DTR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 30

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: DTR v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2025] QCAT 30 PARTIES: DTR (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR112-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 17 January 2025 HEARING DATE: 11 March 2024 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Olding ORDERS: The decision under review is confirmed. 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– FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – GENERALLY – where the applicant’s firearms licence was revoked – where the applicant, after consuming excessive amount of alcohol expressed suicidal ideation – where psychiatric report supported return of licence – where Tribunal not satisfied there is virtually no risk to the public, including the applicant Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(1) APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Respondent: Self-represented M Carey, Queensland Police Service -- 1 of 4 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION Background [1] The applicant applied for review of the decision of the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) to revoke his weapons licence. [2] That decision followed an incident at the applicant’s residence where he expressed suicidal ideation. The applicant had been consuming alcohol and got into an argument with his wife. The argument escalated, voices were raised and the applicant said things which he says, and I accept, he now regrets. [3] When the applicant’s wife said she would leave, the applicant said: “if you’re going to leave no one will have any of this (the house) I will burn it to the ground and you will find me hanging from a tree”. [4] The applicant’s wife left and took their children to her parents’ house. Out of concern for her husband and his mental health, the applicant’s wife and her father decided to ask the police to conduct a welfare check. That led to the police interviewing the applicant’s wife and, the next day, the applicant. As a result of those inquiries, the police formed the view that it was not appropriate for the applicant to hold a weapons licence. The evidence in the review [5] Both the applicant and the applicant’s wife gave evidence. They both impressed me as genuine people who did their best to provide truthful evidence. It was clear they had experienced some stress in their relationship, which at least from the perspective of the applicant’s wife, primarily related to the applicant’s drinking. Nevertheless, the relationship has been an enduring one: they met at school, at the time of the hearing had been married for 19 years and have two children. [6] They explained that they had been in a particularly stressful period arising out of the demands of raising young children and stressful employment. They identified communication issues and had been working to address these including by employment changes. The applicant showed insight when he indicated that he now makes an effort to listen more and stop getting angry. [7] The applicant’s wife had advised the police that the applicant was a good father and husband when he was not drinking and had not been violent. The police had no record of any domestic violence. She was, though, concerned that, although not diagnosed as such, the applicant appeared to be depressed. She was concerned for his welfare. [8] The applicant provided a report from a psychiatrist who had met with the applicant on 31 October and 14 November 2023. The report included that: I could find no suggestion of any diagnosable illness historically or at the interview. [The applicant’s] alcohol intake is probably at the upper limit at what I would consider safe but his angry response (during the incident in question) was the only example I could elicit of alcohol-influenced problem behaviour. I don’t think there is any ongoing evidence that he could not be considered a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. I don’t think he needs any treatment (pharmacological or otherwise). -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [9] The applicant’s general practitioner also provided a short opinion that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence, referencing the psychiatrist’s report. [10] The applicant was questioned about his alcohol consumption at the hearing. He said that he does not drink excessively which would be inconsistent with his practice of working out regularly at the PCYC. He did not accept that he was drinking excessively at the time of the incident referenced above but did acknowledge that what he consumed was “enough to say wrong things”. [11] The applicant had not spoken to his GP about alcohol consumption. [12] However, the applicant said he had been engaging with his general practitioner regarding his health, and he had lost weight, reduced his blood pressure and had been working out. This was broadly confirmed by his wife’s evidence which included that the applicant’s alcohol consumption had reduced and his conduct was more consistent. [13] Nevertheless, the applicant’s evidence was that he would often consume four to five standard drinks of an afternoon, but also go two or three days at a time without any alcohol consumption. [14] The applicant has no criminal record. Consideration [15] I have given much anxious consideration to this matter. [16] As I have already indicated, the applicant and his wife impressed me as genuine people who had taken stock of their lives and, commendably, had taken steps to improve their communication and reduce the stressors in their lives. From the evidence they gave, they clearly have a supportive relationship which, although not without its stresses, has been free from violence. The applicant’s suicidal statement seems to have been a one-off and made in the course of a heated argument fuelled by sufficient alcohol consumption that the applicant acknowledged had him saying things he would not otherwise have said. [17] There is also the relatively unequivocal medical opinion that there is no evidence of ongoing conduct that would cause concern in relation to the holder of a weapon’s licence. [18] In the end, though, the matter comes down to this: The Tribunal is asked to put a firearm in the hands of a person who, little more than two years ago, expressly threatened to suicide, on the basis of the evidence of the applicant and his wife, a GP and a psychiatrist who the applicant visited on two occasions. [19] I accept that the applicant genuinely believes he would not have followed through on this threat. I also accept that the applicant and his wife both genuinely believe that, having regard to the changes they have implemented, the applicant is not at risk of causing harm to himself or others. [20] However, having regard to the relatively short period since the incident, the applicant’s continued level of alcohol consumption and the minimal medical attention to mental health issues, I am not prepared, at this time, to take the risk that the applicant will not seek to harm himself. -- 3 of 4 -- 4 [21] This does not mean the applicant will never be able to obtain a weapons licence again. My understanding is that the applicant may re-apply for a licence once three years have passed since the revocation of his licence. By then, with a further period of time having passed since the incident, no other concerning conduct and an updated medical report, the QPS may form the view that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. But that is a matter for the QPS (subject to review, if sought, by this Tribunal). Conclusion and orders [22] For the reasons I have given, I am not presently satisfied the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a weapons licence. It follows that the decision to revoke his weapons licence must be confirmed. Non-publication [23] Under section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may make a non-publication order. Although principles of open justice generally weigh against non-publication orders, in the particular circumstances of this case I am satisfied to publish details allowing the applicant to be identified would pose a potential risk to his mental health. For that reason, a non-publication order will be made. -- 4 of 4 --