BB v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 363

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: BB v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2026] QCAT 363 PARTIES: BB (applicant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE – WEAPONS LICENSING (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR449-23 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 11 August 2026 HEARING DATE: 19 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 BB 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 refused applicant’s application for a firearms licence - where applicant had a history of poor mental health, convictions for violent offending and protection orders made against him – where Tribunal concluded that it should not cynically close its eyes to a person’s capacity to change - 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: -- 1 of 9 -- 2 Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Terry Fergusson, Queensland Police Service REASONS FOR DECISION [1] BB applies to the Tribunal to review a decision by Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing (‘respondent’) to refuse his application for a firearms licence (‘licence’). [2] The respondent refused to issue BB with a licence because: (a) it did not consider it to be in the public interest for BB to hold a licence; (b) it did not consider BB to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence; and (c) it alleged that the BB stated a false or misleading material particular when applying for his licence. The Hearing [3] BB’s application to the Tribunal proceeded to a hearing, where the respondent raised the following concerns: (a) In 2011, BB was convicted of offence of assault occasioning bodily harm (‘AOBH’) whilst armed for which he received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment with immediate parole. (b) In about 2016, the Queensland Ambulance Service conveyed BB to hospital under an emergency examination order after he assaulted his brother BR, attempted to access his father’s firearms and threatened to shoot himself. (c) The above incident also caused the Queensland Police Service (‘QPS’) to pursue a protection order against BB, in which BR was named as the aggrieved. (d) BB made a cross application for a protection order against BR (‘cross application), in which he stated that he was undergoing mental health treatment and felt that he “couldn’t be left alone” and did not wish to live any longer. (e) An officer from the QPS issued BB with an adult caution for committing a public nuisance on 5 June 2024 (‘caution’). The respondent avers that BB threatened to punch a person named C in the mouth for assaulting BB’s son S with a phone charger cord. BB’s conviction for Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm [4] At the hearing, the respondent relied on a Court Brief describing the facts of the AOBH. Relevantly, that document stated: (a) On the night of 8 June 2010, the victim was with his friends and family at his home. (b) At about 8.00pm, defendant’s brother left and walked next door to the defendant’s home. (c) A short time later the defendant (BB) attended the victim’s home whilst carrying a wooden pickaxe handle. The defendant approached the victim and accused him of picking on his brother. The defendant swung the pickaxe handle at the -- 2 of 9 -- 3 victim, striking him on the left side of his ribcage. The defendant said to the victim “I’m going to get you cunt. Watch your back”. (d) Police subsequently spoke with the victim at Cunnamulla Hospital and observed significant bruising to his abdomen, ribs and back. (e) The defendant declined to make a statement police about the incident. The Adult Caution. [5] The respondent relies on a copy of an occurrence report which contains contemporaneous notes made by QPS officers who investigated BB prior to issuing him with a caution. [6] The occurrence report is comprised of a general report and several supplementary reports. Notably, the report indicates that V attended the Cunnamulla Police Station and informed police that BB threatened to punch him in the mouth. [7] The report also states that the QPS interviewed several witnesses to the incident, who gave the following accounts: (a) Witness M said that the only thing she remembers was BB stating words to the effect of “how would you like it if I hit you with a charger cord”. (b) Witness N said she heard BB say to V “how would you like it if I hit you with a cord”. (c) Witness L stated that he heard BB say words to the effect of “I am going to punch you in the mouth’ and “how would you like it if I hit you with a charger cable”. L also admitted to consuming a few drinks of rum. [8] The report states that when officers of the QPS spoke to BB he admitted to publicly humiliating V but denied threatening him. [9] The QPS ultimately decided to issue BB with an adult caution rather charging him with the offence of ‘Public Nuisance’ under s 6 of the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld). Applicant’s evidence at the hearing [10] At the hearing, BB: (a) Denied expressing suicidal ideation in his letter dated 16 August 2016. Rather, he wished to convey in the letter that BR ruled him, and he “no longer wished to live like that”. (b) Concerning his expression of suicidal ideation in 2020, BB he admitted to thinking about whether suicide was an option but ultimately decided against it. (c) Admitted consulting a general practitioner about his mental health in 2016. He also admitted to receiving counselling in 2020. (d) Attributed his failure to disclose the treatment he received for mental health issues in the licence application to a poor education and not understanding documents.1 BB told the Tribunal that he did not believe that the mental health 1 Transcript of Proceeding, BB v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licencing (Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, GAR449-23, Member Munasinghe, 9 February 2026) Line 16, 17. -- 3 of 9 -- 4 issues he experienced rose to the level of ‘psychiatric problems’. BB claimed that the fixated on the word ‘psychiatric’ in the electronic application form and therefore did not appreciate that the application also required him to disclose treatment for ‘any emotional problems’. (e) Asserted that he accepted the caution on the understanding that it did not allege violence. Rather, he accepted that he raised his voice in a public venue and he was “disorderly”. (f) Admitted that he agreed, without making admissions, to the Court making a