Cade v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch [2025] QCAT 67

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Cade v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing Branch [2025] QCAT 67 PARTIES: JASON CADE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING BRANCH (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR025-21 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 11 February 2025 HEARING DATE: 22 April 2022 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Allen ORDERS: The decision of the Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch made on 11 December 2020 to revoke Jason Cade’s weapons licence number 13029833 is set aside and his weapons licence is reinstated. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – where applicant has a mental health diagnosis and has made threats in regard to mass shootings – whether applicant remains a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence – whether applicants’ weapons licence should be revoked Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 21, s 24 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 10B, s 29 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond & Others (1990) HCA 33 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] 63 CLR 336 CAT v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCATA 43 Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor and Others (1995) 131 ALR 657 Commissioner of Police v Toleafoa [1999] NSWADTAP 9 Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith [1991] 1 VR 63 Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2012] QCAT 378 Smith and Commissioner of Police [2011] WASAT 31 -- 1 of 14 -- 2 TEC v Queensland Police Service [2020] QCAT 294 Trad v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (No 2) [2014] QCAT 578 Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police [2000] NSWADT 28 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: QPS represented by Sergeant Ayscough REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr Cade was the holder of firearms licence number 13029833 which was revoked by the Queensland Police Service-Weapons Licensing Branch (‘QPSWLB’) on 11 December 2020. He was also the owner of a shotgun and a centre fire rifle registered under that licence which were confiscated following the revocation of his firearms licence. He has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision to revoke his firearms licence. Legislation [2] Weapons licensing is governed by the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘W Act’) and the starting point in regard to weapons licensing is the principles and objects of the W Act. The principles of the W Act are that weapons possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety and that is improved by imposing strict controls on the possession of weapons and requiring the safe and secure storage of weapons.1 The object of the W Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons.2 This is achieved by amongst other things establishing an integrated licensing and registration scheme for all firearms. Trad v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch (No 2)3 confirmed the Tribunal, when making decisions in regard to weapons licensing, did so in accordance with the principles and objects of the W Act. Inevitably this involves maintaining strict requirements for the approval and monitoring of licences and possession of firearms. [3] A weapons license may amongst other requirements only be issued to a person who is a fit and proper person to hold a license.4 The determination of whether a person is or is no longer a fit and proper person is in accordance with s 10B of the W Act and the matters that the decisionmaker must consider, among other things, include the mental and physical health of the person;5 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;6 and the public interest.7 In Ward v NSW Commissioner of Police8 it was held that the (NSW) 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 1 W Act s 3(1). 2 W Act s 3(2). 3 [2014] QCAT 578. 4 Ibid s 10(2)(e). 5 Ibid s 10B(1)(a). 6 Ibid s 10B(1)(ca). 7 Ibid s 10B(1)(d). 8 [2000] NSWADT 28. -- 2 of 14 -- 3 Tribunal must be satisfied that there is virtually no risk. In TEC v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch (‘TEC’)9 the Tribunal held that applicants should not take application forms lightly and incorrectly certifying a document is serious. It held that even accepting TEC’s explanation, it still shows a lack of insight into his obligations as a weapons licence holder and reduces the ability of police to assess the risk of misuse. Moreover, it is evidence of recent lack of insight into public safety concerns about possession of weapons and is not consistent with responsible weapons ownership. [4] A person who has been convicted of or discharged from custody on an offence relating to the misuse of drugs, an offence involving the use or threatened use of violence; or an offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon within the period of five years immediately before the date of a revocation notice under s 29 is not a fit and proper person.10 [5] The W Act does not define the factors which must be taken into account when considering the public interest. The decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (‘Smith’)11 and Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd v O’Connor (No 2) (‘Comalco’)12 provide guidance on what constitutes the public interest. Smith held that the public interest includes standards of human conduct tacitly accepted and acknowledged to be in the good order of society and for the wellbeing of its members. In 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. [6] The concept of being a fit and proper person generally was considered in the decision of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond13 at 56 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ: 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 person” 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… the list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question. [7] There is provision to revoke a weapons licence in certain circumstances.14 A licence may be revoked where the decisionmaker is satisfied that, amongst other things, the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.15 9 [2020] QCAT 294. 