CRW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 89

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: CRW v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 89 PARTIES: CRW (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR240-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 12 March 2025 HEARING DATE: 15 January 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Olding ORDERS: The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the applicant's application for a weapons licence is granted. Publication of any material that may identify the applicant is prohibited. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – GENERALLY – where the applicant’s application for a firearms licence was refused – where the applicant was charged and found guilty of offences – where no convictions were recorded – where authorised officer had regard to such convictions and applicant’s failure to disclose the offences – whether such convictions can be taken into account in decision to grant or refuse weapons licence Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s10B Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(1) XPR v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Respondent: M Carey, Queensland Police Service REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] The applicant applied for review of the decision of the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) to refuse his application for a weapons licence. [2] The QPS relied on two grounds for maintaining that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. The first was the applicant’s conviction for two offences, in circumstances where, pursuant to s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (‘PSA Act’), the court had decided not to record either conviction. The second was the applicant’s failure to disclose the convictions. [3] It was therefore clear that determination of the matter would turn on whether it was appropriate to take into account the convictions or the facts and circumstances relating to the convictions in determining whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. Being aware that this legal issue was under consideration in another case in which the President of the Tribunal had presided, I advised the parties at the hearing that I would delay deciding this matter pending resolution of the issue. [4] The issue has now been resolved by the decision of the Tribunal in XPR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 1. In that matter, the Tribunal decided that it is impermissible to take into account a conviction, or the facts and circumstances relating to the conviction, when a court has decided not to record the conviction. Consideration [5] Accordingly, it is not permissible for the applicant’s convictions or the surrounding facts and circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. [6] Nor is it appropriate for the applicant’s failure to disclose the convictions to be taken into account. The very object of not recording a conviction is to permit the convicted person to get on with their life without the need to disclose the conviction: under s 12(3) of the PSA, the conviction is (subject to exceptions that do not apply here) taken not to be a conviction for any purpose. In any case, the applicant gave evidence, which I accept, that the failure to disclose the convictions, as the relevant QPS form called for explicitly even when no conviction was recorded was inadvertent, not deliberate. [7] Aside from matters related to the convictions, the QPS did not submit that there were any other factors indicating the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. [8] In any case, I was impressed by the applicant’s evident maturity, particularly his ready acceptance of the inappropriateness of the conduct leading to his convictions. He did not seek to excuse his conduct and accepted that, even though he was a teenager at the time of the offending, he “should have known better”. [9] Nor did the applicant approach the review with any sense of entitlement. He indicated that his grandfather wanted to pass on his weapons but stated that he would be “happy with whatever you guys decide”. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [10] The applicant stated in evidence that he was “not in a good frame of mind” when the offending occurred. While the offending cannot be taken into account, I am required to consider the applicant’s mental health. Accordingly, this comment was explored at the hearing. The applicant explained that, at the time, he was struggling financially as a first-year apprentice and also experiencing stress in his relationship with his partner. Again, he volunteered that that was “no excuse”. I am satisfied that, based on the evidence, there is no current mental health issue relevant to whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapon’s licence. The QPS did not submit otherwise. [11] Overall, the applicant impressed me as a young man who had learned from earlier immature acts that occurred some four years previously and was unlikely to repeat illegal or other behaviour that would cause concern in relation to the holder of a weapon’s licence. Conclusion and orders [12] Accordingly, I am satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. [13] The decision of the authorised officer must therefore be set aside and the application for a weapons licence granted. Non-publication [14] Under section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may make a non-publication order. As section 12(3) of the PSA prohibits the entering of the convictions in records, it is appropriate to make an order prohibiting publication of any material which may identify the applicant. -- 3 of 3 --