AA v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 334

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: AA v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 334 PARTIES: AA (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR588-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 29 July 2026 HEARING DATE: 13 February 2026 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Munasinghe ORDERS: The decision of the Respondent that is the subject of this review is set aside and substituted with the Tribunal’s decision that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. Publication of any information that might identify AA, W or S, is prohibited, other than to the parties to this proceeding, or to give effect to the Tribunal’s orders. CATCHWORDS: FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENCES AND REGISTRATION – REVOCATION OF LICENCE – Where respondent revoked applicant’s firearm licence after receiving concerns about his mental health – where respondent also contended the applicant perpetrated domestic violence - where Tribunal concluded the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), s 159(1) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 10B Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented -- 1 of 6 -- 2 Respondent: Terry Fergusson, Queensland Police Service REASONS FOR DECISION [1] AA applies to the Tribunal to review a decision by Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘respondent’) to revoke his firearms licence (‘licence’). Background [2] On 17 July 2023, the respondent revoked AA’s firearm licence (‘decision’) after receiving information about his mental health, namely that AA: (a) suffered from depression for which he was medicated. (b) attempted suicide by trying to jump off the Hervey Bay Bridge. (c) was bipolar and abused alcohol. [3] It is convenient to refer to the above concerns collectively as the ‘mental health concerns’. The Hearing [4] The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Tribunal. The respondent contends that the mental health concerns demonstrate that AA is not a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence within the meaning of s 10B of Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (‘the Act’). The respondent also raises additional concerns that AA allegedly perpetrates domestic violence on his wife W. The Mental Health Concerns [5] The respondent relies on a police occurrence report dated 7 August 2018. That report states that on 4 August 2018 Constable Bond from the Kingaroy Police Station contacted a person (name redacted) when conducting a random weapons licence audit. The person purportedly told Constable Bond that AA suffered from bipolar disorder, is an alcoholic, is unmedicated, is unemployed and suffered a breakdown 18 to 24 months ago. [6] The respondent also relies on an occurrence report dated 24 February 2023. The report relates to an incident involving AA’s son S, who was taken to the hospital after threatening to take his own life whilst at school. The report states that an informant (name is redacted) told QPS that W was covered in bruises on previous visits to the hospital. The informant believes that the bruises were from domestic violence incidents. The informant expressed concerns about AA’s access to firearms because S told her that AA is severely depressed and attempted suicide by jumping off the Hervey Bay Bridge. [7] The report further states that when the attending police spoke with W, she denied domestic violence of any kind and said that although AA had been depressed, he had not committed any acts of self-harm. Allegations of Domestic Violence [8] The respondent filed in the Tribunal, various documents indicating that QPS pursued a protection order against AA, naming W an aggrieved person. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 [9] The grounds for seeking that protection order were set out in an Annexure to a police protection order (‘PPN’) that preceded QPS’s application for a protection order. In that document, QPS alleges: (a) AA and W were living together at the family home until the relationship ended and AA moved in with his parents. (b) On 22 May 2024, AA attended the family home unannounced and a verbal argument between him and W ensued at the front door. (c) AA told W that he wished to enter the house to retrieve some property. (d) When QPS’s officers attended the scene, W told them that AA pushed her which caused her to fall to the ground. (e) When the officers questioned AA, he denied pushing W and insisted that she stepped backwards and tripped over items on the ground. (f) AA ultimately left the address after collecting his dog. (g) At the time of the altercation W was on the telephone to her brother B. B recorded the incident and provided the recording to the QPS. [10] The respondent relies on the above recording, which I have marked Exhibit 1, as evidence that AA committed an act of domestic violence. [11] After QPS issued the PPN, it pursued a protection order against AA in the Kingaroy Magistrates Court. An extract from the Application for a Protection Order that QPS filed in that Court on 17 June 2024 alleges AA perpetrated the following acts of domestic violence on W: (a) Yelled abuse; (b) Threatened W with physical harm. (c) Sent W message in which he threatened to stalk her. (d) Admitted to vandalising W’s property. [12] Curiously, there is no allegation of actual physical violence in the application. [13] The application for a protection order also described an earlier incident that purportedly occurred on 9 February 2023 when AA allegedly attended the family home and verbally abused W’s new boyfriend. [14] QPS eventually withdrew its application for a protection order because on 4 July 2025, AA signed a voluntary undertaking agreeing to be of good behaviour towards, and to not commit an act of domestic violence against W. [15] At the hearing, the respondent’s representative submitted that AA signing the undertaking amounted to an admission or concession that he perpetrated domestic violence against W. AA’s evidence and submissions [16] AA relies on a letter authored by Dr C Isabelle Jonsson-Lear dated 7 October 2023. Dr Jonsson-Lear relevantly states in her letter: -- 3 of 6 -- 4 (a) She has provided AA and his family with continues care for over 20 years as their primary caregiver. (b) She is aware of the claims that AA has depression, is bipolar, abuses