any thoughts of self-harm or harm to others. I have not noted any significant signs of agitation during the period of treatment. The conditions have been stable for the last 12 months. Please contact me should more information be required. [10] No-one contacted him for more information. All his contact details were on the report. [11] On 14 June 2023, an officer within Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) rejected the application. 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 and it was not considered to be in the public interest that he hold a licence authorising the possession of weapons. It said that it was noted that his doctor (referring to the psychologist report) “does not provide a full and reserved (sic) report that you are fit and proper rather you are compliant with treatment and your conditions have been stable for the past 12 months”. It again referred to the Ward decision and concluded: Accordingly, due to the circumstances mentioned and without any evidence from a qualified medial practitioner advising of your suitability to obtain a firearms licence, I cannot reach the conclusion that there is virtually no risk, at all times, to yourself or any other person should you be issued a firearms licence. [12] The Applicant has applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision. The relevant law and whether the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence [13] As just mentioned, 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 -- 4 of 12 -- 5 possession of weapons and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons. [14] Relevantly, section 4 of the Act provides: The object of this Act is to be achieved for firearms by— (a) prohibiting the possession and use of all automatic and self-loading rifles and automatic and self-loading shotguns except in special circumstances; and (b) establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms; and (c) requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm; and (d) providing strict requirements that must be satisfied for— (i) licences authorising possession of firearms; and (ii) the acquisition and sale of firearms; and (e) ensuring that firearms are stored and carried in a safe and secure way. [15] By s 10(2)(e) a licence may only be issued to and held by an individual if the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and by s 10(2)(f) of the Act has a reason mentioned in section 11 to possess the weapon or category of weapon. [16] Section 10 of the Act also provides that a licence may only be issued to an individual if the person has, under section 10A, an adequate knowledge of safety practices for the use, storage and maintenance of the weapon or category of weapon the possession of which is to be authorised by the licence and has access to secure storage facilities for the weapon or category of weapon possession of which is to be authorised by the licence. [17] Section 11 of the Act lists the "genuine reasons" for possessing a weapon in Queensland, which are necessary to obtain a weapons licence. These include as genuine reasons, sports or target shooting, recreational shooting, an occupational requirement (including for rural purposes), the collection, preservation, or study of weapons, and any other reason prescribed by regulation. [18] The term ‘fit and proper’ is not defined but the Act does require that certain things be considered, and amongst them is the public interest. The phrase ‘fit and proper person’ in the context of the weapons legislation has been considered by the Tribunal in light of the discussion as to the meaning of that expression by the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33 (‘Bond’) where it was said at [36]: The expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of "fit and proper" cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. -- 5 of 12 -- 6 [19] In Magarry v QPS Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 (‘Magarry’) the Tribunal considered the description of the meaning of fit and proper person set out in Bond. The learned Senior Member observed that the Act does not list the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether it is in the public interest to revoke a licence, but the discretion should be exercised in a way which promotes the principles and objects of the Act. [20] In Magarry, the Tribunal set aside a decision to reject Mr Magarry’s renewal of his firearms licence and revoke his collector’s licence in far more serious circumstances than those arising in the matter before me. [21] The Senior Member’s decision was confirmed on appeal in QPS v Magarry [2013] QCATA 147 (‘Magarry’). In the reasons on appeal Cullinane AM QC Judicial Member said as follows: [26] The Act provides for a licensing regime. Section 10B provided for the considerations on any application for the grant renewal etc of a licence. In deciding whether a person is or is any longer fit to hold a licence consideration must be given to the mental and physical fitness of the person, whether there is a risk to public safety and the public interest. Consideration of the concept of “fit and proper person” is found in cases such as Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321. [27] The Tribunal approached the matter on the basis of the principles set out in Stower v Smart (2007) QDC 4. [28] I, with respect agree that these principles represent the approach which gives proper expression to the principles of the Weapon Act 1990. [29] These are as follows: (a) It is of extreme importance to bear in mind the object of the Act which is stated in s 3(2) to be “to prevent the misuse of weapons”. (b) The proper exercise of discretion would require the Magistrate to evaluate the evidence of the character of Stower. (c) The proper exercise of discretion would then lead to the questions “in these circumstances is there any real prospect of Stower misusing his weapons so that his licence should be suspended? Is his right to possess firearms a real risk to public and individual safety?” [30] Here the Tribunal has carried out an exercise which involves weighing the considerations militating in favour of and against the Respondent but bearing in