the protection order in 2016. He was content abiding with the terms of the order prohibiting him from approaching BR because he “was scared of him”. BB emphasised that he did not agree with the underlying facts that prompted QPS to apply for the protection order. (g) Concerning his conviction for AOBH, BB denied committing that offence. BB said that on the morning of his trial, he changed his plea to guilty because his lawyers advised him that the Court would impose a sentence that would see him immediately released from custody. BB also claimed that he could not afford the legal cost of contesting the charge. BB couldn’t remember the precise facts to which he pleaded guilty, but he claimed that his “brother was getting belted by my cousin” and that he tried to “intervene and break it up”. He denied possessing a wooden pick handle during the incident. [11] In his written submissions and during the hearing, BB contended that he was a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence, because: (a) He is dedicated to public safety and safety in the community. He holds a Certificate III and IV in public safety. (b) He sits on the local council. (c) He is supported by his wife to whom he has been married for 21 years. (d) He is a good role model to his four well-adjusted children. (e) He is the deputy chair of the local disaster management group. (f) He has a strong relationship with the QPS in the small town in which he lives. He sits with the Officer in Charge of the local station at disaster management group meetings. (g) He is an auxiliary fire fighter and holds the rank of Captain. That role involves coordinating training programs and delivering training for auxiliary fire fighters. (h) He has a working with children clearance and volunteers at numerous schools where he mentors students and runs programs. Report of Dr Kerri Thomas [12] BB relies on a psychological assessment and report by Clinical Psychologist Dr Kerri Thomas. In that report, which is dated 24 October 2024, Dr Thomas relevantly states: (a) She conducted an assessment of BB which was comprised of a 120 minute clinical interview and a Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) (b) BB’s insight and judgement were intact and excellent. -- 4 of 9 -- 5 (c) BB described a childhood during which V and his older cousin regularly abused him. (d) Years of abuse and trauma at the hands of his V culminated in the 2016 incident that saw him transported to hospital. (e) BB reported longstanding friendships and feeling very connected to his community. (f) In 2020, BB suffered depressive symptomology and experienced suicidal thoughts after his employer stood him down for alleged bullying. BB denied having any intent or plan to follow through on the suicidal thoughts. (g) The PAI clinical profile reveals no elevations that indicate the presence of clinical psychopathology and is entirely within normal limits. (h) She did not get the sense throughout the assessment that BB downplayed his criminal charges. Rather, he was able to provide a great deal of context for the charges. BB expressed deep regret and remorse, and has made significant changes to his life, which he attributes to his wife Jessica. (i) Based on the clinical information at hand, she opines that BB does not meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder. There are no notable issues around impulse control, suicidal ideation, or antisocial traits. Relevant Law [13] 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: (a) the mental and physical fitness of the person; and (b) whether the person has a conviction for a relevant offence, including a conviction that is a spent conviction, a conviction that has not been recorded, or a conviction that has been quashed or set aside; and (c) whether the person has been charged with a relevant offence, including a charge that has been withdrawn, discharged or struck out. (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. -- 5 of 9 -- 6 [14] 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 [15] Section 10B(e) requires that, when deciding BB’s fitness to hold a licence, I must consider whether he stated anything in connection with his application that he knew was false or misleading in a material particular. [16] The part of the QPS application for a weapons licence that deals with an applicant’s medical history couches questions about treatment for mental health issues in the following way: Medical History “Please indicate if you have ever received treatment for any of the following: …. (d) psychiatric or emotional problems …” Did BB make a statement that he knew to be false or misleading in a material particular? [17] During the hearing BB explained that he believed the application only required him to disclose treatment for a psychiatric diagnosis. That is not an implausible explanation. I mean no disrespect to BB by observing that he did not present to the Tribunal as a particularly erudite or sophisticated individual. By his own admission, BB is poorly educated and has difficulty understanding documents. Although a more attentive and erudite applicant might have appreciated that the application required them to disclose any ‘emotional problems’ for which they had received treatment, it is not inconceivable that an illiterate or poorly educated person might have misunderstood the question that the application posed. [18] It is apposite to note that BB answered ‘yes’ to other questions on application that had an adverse bearing on his suitability to hold a licence. For example, he answered ‘yes’ to questions about whether he had been subject to a domestic violence order, whether he had a criminal history and whether QPS had previously refused to issue him with a licence. Accordingly, I cannot exclude the possibility that BB’s assertion was a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive. I am not satisfied that he knowingly made a statement that was false or misleading in a material particular. -- 6 of 9 -- 7 BB’s mental fitness [19] Section 10B(1)(a) of the Weapons Act requires that, when deciding BB’s fitness to hold a licence, I must consider his mental fitness. Undoubtedly, BB struggled with his mental health as a young man. Those struggles are comprehensively documented in Dr Thomas’ report and appear to have been precipitated, in part, by abuse that BR inflicted on him. More recently, BB suffered depressive symptomology in 2020. However, Dr Thomas opines that BB’s current clinical profile is absent any indication of clinical pathology and he does not meet