10 Ibid s 10B(2) and s 10B(5). 11 [1991] 1 VR 63 at 64. 12 (1995) 131 ALR 657. 13 [1990] HCA 33. 14 W Act s 29. 15 W Act s 29(1)(d). -- 3 of 14 -- 4 [8] The question for determination here is whether based on the material before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied whether or not Mr Cade continues to be a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. For Mr Cade to retain his weapons licence the Tribunal must be satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold the relevant licence.16 [9] The Tribunal in TEC followed the decision in Magarry v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch17 applying the decision of Skoien J in Stower v Smart18 and stated in regard to the term “fit and proper person” that it is not defined in the W Act but it does prescribe matters to consider (discussed above in regard to s 10B of the W Act). This means the Tribunal must not consider the offending behaviour in isolation but must specifically consider: (a) The object of the W Act to prevent the misuse of weapons;19 (b) The applicant’s character; (c) Whether the applicant has a real prospect of misusing weapons; and (d) Whether the applicant’s right to possess firearms is a real risk to public and individual safety. [10] In the case of TEC the applicant had a history of mental health issues including psychotic episodes and self-harm and domestic violence. At the time of the application for a weapons licence he had resolved his mental health issues and had a young family and there had been no further incidents of domestic violence. The Tribunal in TEC also had regard to the decision in Ward and noted that the Tribunal must be mindful of more than how an applicant behaves when their situation is stable, but how they respond to situations of conflict or stress.20 Although TEC had professed a level of insight from his situation of stability ‘[for him] to hold a weapons license the community must be confident that he is aware of the impact of his behaviour on others even when he himself is feeling emotional. He must show restraint and exercise self- control’.21 [11] The concern in TEC was the level of risk presented by a change in circumstances and his doctor had noted a possibility of mental unwellness from a change in circumstances. The weight of the evidence was that TEC had not responded well when confronting situations of family conflict or relationship breakdown. This could prove a significant risk to personal safety if he engaged in similar behaviour in the future.22 It was also noted that TEC did not disclose his mental health history and protection order in his application as mentioned above.23 This was said to show a lack of insight into his obligations as a weapons licence holder. It was also evidence of a recent lack of insight into public safety concerns about possession of weapons and is not consistent with responsible weapons ownership.24 Because of these factors the Tribunal was satisfied that the evidence showed a real risk to public and individual 16 Smith and Commissioner of Police [2011] WASAT 31. 17 [2012] QCAT 378. 18 [2007] QDC 4. 19 W Act s 3(2). 20 TEC at [25]. 21 Ibid at [26]. 22 Ibid at [27]. 23 Ibid at [29]. 24 Ibid at [30]. -- 4 of 14 -- 5 safety that outweighed the protective factors supporting TEC’s application.25 Having regard to the principles of the W Act that weapons possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety and the object of the W Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons,26 this meant that his improved behaviour in recent times and otherwise good character were not sufficient to displace the W Act’s paramount concerns and it was not in the public interest for him to hold a firearms licence.27 [12] When reviewing a decision of the QPSWLB the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the decision maker28 and is required to make the correct and preferrable decision based on a fresh hearing of the matter29 with the original material and any new material accepted by the Tribunal. The QPSWLB’s role is to assist the Tribunal to make the correct and preferrable decision including by providing the Tribunal with a copy of the written statement of the reasons for the decision and any document or thing in its possession or control relevant to the decision.30 The Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision; set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and return it to the decisionmaker for reconsideration with directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.31 The relevant standard of proof in the matter is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities32 with neither party having a burden of proof. Mr Cade’s circumstances [13] Mr Cade came to the attention of the QPS after concerns were raised in relation to his mental health and police attended his residence to conduct a welfare check on 8 December 2020. There was information received by the QPS which alleged that he had made multiple threats to commit mass shootings at businesses and Mardi Gras events. [14] A protective services officer from the GCUH told police that while working he was approached by Mr Cade who threatened to shoot him and his family. Mr Cade suspected that he had ‘narked’ on him and that he was responsible for police executing a warrant at his house on 21 November 2019. The informant thought that automatic weapons had been seized and that the matter was before the courts. Police noted that an intel submission had already been generated in relation to this matter. Police confirmed that Mr Cade’s home had been raided by detectives in November 2019 and located lawfully held firearms which appear to be still in his possession. There was nil evidence of unlawful firearms and there were no pending court matters. [15] The informant stated to police that he was of the view that Mr Cade can carry out threats to kill, and that he had made threats to attend AMP and commit a mass shooting because they would not release his superannuation early. Initially he had threatened to kill the receptionist, and he has since stated it will be a mass shooting. The informant stated that Mr Cade had also threatened to attend Centrelink and commit a 25 Ibid at [31]. 