mind that all other considerations are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety. [22] In Bannan v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2010] QCAT 634 it was said in relation to examining the historical behaviour of an applicant that: It is well established on the authorities that irresponsible, uncontrolled, antisocial or behaviour constituting a risk to public safety does not have to be limited to the subject matter of, in this case, the renewal application. Such behaviour exhibited in other areas of an Applicant's interaction with those about him or her may determine whether that person is a fit and proper person to hold the licence applied for. [23] I adopt and apply those principles to the facts here. -- 6 of 12 -- 7 Misapplication of the test concerned with risk from Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [24] The Respondent has relied in its submissions on the earlier mentioned authority from NSW of Ward v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2000] NSWADT 28 for the proposition said to be derived from that case that the Tribunal could never be totally satisfied that a person would not pose any risk to public safety if they were given access to a firearm but that in the context of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety if (a person) were given access to a firearm before granting a licence. [25] I have been referred to no Qld authority that has adopted such a proposition. [26] Read in the context of that decision, the statement quoted from Ward in the email to the Applicant of 2 May 2023 and relied on in this matter about being satisfied that there is virtually no risk was concerned with the character of a person who had been convicted of assault and was as follows: 27 One of the objects of the Act, as set out in s 3, is “to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.” In determining whether Mr Ward is a fit and proper person to hold a licence consideration must be given to the circumstances surrounding his conviction for assault. The question for the Tribunal is whether, based on all the evidence, it would have confidence that Mr Ward would not pose a risk to public safety if he had access to firearms. 28 The Tribunal 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 that there is virtually no risk. [27] The context there was the stated purposes in the NSW Act to confirm firearm possession and use as being a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety. The member held in Ward that although within the last eight months the applicant had threatened and assaulted his partner in a way which resulted in swelling of the left thigh, red marks to her left cheek, blood on her lower lip and bruising to the right side of her neck there were factors that suggested that despite this violent conduct, Mr Ward would not pose a risk to public safety if he had a firearms licence. [28] In my view the application of some test that the decision maker in relation to an application for a licence must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk to public safety involves a misconception. Nor is that what subsequent decisions under the NSW legislative scheme have said is the applicable test and have qualified what was said in Ward. [29] In Webb v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2004] NSWADT 110 Montgomery DP, when considering the question of risk to public safety, found that “In determining this issue it is my view that it is necessary to adopt a balanced view of the risk, bearing in mind all the relevant circumstances. Only real and appreciable risk needs to be considered. Minimal, fanciful, or theoretical risk can be excluded from consideration”. [30] In AML v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] NSWADT 5 at [7]–[8] it was held that: -- 7 of 12 -- 8 [the Ward decision itself] had set aside the Commissioner’s decision to revoke a firearms licence because [her Honour] was satisfied that despite the fact that he had assaulted his partner, he was a fit and proper person to have a firearms licence. The ‘virtually no risk’ comment was made in the context of the ‘fit and proper person’ test. It should not be understood as a judicial gloss on the plain meaning of that test, or of the reasonable cause test. The relevant tests are set out in the Firearms Act and comments in cases should not be substituted for those tests. [31] In Martin v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2017] NSWCATAD 97 at [64]–[66] it was held that the question of risk is not to be viewed as requiring an almost impossible burden to be discharged by the applicant in proving a near absolute negative, but rather, for a decision to be reached, in a nuanced way, taking account of all the circumstances, including attitudes, character and prior conduct, with an overriding focus on public safety. What does the Applicant and his doctors say is his current state of mind and mental health [32] In his material filed in this Tribunal the Applicant says that he had supplied references from the president of the Golden Mount Shooters Association of which he had been a financial and participating member since 2022. He also provided a report from Dr John Schoeman his treating psychologist for four years who he said had helped him to overcome his depression and his anxiety and drug dependency from which he had been “clean” for two and a half years. He said that since joining the club he had formed friendships with numerous other members helping him to interact with groups better, joining in shooting competitions, and done training to become a range officer. He has enjoyed clay shooting and target shooting since joining. [33] He said he had noticed a significant improvement in himself being happier and had purpose. He prided himself in being a responsible and safe member of society both with the club and in his personal life. [34] I accept his evidence as to his state of mind and health and that he has not used cannabis for several years. He was not challenged on that evidence. [35] There is a letter from the president of the Golden Mount Shooters Association Inc of 1 May 2024 which says he is a person of good character and his