alcohol and attempted suicide. (c) AA has a history of work-related stress induced anxiety but had sufficient insight into his mental frame of mind to seek voluntary medical attention. He also received counselling and changed careers to circumnavigate further stressors. (d) AA made a full recovery and is currently unmedicated. AA’s mental health has been stable. (e) At no point during AA’s treatment has Dr Jonsson-Lear considered that there has been an event she considers notifiable. AA has never expressed suicidal ideation. She has never observed symptoms of or signs of bipolar and there is no past medical history indicating that AA has been treated for such a condition. (f) It is her opinion that AA is a fit and proper person to unconditionally hold a firearm licence. He is not a risk to public and individual safety. She is confident that no improper conduct will occur if AA’s licence is reinstated. [17] AA also relies on a letter by W. Her letter states that AA did not have bipolar and did not threaten to jump off the Hervey Bay bridge. It also states that AA never used his weapons inappropriately and takes great care to ensure he complies with the law. [18] At the hearing, AA: (a) Denied pushing W. (b) As context for the incident, explained that he had left the house for a ‘few days to let things cool down’ with ‘only a bag of clothes’. (c) He returned to his house to get his dog. (d) Described to the Tribunal a time where he was the Director of one of the biggest valuation companies in Australia. He consulted his doctor because he was overworked and anxious. Ultimately, AA decided to walk away from that job and become a farmer. Since then, his mental state has significantly improved. (e) Denied that he abused alcohol and pointed out that he drives heavy vehicles occupationally but has never returned a positive result. [19] When cross examined, AA: (a) conceded that his doctor diagnosed him with anxiety but denied taking any medication. (b) Stated that he signed the undertaking to reassure W that he was not going to approach or contact her. AA professed to being ‘one hundred percent’ certain that he would not breach the conditions of the undertaking. Relevant Law [20] Relevantly, s 10B(1) of the Act requires that, in deciding or considering, for the issue of a licence, whether a person is, or is no longer, a fit and proper person to hold a licence, regard must be had to the following: -- 4 of 6 -- 5 (a) the mental and physical fitness of the person; and … (d) whether a domestic violence order has been made, police protection notice issued or release conditions imposed against the person; and (e) whether the person has stated anything 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 (f) 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 (g) the public interest. [21] The High Court considered the expression ‘fit and proper person’ in the seminal decision of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321. Relevantly, at [36], Toohey and Gaudron JJ opined: 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” 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 conduct may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed 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. Consideration [22] In my mind, there are two questions that are pertinent to deciding whether AA is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. They are: (a) Is he mentally unfit? (b) Did he commit an act of domestic violence against W. If the answer to that question is yes, it would be reasonable for the Tribunal to infer that AA has a propensity for violence. Is AA mentally unfit? [23] The evidence that QPS relies on to demonstrate AA is mentally unfit is tenuous and insubstantial. I place limited weight on the hearsay assertions about AA’s mental health contained in the two occurrence reports. Any suggestion that AA has bipolar or suicidal ideation is convincingly rebutted by the contents of Dr Jonsson-Lear’s letter, W’s letter, and AA’s own oral evidence. [24] Further, Dr Jonsson-Lear, opines that AA has insight, has made a full recovery from anxiety, does not require medication, has stable mental health and is not a risk to the -- 5 of 6 -- 6 public or individual safety. The respondent has chosen not to cross examine Dr Jonsson-Lear; therefore, her opinions are effectively unchallenged. [25] At its highest, the evidence before the Tribunal only establishes that AA had anxiety, which has now resolved. I am satisfied that he is mentally fit to hold a weapons licence. Did AA commit an act of Domestic Violence [26] I have listened carefully to the audio of the alleged domestic violence incident. The applicant can be heard repeatedly insisting that he has right to attend the house. In my opinion, AA’s demeanour could be described as assertive rather than aggressive. Whether or not the applicant pushed W is not discernible from the audio. In my view, nothing AA did in the audio amounted to an act of domestic violence. [27] Moreover, AA gave sworn viva voce evidence at the hearing that he did not push W or commit an act of domestic violence against her. The respondent did not call W as a witness or otherwise seek to lead any evidence from her about the incident or other acts of domestic violence that the applicant supposedly perpetrated. I prefer the AA’s sworn evidence over the hearsay assertions contained in the respondent’s material. [28] I reject the respondent’s contention that the undertaking amounts to an admission of guilt. The undertaking clearly documents that it was given ‘without admitting any of the allegations made by the applicant in support of their application’. [29] It is also apposite to note that whilst the allegations of physical violence formed part of QPS’s PPN, when it came time to apply for a protection order, those allegations were not maintained. [30] For the reasons above, I am not satisfied that the applicant has committed any act of domestic violence against W, or that he has any propensity to do so. [31] Given those factual findings, I am satisfied that AA is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. [32] I also propose to make a non-publication order to comply with s 159(1)(b)(i) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), which prohibits publication of information which identifies, or is likely to lead to identification of a person, who is a party to a proceeding under that Act. -- 6 of 6 --