26 Ibid at [32]. 27 Ibid at [32]. 28 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 19. 29 Ibid s 20. 30 Ibid s 21. 31 Ibid s 24. 32 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. -- 5 of 14 -- 6 mass shooting; that he is a close friend of Mr Cade and believes he is suffering from PTSD; and that he had worked with Mr Cade in the defence forces. Mr Cade had worked in artillery and has extensive knowledge of explosives and firearms. Mr Cade has no family or support network. Mr Cade stated to him that he would kill any police officer who attempted to seize his firearms and that he has a passionate hatred for police in general. [16] Another anonymous informant told police that Mr Cade had made threats of a mass shooting at Mardi Gras due to his hatred for gay people. [17] Mr Cade states in regard to the police raid in November 2019 that a team of police invaded his home under the guise of a complaint made against him that he was in possession of illegal firearms. The firearm in question according to police was a French machine gun. Upon inspection there was no French machine gun found as he did not own one nor has he ever had possession of any machine gun, French or otherwise. He noted that the police report states an automatic weapon was seized from his property, whilst his other weapons remained in his possession. He states that this is completely inaccurate. Firstly, no weapons were taken from him that day. Secondly, according to legal requirements, had they uncovered an illegal weapon, all weapons in his possession would have been seized, which they were not. Mr Cade stated that during the course of the inspection in 2019 one of the officers found five old Austeyr magazines which were left over from his military days. He did not realise he still had them. He asked the officer if they were able to dispose of them at an army depot which they were happy to do. He notes that the police report states that only ammunition was located – however, no ammunition was located. I note that this report relates to the welfare check on Mr Cade that occurred on 8 December 2020 with recommendations in regard to his weapons licence being suspended/revoked. He provided proof being a copy of the Field Property Receipt from 23 November 2019 that shows the only thing taken was the Austeyr magazines. [18] Having regard to the incident in 2017 described below and the fresh information it was determined the welfare check on Mr Cade would be conducted on 8 December 2020. The officer who conducted the welfare check stated in a report forwarded to weapons licensing supporting a suspension/revocation of Mr Cade’s licence that Mr Cade repeatedly described police as “cunts” and appeared to have a deep mistrust of police. He appeared very anxious and he had heavy breathing, and he kept stepping away and clutching his fists; he was looking out the window as though he was expecting more police. Overall, he appeared very nervous and not of sound mind. In his view he has poor mental health and an unsupportive living environment. The officer reported that it was extremely difficult to reason with him and build rapport. He was of the belief that Mr Cade does have the capability to carry out his threats: he has access to firearms, he has a military background, and the information about threats to kill comes from multiple sources. Mr Cade was asked if he would surrender his firearms and he declined. [19] An addendum to the report notes that the threats in respect of AMP appear to have been made in May 2020. It notes that Mr Cade is having fortnightly appointments with a private psychologist and his condition is described as stable and that there have been no threats since the incident. He has a current DVA case worker supporting him with his GP and DVA counselling. [20] Mr Cade states in regard to the welfare check on 8 December 2020 that there was a surprise weapons inspection in December 2020. He says the first officer informed him -- 6 of 14 -- 7 they were there to conduct a weapons inspection, but later changed this to a welfare check. They did not record any details in regard to his weapons. He says before leaving the second officer denied that this was a welfare check, returning to the original statement that it was a surprise weapons check. He says he was not provided with any paperwork to confirm the purpose of the visit, nor any real information which they (the police) are required to provide. He states that during all inspections, his weapons were stored in accordance with Queensland firearms laws – locked away safely, unloaded. However this adherence to the rules was never mentioned in the report. [21] Mr Cade also attended the Runaway Bay police station on 9 December 2020 where he disclosed that he experienced high levels of anxiety and that this is heightened in police presence due to PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). On 11 December 2020 police attended at Mr Cade’s residential address and seized his weapon. Police found Mr Cade made threats out of frustration and has