conduct and attitude are impeccable and specifically that the writer has: ...known Chris Doherty for the past several years and as a member of our club the Golden Mount shooters association incorporated for the last four years. As President, Secretary and Senior Range Officer, we have found him to be of good character and his conduct and attitude are impeccable and he is always amongst the first to volunteer for a working bee and he is very keen on learning the role as an Assistant Range Officer and Safety Officer. A firearms licence would allow Chris to compete in competitions as he so desires and also further his role as a Range Officer. [36] The material before the Tribunal includes further medical reports that were not before the Respondent when it made its decision. There is a further report from the Clinical Psychologist Johan Schoeman of 13 June 2024 which identifies the same diagnoses as did the first report but goes on to add: -- 8 of 12 -- 9 Mr Doherty has been very compliant with treatment. He has now completed 26 sessions of therapy which lasted one hour each. He has developed significant positive insights into his behaviour, thoughts and emotions during the course of therapy. Mr Doherty currently denies any thoughts of self-harm or harm to others. I have not noted any significant signs of agitation during the period of treatment. The conditions have been stable for the last 24 months. [37] The material before me includes a medical report from the Applicant’s GP, Dr Muhammad Sattar of 28 August 2023 who treated him as a patient since May 2022 for his various medical conditions. It provides: As you know that he wants to have a firearm license as he wants to compete in gun shooting competitions in the future. I have done an assessment on him and I don’t think there will be any concerns with him holding a firearm license. He mentioned that this gun will be stored in a safe owned by another member of the club in the community and I am happy with this arrangement. He will not have direct access to the safe in which the gun will be stored. I also had a discussion with the Range Officer (Barry Hamilton) at the Golden Mount Shooters Association and he mentioned that he does not have any concerns about having access to a gun or a license for it. He mentioned that Kristopher has been very responsible shooter and he has not observed any issues with him complying the rules of the club or safety of other people at the Range. He also sees a psychologist regularly, and his mental health condition has been stable for the last 12 months at least. He has also completed a letter of support for him. Based on above, I believe that he is medically and mentally competent enough to hold a firearms licence. He is also happy with the current arrangement of storing the gun in Robert Wheeler's guns' safe which him having no direct access to the weapons. Obviously, this can be reviewed again in 1-2 yrs. I am waiting for a phone call from the local Police about him and I believe that should happen in the next 1-2 days, and if there is any change in this will inform you about that straightaway. I have done this letter to support him today as I believe that today is the last day for him to submit his applications with the supporting documents. [38] The statement of opinion from Dr Sattar that he is medically and mentally competent enough to hold a firearms licence is unchallenged and should be given significant weight. [39] The Applicant has undertaken training and there is a certificate of March 2022 that he has attained knowledge of Firearms Legislation, Firearms and Community Safety, demonstrated use of Category A and B Firearms Safety and which competencies form part of the course in Firearm Safety (approved for firearms licensing in Queensland). [40] Self-evidently the primary concern of the Respondent prior to the hearing concerned the failure by the Applicant to obtain a direct response to the email of 2 May 2023 and the specific queries it asked be addressed in a medical report. The Applicant was cross-examined about this and he explained that the psychologist clearly did not understand what was being specifically asked and that he had not seen the psychologist for treatment since the report of 13 June 2024 was obtained. But as that psychologist’s second report of 13 June 2024 makes clear, he had been treated for 26 -- 9 of 12 -- 10 sessions of therapy in the period over some four years since that treatment commenced, and that he had been very compliant with his treatment. The sessions lasted for one hour each, and he had developed significant positive insights into his behaviour, thoughts, and emotions during the course of the therapy. [41] The psychologist’s second report of 13 June 2024 also noted, as had the first report, that he denied thoughts of self-harm or harm to others, and he had not noted any significant signs of agitation during four years of treatment, and that his conditions had been stable for the last twelve months. [42] The Applicant gave evidence, which I accept, that he has recently made arrangements to see another psychologist in relation to his ADHD, but not in respect of the depressive disorder which he has suffered for most of his adult life. He explained the source of that being the death of his grandmother when he was a child and then being badly treated at school. Then several years ago he had two lots of surgery for a serious potentially fatal health issue, which brought about some depressive episodes but for which he sought and obtained treatment and which he says led to his depressive levels being stabilized. [43] He was cross-examined about the extent to which he had had any suicidal thoughts and said, and I accept, that whilst he asked himself “why he was here” he did not become suicidal and he did not act on any of those thoughts but sought help. I accept that evidence as truthful. [44] He also has active employment as a traffic controller, which he finds satisfying, and he has received training to be promoted and received that promotion in his work area where he is mainly based in Emerald but works throughout Queensland. [45] In my view, there is no basis for any significant concern he is likely