Police appeal Queensland civil and administrative tribunal ruling that they reconsider refusal for farmer ‘at extreme risk’ of hearing loss

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

A Queensland tribunal has published a ruling that argues a state ban on firearm silencers “may be questionable”, amid concern from gun control advocates that strict laws are being undermined by an increasing number of legal challenges to licence decisions.

In Queensland, police decide whether to grant firearms licenses but determinations can be appealed to the Queensland civil and administrative tribunal (QCat). Late last year the tribunal ruled in favour of a farmer seeking an exemption from the state’s weapons act that would allow him to use a “suppressor” or silencer.

Under Queensland law, any device designed to reduce the sound from a firearm is banned and considered a “category R” weapon, alongside mostly military grade weapons like machine guns, hand grenades, mortars and rocket launchers.

Some farmers argue there is a workplace health and safety imperative to protect the hearing of otherwise licensed, legal gun users. The concern about silencers is that they pose a safety risk, particularly on rural properties where the sound of a gunshot can warn others of live fire.

Police rejected the farmer’s application for an exemption in February on the grounds that “weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety”.

The farmer told the tribunal he was “at extreme risk” of hearing loss and presented supporting evidence including a position paper published by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a US-based offshoot of the Second Amendment Foundation.

The tribunal ruled to overturn the police decision. The tribunal returned the matter to police for reconsideration but issued directions that the farmer had “established sufficient genuine need to have and use a suppressor”.

“Although ultimately a matter for the [state parliament], it bears comment that the evidence heard before the tribunal in this matter suggests that the desirability of continuing to include suppressors within Category R may be questionable, particularly in circumstances where all of the other items in that category are military-grade weapons,” the ruling said.

Police have launched an appeal against the decision, which has also concerned gun control advocates, who say the appeals process is being used to weaken and redefine the operation of strict gun laws.

“I don’t know of any other act that has so many appealable decisions,” Sam Lee, the president of Gun Control Australia said.

The case also highlighted inconsistencies in state and territory gun laws. New South Wales law now allows firearms licence holders to obtain a silencer with a permit. Gun control advocates have previously raised concern about the lack of a uniform national approach and continued weakening of local laws.

Appeals becoming more frequent

QCat regularly hears appeals from shooters who dispute police decisions about gun licensing. Last year the tribunal overturned a police decision and ruled a farmer was allowed to use a concealable revolver to control wild pigs and dogs at his property.

Last month the tribunal delivered a ruling that upheld a police decision to reject an application from a man who was subject of a revoked domestic protection violence order. The man had attempted to argue the revocation of the order exempted him from a blanket five-year ban on applying for a firearms licence.

The tribunal found that, in addition to the domestic violence order, the man was “not a fit and proper person” to hold a firearms licence because he had 128 demerit points against his driver’s licence.

John Howard's decisive action on gun control revealed in 1996 cabinet papers Read more

“[His] driving record includes speeding offences, 10 separate licence cancellations, unlicensed driving, use of unregistered vehicles and label offences,” the tribunal found.

In another case, a man found in possession of illegal firearms appealed the rejection of his licence, on the basis police had bungled a search warrant and found the weapons during an “unlawful search” of his property.

Police seized illegal weapons but never brought charges because of a mix-up with dates on a search warrant.

The man is appealing a decision to deny him a firearms licence, and asked the tribunal to exclude evidence from the police search. The tribunal ruled that, on balance, the public interest outweighed any concerns about the validity of the initial search.