no intention of hurting or killing anyone as he does not see AMP or Centrelink employees as enemies. Mr Cade stated he is receiving counselling through Veteran’s Affairs for his anxiety and panic attacks. [22] A formal assessment of the threat posed by Mr Cade in particular in regard to mass shootings was made at his home on 12 December 2020. In the evaluation report prepared by the threat assessment team Mr Cade was described as being initially defensive and would not let police into his home. After being reassured he was observed to be nervous and frustrated but not violent. He stated he sees a doctor every week as he suffers severe anxiety and panic attacks. He stated he is currently prescribed Valium and Effexor-XR but does not like taking them. He stated he was frustrated with the process of having his superannuation released early. He stated that the comment “to kill all the little bastards” (apparently referring to AMP employees) was a figure of speech. He stated that while he had the capacity to kill due to his military training he does not have it in him to actually kill someone. Mr Cade said he never deployed into a combat role and he does not see AMP or Centrelink employees as enemies. He does not communicate with others who have issues with AMP or Centrelink, stating he does not even have a computer. He stated he does not agree with people using violence to convert people or to push a political agenda. [23] Mr Cade advised that whilst he distrusts police in general, it is “corrupt police” that he specifically hates; he stated he has never been arrested in the past. Mr Cade stated that he considered himself Christian prior to the death of his mother. He specifically stated that he has no issues with members of any other religion so long as they are not pushing their beliefs onto others. Mr Cade condemned the actions of Brenton Tarrant in New Zealand, saying that the killing of civilians was wrong and against the principles of a soldier. Mr Cade stated emphatically that he had no intention of harming anyone and that he made the threats out of frustration after three years of trying to access his superannuation, and he is currently receiving counselling for his mental health issues from Veterans Affairs. No other weapons were observed inside the address and he showed nil signs of radicalisation. [24] The evaluation of Mr Cade notes the police involvement in 2017 when Mr Cade displayed suicidal ideation, and the 2019 search of his address following intel reports that he had possession of illegal firearms, threats to police and mass shootings. It notes that the search in 2019 only located a number of ADF cartridges, and that Mr Cade has military history with service in the reserves commencing 1992, and full time in 1999 before returning to the reserves in 2002. He was inactive from 2009 before -- 7 of 14 -- 8 voluntary discharge in 2015. Medical history collateral indicates that Mr Cade suffers from extreme anxiety, and this manifests itself when he is in public places. His anxiety is significantly triggered by seeing or interacting with police. He was the primary carer for his mother for 15 years up until her death in 2017, with Mr Cade suffering residual trauma from witnessing her die in hospital. He has support structures in place, including his GP, as well as a DVA case officer. [25] Mr Cade was subject of assessment using a structured evidence-based assessment tool (Grievance Risk Aide-Memoire – ‘GRAM’). This tool uses combined Police and Mental Health (information) holdings to generate a Concern Level, which represents the current level of threat posed, based on the person’s behaviour, motivations, mental state, past behaviours and the presence of specific factors related to risk. Mr Cade was assessed with a low level of concern. His current situation has been described as stable. There have been no further threats made since May 2020. He has support for his anxiety through his GP and DVA counselling, and he is also linked to other appropriate support and resources by his DVA case officer. [26] Mr Cade states in regard to the visit from the counter-terrorism unit that they inspected his premises and spoke with him at length and he noted the assessment of his level of concern was low. [27] Prior to the issues in 2019 and 2020 Mr Cade’s weapons licence had been suspended33 in July 2017 as a result of him being named the subject of an Emergency Examination Authority (‘EEA’) after disclosing thoughts of committing suicide by COP which resulted in his weapons being seized. The police report noted that police had received a call from a business of which Mr Cade was a customer, stating that he had disclosed he was threatening to commit suicide and that he wished to suicide by police and that he had access to weapons. Police units attended at his address and Mr Cade was located and engaged by police. He was restrained and his weapons were confiscated. He was transported to hospital for the purpose of an EEA. The report states that “during the incident Mr Cade stated he wished for police to pull a glock and shoot him” and he was very uncooperative at times and had to be subsequently restrained twice. Mr Cade stated to police he was the sole carer of his now deceased mother for whom he cared for 17 years. He is an ex-serving military personnel and had possession of numerous uniforms and camo gear. Night vision goggles which he described as being of toy quality were also located at the address, as well as numerous ornamental swords either katana or samurai style were located at the address. The licence was subsequently reinstated after medical clearance was provided. [28] Mr Cade stated that the night vision goggles were purchased from Toys-R-Us and are a toy. They were purchased during his time as a cadet instructor, in which he used them as a training tool with the students and that they are in no way tactical or useable in an aggressive or violent manner. He said that it should be noted that possession of night-vision devices, which can be legally obtained from a wide variety of retailers, and owned without licensing should not warrant scrutiny from police. The army camouflage clothing is left over from his time in the military: having spent a large portion of his life in the military, he has accumulated many leftover military paraphernalia. These are all leftovers and mementos from his time in the military, they serve no purpose, nor are they used for any other purpose than nostalgia. 