Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330

Date: 28 September 2021
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Member Deane
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: ss 8, 9, 13, 24, 31, 48, 58
Rights Considered: N/A
Other Legislation: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 20, 24; Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) ss 3, 4, 10, 11, 18, 142; Weapons Regulation (Qld) s 7
Keywords: Criminal Law and Corrective Services

This case concerned a review of a decision by the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant's renewal of her weapons licence. The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was mentioned in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and their obligation to make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights.

The applicant sought to review a decision from the Queensland Police Service to not review her weapons licence. The QPS did not consider her as having a valid reason under the relevant legislation to hold a firearm, as the applicant applied for the renewal based on ‘occupational requirement’, but her use of the firearm relates to the raising of cattle on her land for personal consumption and not part of an occupation: at [19]. The applicant submitted that her occupation was housewife/carer and saves money by producing meat, and so therefore should be regarded as deriving an income: at [20] - [21].

The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was discussed in relation to the Tribunal being a public entity acting in an administrative capacity, and therefore required to consider the applicant’s human rights and any ensure decision which limits her rights is reasonable and justifiable, and consistent with the principles and objects of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [25].

In coming to its decision, the Tribunal considered relevant case law, dictionary definitions, evidence submitted by the applicant as to the availability of veterinary care, and the activities the applicant undertakes in the care of the cattle and their commerciality: at [15] - [23]. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated an occupational requirement and therefore confirmed the decision from the Queensland Police Service to reject the applicant’s application.

Visit the judgment: Scott v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2021] QCAT 330