Barlow v Queensland Police Service - Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 85

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Barlow v Queensland Police Service -Weapons Licensing [2024] QCAT 85 PARTIES: DARYL LESLIE BARLOW (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE -WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR206-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 21 February 2024 HEARING DATE: 20 February 2024 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member King-Scott ORDERS: Application allowed. Order that the applicant be permitted to use his Category H license in rural areas for the purpose of occupational feral animal control. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – LICENCES AND RELATED MATTERS – LICENCES – ISSUE OF AND GENERALLY – where applicant seeks review of decision to reject request for condition for a Category H weapon for use of feral animal control – where applicant has held the licence for over 30 years – where applicant occupation is professional feral animal controller – whether applicant has a genuine reason to use Category H weapon – whether requirements can be met in another way using another weapon of another category Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) Weapons Regulations 2016 (Qld) Geary v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCAT 6 Harm v Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 518 Laing v Queensland Police Service [2019] QCAT 276 Queensland Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch) v Salmon [2019] QCATA 177 Salmon v Queensland Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch) [2018] QCAT 202 -- 1 of 4 -- 2 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self Represented Respondent: M Carey REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Applicant holds Category A, B, C, D and H weapon licences. He applied to change the condition relating to the use of his category H weapon from target shooting to include occupational feral animal control. His application was rejected by the respondent on 7 February 2023. [2] By s142(2) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (the Act), a person aggrieved by a decision of an authorised officer may seek to have this Tribunal review a decision. [3] The applicant seeks a review of that decision. [4] The Tribunal has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed. The hearing is a fresh hearing on the merits in order to produce the correct and preferable decision. The Tribunal may confirm or amend the decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own decision or set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker.1 [5] No issue arises in relation to the fitness of the applicant to hold a weapons licence. [6] The respondent opposes the application on the basis that such a licence is not generally issued for the purpose of feral animal control due to the limited range and accuracy of a concealable firearm. There's a general policy to limit the use of category H licences to target shooting and genuine occupation requirements such as security occupations. Regulation 22 (2) Weapons Regulations 2016 (Qld) expressly prohibits the use of a category H licence for recreational purposes. [7] The applicant states that he is a self-employed feral animal controller. He operates under the business name of Daniro Pty Ltd. He has 20 years’ experience in the industry. He has held a weapons licence for 40 years and a category H licence for 30 years. He previously used a concealable firearm in his occupation until 2016 when it was not renewed, presumably, because of a policy change within weapons licencing. [8] In his statement the applicant sets out the difficulties he faces in his occupation in being confined to his category A. B, C and D category weapons. Particularly, in thick scrub when on foot or bike chasing animals that he may have wounded. On occasions a wounded pig or buffalo may turn on him and charge in those circumstances, there may be insufficient time and space to use a rifle. He states that such situations are dangerous and could be avoided by use of a concealable weapon. [9] At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent indicated that it did not wish to cross examine the applicant on his written statement. I take that to mean that the respondent did not take issue with any of the facts contained in the statement. 1 QCAT Act s. 23 -- 2 of 4 -- 3 [10] The respondent’s main complaint was the applicant’s failure to address a number of measures outlined in its First and Final Notice dated 18 July 2021. The authorised officer requested the following: Sufficient proof of a genuine reason for the possession of a weapons licence: 1. Copy of Business Registration Certificate for an animal control business; and 2. Copy of Business Plan; and 3. Copy of Business Public Liability insurance; and 4. Accountant letter - letter from your account and stating you are registered with the Australian Tax Office as a feral animal controller; and 5. Current and signed letters of intent from three properties (e.g. area of intended work) to operate from to support the occupational genuine reason, including payment agreements and full property details (including local government area i.e Shire) 6. For NON-REURAL LAND: • Copy of standard operating procedures (SOPs) stating how you will operate. E.g risk assessment, contacting police, how the firearms are used with protection of property and safety of persons paramount. • Letters of intent from specific area (i.e warehouses, shopping centre) • Current signed permission from Local Council Authority [11] Although the request referred to proof of a genuine reason for “possession of a weapons licence”, obviously in this case what was being sought was proof of a genuine reason for the additional condition for use of a category H weapon for feral animal control. [12] The applicant claimed that he had provided all of the information sought. That is not correct. However, he made attempts to provide some of the information. I should interpolate here that he had engaged solicitors to prepare his case. He tendered at the hearing a certificate of incorporation in relation to the business Daniro Pty Ltd. He said it had already been provided. His accountant’s letter stated that the majority of his income comes from shooting but it did not address the specific request which was whether he was registered as a feral animal controller with the Australian Taxation Office. [13] His application was accompanied by letters from property owners in western Queensland who had engaged his services, but the letters did not contain all the information requested including payment agreements. [14] There was no evidence that the applicant operated his business in Non-Rural land and if he decided to do so he should be required to provide the further information sought. [15] Earlier decisions of the Tribunal concluded that the use of concealable weapons will only be necessary where the terrain or special circumstances make use of a rifle/long- arm weapon impractical or impossible. There are a number of cases where the issues -- 3 of 4 -- 4 of a Category H licence with a condition for use for feral animal control has been considered.2 Each case has to be considered on its merits. [16] I am of the opinion that the applicant here has demonstrated a genuine reason for requesting the addition of the condition to his Category H licence. I consider the applicant to have been a truthful witness. I accept that has had considerable experience in the industry and that for many years, before the condition was removed, he has used a concealable weapon to control feral animals in certain circumstances. [17] In this case I don’t consider it necessary for him to provide the additional information sought, although I am not critical of the respondent for seeking such information at first instance. [18] Therefore, I allow the application and set aside the decision of the respondent and order that he be permitted to use his Category H license in rural areas for the purpose of occupational feral animal control. 2 Harm v Queensland Police Service [2010] QCAT 518, Geary v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCAT 6, Laing v Queensland Police Service [2019] QCAT 276, Salmon v Queensland Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch) [2018] QCAT 202 Queensland Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch) v Salmon [2019] QCATA 177. -- 4 of 4 --