33 W Act s 28. -- 8 of 14 -- 9 [29] Mr Cade states in his material that the 2017 incident occurred one week after his mother’s passing. At the hearing Mr Cade stated that he was speaking to Simplicity Funerals in regard to his mother’s funeral when he made the remarks about suicide. He stated that he was upset and crying and they said they were sending the police out for grief counselling. He said when police arrived en masse with weapons and charges he was reluctant to follow directions because he had done nothing wrong. He stated in his material regarding the police claim that his claim, that he told a police officer “I wish a cop had pulled his glock out and shot me”, was inaccurate. The police officer said to him, “do you want to get tasered” and he replied “You might wanna get the right tool for the job, fucking idiot,” because the officer had his glock drawn, not a taser. He says he was fearful for his life. Mr Cade confirmed at the hearing that he was released from hospital the next day after the emergency examination assessment. [30] Mr Cade in his statement in support of his application noted that the Police held his weapons licence in question due to his mental health and in particular, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that this is a valid reason for revoking his weapons licence. However, according to Dr Margarita Mallari MD FRACGP he does not have PTSD. He has been thoroughly assessed, and medical experts have determined that his condition is a form of anxiety – not PTSD. He provided a letter from Dr Mallari. Dr Mallari states that Mr Cade has been her regular patient at the medical centre since May 2017 and she has known him through his mother since July 2016. She states that over the time she has known Mr Cade he has presented himself as a reliable person, for e.g. good compliance with plan of management and follow up. [31] Jann Simons a nurse at the clinic also provided a reference. She states that she has known Mr Cade for 14 years both on a personal level and in her role as a registered nurse. She first met him when her son joined the local army cadets in 2007 and then two years later when his mother and himself were patients at the medical centre where she worked. She has always found him to be friendly, approachable, down to earth and outgoing. She has never seen him display any anger or speak ill of anyone. In the time she has known him he has never been aggressive or abusive. He is currently experiencing grief and anxiety as the result of the loss of his mother a few years back. She does not believe that Mr Cade is a threat to himself or anyone else. He is just frustrated with how things are going for him currently. [32] Mr Cade provided a letter from his treating psychiatrist, Dr Rawlley, dated 5 January 2021. He stated that Mr Cade has been struggling with severe Generalised Anxiety and Panic Attacks, since his mother passed away after a prolonged illness, a few years ago. He stated that Mr Cade had a very close relationship with his mother, in the absence of whom he did not feel supported by anyone, triggering anxiety and panic attacks. Despite the affective disorder and ongoing stress with his insurance, superannuation and tax refunds, Dr Rawlley did not believe Mr Cade is a risk of homicide by shooting people in a mass gathering. In the last four years of treating Mr Cade Dr Rawlley did not believe he has ever expressed an intent or plan to harm or kill other people because of his psychological or social situation. Dr Rawlley noted that Mr Cade had been in possession of firearms before the licensing of firearms started in Australia and so far, there has been no history of him misusing the firearms. Dr Rawlley believed that in view of low risk of self-harm or harm to others, he should be allowed to keep the firearms and his firearm licence be reinstated. [33] Mr Cade notes that Dr Rawlley confirms that Mr Cade is of sound mind, and that he does not pose a threat to anyone, especially via mass shootings. He notes that Dr -- 9 of 14 -- 10 Rawlley concludes that he has never threatened mass shootings on anybody and he believes he should be allowed to keep his firearms. Mr Cade confirmed at the hearing that he did not take the medications he was prescribed and that he told Dr Rawlley that they made him feel like a zombie and he no longer prescribed it. [34] Lorna Kelly a neighbour of Mr Cade provided a letter of support. She stated she had known him for over 10 years and that since his mother passed away, he had been naturally grieving her loss. She described him as a quiet and private person and that he has a much-loved pet cat for company. There was also a letter of support from Ann Rankin who had known him and his mother since the early 1990s. She said she knew him to have strong values and a good sense of right and wrong. She stated that he was passionate about fair play and he is loyal to his true friends and that she considers him to have good character. She notes that even though she moved interstate five and a half years ago they have stayed in close contact and she feels sure his attitudes are the same. [35] I note that Mr Cade did not make any of the people who provided written evidence in support of him available for cross-examination and that this goes to the weight which the Tribunal