the criteria for a psychiatric disorder. The respondent did not challenge Dr Thomas opinions. Accordingly, I accept her opinions and conclude that BB is mentally fit to hold a license. BB’s history of violent offending [20] An issue arises about the extent to which the Tribunal can consider entries on BB’s criminal history that involved actual or threatened violence but for which he did not receive a recorded conviction. At the hearing, the respondent sought to rely only on BB’s AOBH conviction. Presumably, the respondent restricted its submissions in that way due to the decision in Commissioner of Police v XPR [2025] QCA 93. That decision stands as authority for the proposition that when applying s 10B of the Act, regard cannot be had to convictions for offences for which no conviction has been recorded2, or the facts of circumstances of those offences. [21] Following XPR, the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026 (Qld) (‘Amendment Act’), amended s 10B of the Weapons Act, to permit an authorised officer to consider the following: (a) a conviction for a relevant offence, including a spent conviction or a conviction that has been quashed or set aside; (b) any information about the circumstances of the offence to which the officer has access; (c) a charge for a relevant offence, including a charge that has been withdrawn, discharged or struck out; and (d) Any information about the circumstances of the offence or charge to which the officer has access. [22] A relevant offence inter alia means an offence, under a law of Queensland or another jurisdiction, that involves the use or threatened use of violence. [23] Further amendments to the transitional provisions of the Act, essentially provide that when considering a person’s fitness to hold a licence, the Tribunal must apply the new 10B.3 Accordingly, when turning my mind to the issue of whether BB is a fit and proper person under s 10B of the Act, I have considered any occurrence for which he was charged or convicted of an offence involving actual or threatened violence regardless of whether the charge with withdrawn or a conviction was recorded. A full list of those occurrences is set out in a ‘licence vetting assessment’ annexed to the respondent’s material. 2 Within the meaning of s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). 3 Weapons Act, s 203. -- 7 of 9 -- 8 The adult caution [24] Concerning the incident that caused the QPS to issue BB with a caution, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that he threated to hit V with a charger cable or punch V in the mouth. I place limited weight on the hearsay accounts of witnesses to the incident noted in the occurrence report. I prefer BB’s sworn evidence at the hearing, that he humiliated V but did not threaten him. The respondent did not call any witness to rebut that assertion. [25] The respondent’s representative submitted from the bar table, that the QPS would not administer a caution if its intended recipient did not admit the offence. Therefore, QPS contended that BB’s acceptance of the caution amounted to an admission of guilt. That submission is wrong, and I reject it. Section 3.2.3 of the QPS ‘Operational Procedures Manual’ at section 3.2.1 deals with a person’s eligibility to be cautioned. It states: “A person can be offered adult caution without having admitted to the offence. An officer may decide that an adult caution is appropriate if satisfied the requirements of sufficiently of evidence and public interest have been satisfied, with or without an admission.” [26] Accordingly, I do not consider that there is any basis for the respondent to contend that BB accepting the caution in any way amounts to an admission of violence. BB’s history of violence [27] I am cognisant that BB is no stranger to violence, however it is all historical. The last occasion that BB committed a violent act was more than 10 years ago. On that occasion, QPS charged BB with common assault for allegedly hitting BR in the head several times with a closed first. [28] BB’s most serious offending was the assault occasioning bodily harm in 2011. Without a transcript of his sentencing, it is impossible for this Tribunal to determine with precision what facts BB accepted and pleaded guilty to. Any person familiar with criminal sentencing would be aware that the facts stated in the Court Brief might be far removed from the facts that the Crown Prosecutor raised at BB’s sentence in the District Court. In any case, even if the Tribunal concludes that BB did commit the acts described in the Court brief, the offending occurred 17 years ago. [29] Concerning BB’s domestic violence history, it is also very dated. He was a respondent to protection orders made in 2007 and 2016. Ten years has now passed since those orders. [30] Although BB attempted to minimise his culpability for his AOBH conviction when giving his oral evidence, any concerns about his insight are, in my view, mediated by the fact that he largely accepts and is regretful for his past criminal history. Notably, Dr Thomas opined in her report that she did not get a sense that BB downplayed his criminal charges and that he expressed deep regret and remorse for his criminal history. Conclusion [31] This Tribunal should not cynically close its eyes to the capacity of a person to effect profound changes to their life. I find that BB has, by dint of tenacious effort over the past ten years, dramatically altered his life trajectory and escaped the invidious circumstances of his youth. Overwhelmingly, the evidence before the Tribunal -- 8 of 9 -- 9 indicates that BB has overcome his mental health struggles and propensity for violence. Meeting his wife appears to have precipitated that change. [32] BB is now a respected and valued member of his local community. In his roles as a Shire Councillor and training co-ordinator in the fire department, BB makes important contributions to public safety. Those positions also appear to have imbued BB with a sense of social responsibility and belonging. He owns a profitable business, enjoys a loving respectful relationship with his wife and has raised successful well-adjusted children. [33] I consider all the above, to be protective factors that ameliorate any risk BB will revert to his past behaviour. I am comfortably satisfied that BB is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm licence. Accordingly, I propose to set aside the respondent’s decision to refuse his firearm licence. [34] 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. -- 9 of 9 --