Cartwright v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 168

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Cartwright v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2023] QCAT 168 PARTIES: NEVIN JOHN CARTWRIGHT (applicant) V QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR055-22 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 17 May 2023 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Cranwell ORDERS: The application for review is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – APPLICATION FOR LICENCE OR PERMIT – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant sought review of suspension of firearms licence – where firearms licence subsequently revoked – whether application for review lacking in substance – where applicant holds sovereign citizen beliefs – whether applicant a fit and proper person Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 47 Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B, s 28 Bradley v The Queen [2021] QCA 101 REPRESENTATION & APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION On 9 February 2022, the Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘QPS’) decided to suspend Mr Cartwright’s firearms licence. On 16 February 2022, Mr Cartwright sought a review of the suspension decision. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 On 25 May 2022, the QPS decided to revoke Mr Cartwright’s firearms licence. As Mr Cartwright’s firearms licence has since been revoked, the application for review of the suspension decision is lacking in substance for the purposes of section 47(1)(b) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). Even if Mr Cartwright was successful in having the suspension overturned, his firearms licence would not be returned to him due to the subsequent revocation. Accordingly, the application for review will be dismissed. Additional observations Notwithstanding that the application for review is lacking in substance, there may be some utility in addressing the grounds upon which Mr Cartwright’s firearms licence was suspended. The grounds of suspension were set out in the decision under review as follows: Correspondence under your hand has been received indicating that you hold Sovereign Citizen beliefs relating to the laws in force in Queensland specific to their non-applicability to yourself. On the 28 December 2021 I note you attended the Rockhampton Police Station front counter asking for their [officer-in-charge] to be arrested. On the 30 January 2022 I note you attended the Rockhampton Police Station to demonstrate your anti- (sic) stance on COVID-19. The QPS concluded that Mr Cartwright may not be a fit and proper person to hold a firearms licence, such that his licence should be suspended. Section 28(1)(b) of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Weapons Act’) gives an authorised officer the power to suspend a firearms licence if he or she “considers, on reasonable grounds, that the licensee may no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a licence”. Section 10B of the Weapons Act relevantly provides: (1) In deciding or considering, for the issue, renewal, suspension or revocation of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, an authorised officer must consider, among other things— (a) the mental and physical fitness of the person; and (b) whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and (c) whether the person has stated anything in or in connection with an application for a licence, or an application for the renewal of a licence, the person knows is false or misleading in a material particular; and (ca) whether there is any criminal intelligence or other information to which the authorised officer has access that indicates— (i) the person is a risk to public safety; or (ii) that authorising the person to possess a weapon would be contrary to the public interest; and (d) the public interest. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 Mr Cartwright has filed voluminous material in these proceedings. It is sufficient for the purposes of these reasons to include a brief extract from a submission filed on 4 June 2022: The statement that I hold sovereign citizen beliefs is indeed an oxy moronic statement as I do not hold them as Queen Elizabeth the second is the sovereign and holder of all lands in The Commonwealth of Australia being that of we the people and I am just a mere share holder of the true Commonwealth of Australia. If you care to read international law it refers to a sovereign and a national never is the citizen-ship (Corpus Juris) of the trust territory under the Hague and UN charter treaties, being that of the Certificate of Birth Registration being a promissory note to fraudulently turn a child into property of the Reserve Bank and bringing that man or women (sic) into corpus juris. In Bradley v The Queen [2021] QCA 101 at [2], President Sofronoff described this style of submission as “a confused hodgepodge of confusion”. I am unable to engage with such submissions from Mr Cartwright on the basis that they are incomprehensible. What I am more readily able to engage with is Mr Cartwright’s email to the Police Minister dated 21 January 2022, in which he stated: I Nevin-John ask that you issue me with all classes of weapons ownership … I also pray for an open and concealed carry permit as the last act with royal accent (sic) was the weapons act of 1973 requiring no licencing for men and women not persons. I Nevin-John ask that a permanent permit to buy be issued with my card that you re-issue as the acts and statutes apply only to legal fictions and as I have left the necromancy. Mr Cartwright has evinced a discernible view that the Weapons Act does not apply to him. I do not consider that it is in the public interest to issue a firearms licence to persons who do not consider themselves bound by the Weapons Act, and therefore consider that Mr Cartwright is not a fit and proper person for the purposes of section 10B(1)(d) to hold a firearms licence. Had I not otherwise dismissed the application for review as lacking in substance, I would have affirmed the decision under review. -- 3 of 3 --