is able to put on the evidence. The QPSWLB also asked Mr Cade to provide a further report form Dr Rawlley with more detailed information which he did not provide. [36] Mr Cade states that there have been ongoing issues with regard to AMP; however, from 2017, he has had no contact with AMP, as the matter was deferred to an ASIC ombudsman. This issue was concluded around April 2020 with the intervention of the ombudsman. Mr Cade states he has made no threats to shoot any employee at AMP, nor has he claimed, or wished, to conduct a mass shooting at AMP. That any ill-spoken words with regard to AMP were out of frustration – not as a threat, nor directed at AMP – or even said to the employees of AMP. When cross-examined at the hearing Mr Cade stated that he had not made threats to shoot anyone. He admitted to describing the actions of AMP as “blue collared thievery”. He said they had gone through all his accounts and diddled him out of money. He said there was a difference between saying thieving mongrels and threatening to shoot. At the hearing Mr Cade described the allegations made against him as outrageous with no evidence to prove them. He noted that there were no charges laid in regard to the allegations made against him. [37] Mr Cade states the claim that he has threatened to cause a mass shooting at Centrelink is false. Centrelink has been very helpful to him throughout this ordeal and he has expressed this opinion to them openly. He has frequently been offered invaluable assistance by the staff members at his local Centrelink and has told them how he appreciates their help. He states in regard to a claim of a mass shooting at the Mardi Gras that statement is false. He has several openly homosexual friends and wishes no one in their community ill will. He states he has never claimed to want to cause a mass shooting anywhere, or against anyone. He does not condone that type of violence, nor does he wish to harm anybody. There is absolutely no basis for any of these claims, nor is there any truth in them. [38] Mr Cade notes that another claim in the police report is that his aggressive behaviour is indicative of a mentally unstable person. However, most of the noted aggressive behaviour is actually symptomatic of his anxiety. One such example in the report is that he was clenching his fists at the police. Muscle tension, particularly hand rubbing and hand fiddling, is a symptom of his anxiety disorder and in no way a show of -- 10 of 14 -- 11 aggression. Furthermore, this hand rubbing and hand fiddling is a coping mechanism that actually lowers his anxiety. He said at the hearing to control his anxiety he would return to a quiet room and collect himself. Mr Cade also confirmed that while he had previously been noncompliant with the police he would now comply. [39] Mr Cade submits that the criteria for which his weapons should be removed are false, he has provided proof that his mental state is stable and not degenerating, along with proof that he does not suffer from PTSD, but from anxiety, which poses no threat to himself or those around him. He submits his behaviour has not been threatening to those around him or aggressive. In fact, many of the statements made against him have been completely falsified: he has never threatened to conduct mass shootings on anyone, nor has he threatened violence. Mr Cade notes that the police report after the welfare check on 8 December 2020 stated that his weapons would be removed until he has proven his mental capacity to have them. He submits, based on the statements of psychiatrists, doctors and the police counter terrorism unit, and fellow citizens found in his evidence statement, he has met this requirement, and therefore should have his property returned. He also noted that the behaviour of the police department regarding himself and his weapons has been unprofessional, and he has felt personally victimised throughout the entire ordeal. He states that he has done nothing to warrant the cruel victimisation that has befallen him. He does not think it is right or fair that his property can be stripped from him when he has done nothing wrong. [40] In his submissions at the hearing Mr Cade confirmed that he has made no threats to any individual at AMP, Centrelink, Mardi Gras, that it stopped in 2017 in regard to AMP when he got the ombudsman involved. He stated that there was no other evidence but hearsay; that he has always been a lawful person; that he understands that gun ownership is a privilege not a right but he has done nothing wrong; and that he wishes to clear his name from these anonymous allegations. He notes that the person saying he has PTSD despite his doctors saying otherwise is a security guard, that “kill the little bastards” in regard to AMP is a figure of speech, and that just because someone is in possession of firearms legally does not mean they will kill someone. He said he does not desire to cause harm to anybody, and that in the army he did not want to harm anyone and was lucky he did not have to cause harm. He stated that the only evidence the QPSWLB had was things said and now they are saying he is not fit and proper. He said he had done nothing wrong with firearms, that he has had firearms since he was nine years old and was brought up with them. [41] The QPSWLB in its submissions at the hearing noted that the events since 2017 show a lack of impulse control and self-awareness on the part of Mr Cade. They show that he was subject to concerns from multiple sources who were credible. Having regard to the decision in TEC in determining level of risk, they determine there is a higher risk than when he is stable. It is necessary to look at requirements when ill, and community must be confident in his condition. There had been no update from Dr Rawlley since February 2021 and on past three occasions there had been police contact with him; he has been