to cause harm to himself or any other person if granted a licence. Other matters of concern to the Respondent [46] During the course of the hearing, it also became apparent that there were other matters of concern to the Respondent. One was that the psychologist's report, exhibit eleven, did not specifically identify that the psychologist was aware that he was applying for a weapons licence and that therefore, the implications of his state of mental health for his being the holder of a weapons licence were not directly addressed. [47] A second was that in the report of the general practitioner Dr Sattar dated 28 August 2023, whilst identifying he was aware that there was an application for a weapon and that the Applicant wanted to compete in shooting competitions, he seemed to want to caveat his opinion that there were not any concerns with him holding a firearm licence with the notion that this was because any weapon would be stored in a safe owned by another member of the club in the community and that he would not have direct access to the safe in which the gun would be stored. [48] In relation to those issues, the Applicant was cross-examined on the evidence which he gave and which I accept is that he lives on a rural property which was sufficiently large to be suitable for hunting and was 15 kilometres outside of Mount Morgan, and not in a residential area. The property that he lives on is owned by another member of the shooting club which he has been attending and conducting practice shooting under the supervision of other members with licences. -- 10 of 12 -- 11 [49] Indeed, the records show on three of the occasions when he is recorded as having shot at the club the owner of that property oversaw his activities at the shooting club. This suggests that individual is a responsible person who is likely to have oversight over any access to weapons on his property. [50] The Applicant also swore and I accept that his psychologist was indeed made aware that he was seeking to obtain a weapons licence although it is not specifically referenced in either of the two reports from that psychologist. The report is actually addressed to the QPS weapons unit, as I point out elsewhere. [51] On the application for his licence, he identified the address at which weapon storage will occur as being that property where he was residing. There was initially some concern as to the way in which weapons were being stored at that address because they were held within gun safes located within a shipping container. But it emerged that that storage facility had been the subject of a police inspection in April 2025 and was passed as compliant. I am also satisfied that there would be further police oversight in respect of that storage facility, which could address any other concerns. [52] The Respondent acknowledged that there is oversight by the police and the medical profession of persons who have mental health issues of any kind and medical practitioners are required to report under section 151 of the Act by formal notification to the Respondent and which notifications are regularly received by the police, and regularly reviewed by compliance teams. Section 151 of the Act is titled "Disclosure by professional carer of certain information" and allows professional carers, such as doctors and registered nurses, to inform the Commissioner of Police about a person they believe is unsuitable to possess a firearm due to mental or physical conditions or being a danger to themselves or others. This disclosure is protected from civil and criminal proceedings and is not a breach of professional confidentiality. Police QPrime records also raise any issue where a weapons licensee is involved with any kind of incident with the police. That provides a further source of oversight. [53] The Respondent acknowledged there were no concerns in relation to his good character and that he had no relevant criminal or traffic history which ought to be taken into consideration. [54] Ultimately, the Respondent opposed the grant of the licence primarily because it was not entirely comfortable that they had been a full psychiatric or psychological report that addressed the matters directly raised in the email of 2 May 2023. [55] In my view, those matters have been adequately addressed in the later report of Dr Sattar, as supplemented by the Applicant’s own evidence, and what appears in the two reports of the psychologist Schoeman who has treated him for a long period and expressed no concerns about his mental health despite acknowledging that he had suffered a persistent depressive disorder. It is reasonable to infer that any responsible treating psychologist who had any concerns about a patient, particularly, where, as is the case, the report is actually addressed to the Queensland Police Service weapons licencing division and therefore, was known to be used for a purpose associated with weapons licencing, would express any concerns held about the patients receiving a weapons licence. [56] I am cognisant of the importance of the object of the Act which is as stated in s 3(2) to be to prevent the misuse of weapons and as to whether in these circumstances there is any real prospect of him misusing weapons so that his licence should be refused. I -- 11 of 12 -- 12 do not consider that there is. Nor do I consider that permitting him to possess firearms is a real risk to public and individual safety. [57] As to his character generally, I consider him to be a respectable member of the working community where he lives despite the difficulties he has faced in his life. He has genuine and worthy reasons to want to have a weapons licence and is supported by the shooting community at the Golden Mount Shooters Association. Disposition [58] Taking all these factors into account, I determine that Mr Doherty is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence for occupational purposes. I determine that it is not against the public interest for him to hold such a weapons licence or have access to weapons. I do not consider he constitutes a risk to the public going forward. [59] The decision to refuse him a weapons licence should be set aside and I so order. -- 12 of 12 --