non-compliant and difficult to engage with. They noted that Mr Cade minimises his past, lacks insight into the dangers including in 2017; that he has not used his weapons for 17 years and he does not need them to make a living. They noted what he has done in the past and his urges to react in similar ways, and determined it was not in the interest of the public for him to hold a weapons licence, looking at principles of the W Act, and that it is the correct and preferrable decision to confirm the revocation of Mr Cade’s weapons licence. -- 11 of 14 -- 12 [42] Mr Cade submitted in reply that the senior constable was on a ‘witch hunt’ in regard to PTSD. He has done nothing wrong and has been called not a fit and proper person. He submitted that he has never been charged. He says he wants his licence because he wants his rifle and that he was unable to use weapons when he was looking after his mother. His trigger in 2017 was that he was very unwell due to his mother’s passing, and that has passed, and to go back to it is demonstrative of insight. His licence and all weapons were returned. The current allegations are from a certain person and the multiple sources stem back to him. Mr Cade questioned some of the police. In regard to his reluctance to comply he has complied with everything. He says that not everything that comes out of a police officer’s mouth is a lawful direction. He says he is reluctant to let them into his home, and that there was no aggressive behaviour towards others. He has never physically assaulted anyone and he tries to avoid confrontation. He has never done these things: he started with Dr Rawlley in 2017 when he needed an opinion to try to get his licence back and the doctor gave him grief counselling. Police in 2020 came and took his weapons. He gave Dr Rawlley all of the material and he used it to formulate his report. Mr Cade stated his firearms use has always been for sports and recreation and that he does not want to harm anyone, but the police want to disarm him. He said that the Centrelink ladies had always been a great help and that the only thing remotely factual is the grievance with the AMP and that he used legal means in regard to the AMP. He says he can be as salty as he likes until the day he dies and others may shrug it off, that losing $45,000 stung him, and that he has a right to voice frustration and that it does not mean he wants to carry it out. He stated that he does not want to kill anyone and that his doctors say he does not have PTSD or a mental decline. Discussion [43] Mr Cade has a weapons licence and is the owner of two guns which he is licenced to use for sports and recreation. He has been a member of the armed forces and spent 15 years as the carer of his late mother. Mr Cade’s right to hold a weapons licence is in question because of information that led the QPS to recommend that his weapons licence be revoked following a welfare check on 8 December 2020. Mr Cade had had his weapons licence suspended in 2017 as a result of him being admitted to hospital for an EEA. I note that at the time of the 2017 incident Mr Cade’s mother had just died and he had been talking to the funeral directors and had said he wanted to suicide by cop. He says the person he spoke to indicated that she would send the police out to counsel him. From the material it appears that this interaction with the police was traumatising for him. He was released from hospital the next day following an examination by Dr Rawlley and his licence suspension was lifted. Dr Rawlley diagnosed Mr Cade with severe generalised anxiety and panic attacks and has been treating Mr Cade since 2017. In the material before the Tribunal there was some suggestion from a person who knew Mr Cade and alleged that he had been threatened by him that Mr Cade may have PTSD. The medical evidence is otherwise and it will be preferred. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Cade has a diagnosis of generalised anxiety and panic attacks. This manifests in him being highly anxious and displaying heightened behaviour in particular when there is police involvement. It is clear though that he has not done anything in regard to his weapons which could be seen as a threat to others and has left them securely in their locker. [44] An important issue in TEC was that while he was stable now he had an issue of domestic violence and assault and may be prone to further similar acts under certain circumstances. There is no evidence that Mr Cade would have a similar incident to -- 12 of 14 -- 13 the one that occurred in 2017. Dr Rawlley’s opinion was that he was low risk and that was not qualified by him. [45] He next came to the attention of the police in November 2019 when he was raided by the police following a report that he had a French machine gun illegally in his possession. The police did not find any illegal weapons only some empty magazines from Australian machine guns left over from his army days which he asked the police to dispose of. Later police reports indicated that ammunition had been confiscated by the police. Mr Cade provided proof that was not the case in the form of a “field property receipt” confirming that it was five military magazines (Austeyr). Mr Cade made the point that his weapons were properly stored at the time of the police raid in 2019 and also in 2017. [46] In July 2020 the police received disclosures from a security guard who stated that he was a friend of Mr Cade and had been in the military with him. He alleged that Mr Cade had threatened him and his family with shooting and had threatened mass shooting against AMP and Centrelink. This person was concerned that Mr Cade blamed him for the police raid in November 2019 and believed that the matter was coming before the courts. I note that there was no weapons matter before the courts and it was not canvassed at the hearing whether Mr Cade had indicated this to the person concerned. He also disclosed that Mr Cade had a diagnosis of PTSD as mentioned above. It was his opinion that with Mr Cade’s military training and mental health issues that he was capable of carrying out his threats. He stated that he did not want to have Mr Cade prosecuted. There was a further report from another source that that Mr Cade wanted to commit a mass shooting at the gay Mardi Gras as he hated gay people. [47] On 8 December 2020 a welfare check was performed at Mr Cade’s residence. It was noted that Mr Cade was not cooperative was nervous and the police officer who undertook the welfare check having regard to the previous disclosures and Mr Cade’s presentation during the welfare check formed the view that Mr Cade’s weapons licence should be revoked. He described Mr Cade as not being of sound mind and having poor mental health. He noted that Mr Cade hates police. [48] Mr Cade was visited by the anti-terrorism squad on 12 December 2020 to assess the risk of Mr Cade carrying out a mass shooting. The police officers were aware of Mr Cade’s history interviewed him and performed a screening tool known as GRAM on him which used details in regard to his mental health and police information to ascertain the level of risk he posed. Mr Cade was found to present a low level of risk. In particular Mr Cade gave appropriate responses in regard to other mass shootings and it was clear that he was not likely to be radicalised. This was also the view of Mr Cade’s psychiatrist Dr Rawlley. [49] At the hearing and in his material Mr Cade minimised the threats which he had made describing the remarks “kill the little bastards” which he confirmed to the terrorism squad as him venting about his issues with AMP in regard to superannuation. He made it clear that he took an appropriate path to dealing with those issues by getting the superannuation ombudsman involved. He denied he had made any threats in regard to the Mardi Gras and stated that he had gay friends. He also denied that he had made threats in regard to Centrelink as he had found that Department helpful. [50] In terms of considering whether Mr Cade is a fit and proper person in accordance with s 10B of the W Act it is clear that he has a mental health issue being severe anxiety -- 13 of 14 -- 14 and panic attacks. His doctor and the terrorist assessment team were of the view that he was low risk and that was taking account of his diagnosis. The fact that he has had negative interactions with police raiding his property and has been showing signs of distress as a result of mental health condition, but has left his weapons in their locker, tends to support that. There is criminal intelligence that indicates that Mr Cade has made threats to hold mass shootings in regard to various organisations and events including the AMP, Centrelink and the Mardi Gras. He denied that he had made threats of mass shootings as mentioned above but did accept that he had made remarks about AMP as result of the problems he had with them. He appeared at the hearing to consider that it was legitimate for him to voice such threats in regard to AMP. The fact that he has access to weapons means that he should be vigilant to ensure to ensure that he does not voice such threats because it is likely that he will end up in the same situation with his weapons licence being called into question. [51] The principles and objects of the W Act make it clear that the need to ensure public safety is paramount and for that reason there are strict controls on the possession of weapons. Having regard to TEC Mr Cade has held his weapons lawfully for many years and despite some negative interactions with police he has shown no overt signs of misusing them, in particular leaving them in their storage cabinet while being raided by the police. There are those in the community and medical profession who describe him in a positive light though they were not able to cross-examined. There are the negative reports from the person who made the allegations of mass shootings and personal threats. These, though, were not supported by Dr Rawlley, who has been his psychiatrist for five years, or the terrorist assessment team who said he was low risk. There is also the issue of Mr Cade’s attitude: he was described as having a deep mistrust of police and hating police. Mr Cade qualified this by saying he hates corrupt police. While his presentation when he has had interactions with police has been marked with evidence of his severe anxiety he has always after time cooperated as necessary. The one time he did not cooperate was in 2017 when he was in deep mourning and had expected help from the police but was overwhelmed when his house was raided at a time when he thought he was going to receive counselling. The fact that he thought the police would be providing counselling indicates the mental state he was in. It is clear though that his mental state resolved quickly as he was released from hospital the next day. [52] Overall based on the material and Mr Cade’s presentation at the hearing I consider that he is someone who while he may make some threats in regard to people he is having major issues with he has shown that he always ensures that the weapons he holds under his license do not constitute a threat to public safety. I do not therefore consider that Mr Cade has a real prospect of misusing his weapons nor that his right to possess weapons is a real risk to public and individual safety. I am therefore satisfied based on the above analysis that Mr Cade is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. There is then no ground for his weapons licence to be revoked. [53] The decision of the Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch made on 11 December 2020 to revoke Jason Cade’s weapons licence number 13029833 is set aside and his weapons licence is reinstated. -- 14 of 14 --