QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Hitchcock v Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing [2020] QCAT 386	
PARTIES:	nathan keith henry hitchcock	
	(applicant)	
	v	
	Queensland Police Service – Weapons Licensing	
	(respondent)	
APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR018-20	
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters	
DELIVERED ON:	22 September 2020	
HEARING DATE:	30 July 2020	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Member Howe	
ORDERS:	1.	The decision to refuse renewal of the applicant’s concealable firearms licence is set aside.
2.	The applicant’s application to renew his concealable firearms licence be approved.	
CATCHWORDS:	FIRE, EXPLOSIVES AND FIREARMS – FIREARMS – LICENSING AND REGISTRATION – LICENCE OR PERMIT – RENEWAL AND OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant sought renewal of a concealed weapon licence – where the application was refused – where the handgun was used to euthanise large animals in the applicant’s veterinary practice – where use of a rifle was not always practical – where the assistance of another person was not always available - where another person assisting sometimes created safety issues – where horses suffering from colic created unique issues concerning control inhibiting effective use of alternate methods of euthanasia
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 10, s 11, s 18(9)
McConnel v Qld Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2019] QCATA 156
Shaxson v Qld Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [2014] QCAT 309
Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	

Applicant:	
Self-represented	

Respondent:	
Sergeant D Ayscough	

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	Dr Hitchcock is a veterinary surgeon working in country Queensland. He held firearms licences for categories A, B and H (concealable firearm).
[2]	When the time came, he applied to Weapons Licensing to renew the various licences. Categories A and B were renewed but not H. Weapons Licensing said Dr Hitchcock did not need a handgun for occupational use as a veterinary surgeon.
[3]	There was no issue raised about Dr Hitchcock being a fit and proper person to own a firearm.
[4]	In making the decision Weapons Licensing gave a number of reasons for their decision. They said handguns (concealable firearms) were not generally issued for the purpose of feral animal control.
[5]	Dr Hitchcock did not attend properties with excessively rugged terrain requiring extensive use of foot, motorcycle or horseback to access.
[6]	The preferred method of euthanising a horse was by lethal injection or firearm and with respect to the latter by rifle shot to the front of the head. Use of a handgun for this purpose was not suitable. Apart from convenience there was no reason why a long arm could not be carried and used.
[7]	Other veterinary surgeons in Queensland did not require a handgun to euthanise horses or cattle.
[8]	Dr Hitchcock has applied to the Tribunal to review that decision by Weapons Licensing.
The legislation
[9]	By the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld):
3 Principles and object of Act 
(1) The principles underlying this Act are as follows— 
(a) weapon possession and use are subordinate to the need to ensure public and individual safety; 
(b) public and individual safety is improved by imposing strict controls on the possession of weapons and requiring the safe and secure storage and carriage of weapons. 
(2) The object of this Act is to prevent the misuse of weapons. 

4 How object is to be achieved for firearms 
The object of this Act is to be achieved for firearms by—
…
(c) requiring each person who wishes to possess a firearm under a licence to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm;

10 Limitations on issue of licence 
…
 (2) A licence may be issued to an individual only if the person—
(f) has a reason mentioned in section 11 to possess the weapon or category of weapon;

11 Genuine reasons for possession of a weapon 
The following are reasons for possession of a weapon— 
…
(c) an occupational requirement, including an occupational requirement for rural purposes;
[10]	A person applying to renew a weapons licence must have a reason to possess the category of weapon.
The evidence
[11]	It is not clear whether Weapons Licensing clearly understood why Dr Hitchcock said he needed a handgun for occupational purposes. The reasons given that such was not necessary for feral animal control or safe carriage of a weapon across rugged terrain were irrelevant. His only requirement for a handgun was safe use of a firearm in euthanising horses.  
[12]	Dr Hitchcock graduated from university in 2002. He works a full time country practice at Gayndah servicing a rural area of approximately 50 to 100 kilometres in radius. He works mainly with dogs, cats, cattle and horses. His is the only veterinary surgery in Gayndah. The nearest other veterinary surgeons are in Mundubbera, approximately 45 kilometres away, Childers 100 kilometres away, or Monto 150 kilometres away.
[13]	He employs another veterinary surgeon two days each week, a woman, who works mostly with the smaller animals and not the farm work. She does almost no afterhours work. She usually asks him to attend to difficult cases involving large animals which includes euthanising livestock.
[14]	Not often he says, but perhaps once a year, he is asked to euthanise a horse in trying circumstances, where he says the only safe and effective option is a handgun. Having said that, this happened twice in a two month period in late 2019, early 2020.
[15]	The horses he attends are usually in paddocks or large yards, not in stables. The particular problem necessitating use of a handgun is a horse suffering from colic. It causes horses great pain and they move violently reacting to the pain. They throw themselves to the ground, roll, rear, kick, stamp feet and cannot be controlled with halter and lead rope, no matter how experienced the handler.
[16]	He says the experience is frightening for all concerned. It is very difficult to handle such horses safely. 
[17]	Euthanising by way of injection is impossible. That requires finding a vein. The only viable option is using a firearm.
[18]	To make a successful shot one must reduce movement of the horse’s head. That requires a person restraining the animal with at least one hand on its bridle or halter. That makes it very dangerous for the person handling the animal. If it is another person besides the veterinary surgeon, that person may be jerked and moved around unpredictably. If Dr Hitchcock attempts to do it by himself, he has to hold the halter in one hand and try to bring up a longarm and use it with the other. That is very difficult and the end of the barrel may be knocked around, possibly making contact with the other hand holding the halter.
[19]	Dr Hitchcock submits the only safe (and accurate) way of euthanising a horse in such circumstances is by using a handgun designed for use one-handed. One hand holds the halter and whilst one may be bodily pulled around, as long as one is anchored by gripping the halter, one is able to shift balance and adjust to cope. Though the horse’s head may move, the grip on the halter gives one a stable position to line up a shot and shoot.
[20]	Dr Hitchcock says he has used a rifle but never where the horse is in pain from colic and thrashing about.
[21]	He can’t use an injection. He has to “get a vein up” and then put the needle in and inject 100ml or more without losing the vein. It takes very little movement on the part of a horse to lose the vein or inject through the vein.
[22]	He says accuracy is vital. A shot missing the relevant anatomy of the horse by as little as two centimetres can cause more pain and suffering for the animal which is unacceptable.
[23]	His handgun is a .357 magnum with a 4” barrel which provides sufficient power to penetrate bone and soft tissue and destroy brain material. He chose the 4” barrel over a 6” because the closer the firing hand the better. Short barrelled rifles still require use one-handed and the firing hand is at least 20” away, which means accuracy and stability is gone.
[24]	He has used his .357 magnum successfully in his practice for more than 17 years.
[25]	He says he has a genuine need for a handgun in his occupation to enable him to perform his work safely and effectively.
[26]	Another veterinary surgeon, Dr Peter Reid, gave evidence. Dr Reid is a very experienced older practitioner. He said he had never held a weapons licence nor used a firearm to euthanise a horse.
[27]	His method to euthanise was by way of intravenous injection. However, he pointed out his practice was a city practice in Brisbane, and as far as he treated horses, it was limited to pleasure and racehorses housed in stables. 
[28]	He had experienced call outs to quite a few horses with colic. He confirmed they moved about incessantly with the pain. Generally he had had the benefit of people available to assist him in such cases. On those occasions when he did not however, he was forced to watch a horse die a slow death in excruciating pain. Though not a common occurrence, they were dreadful experiences and they played heavily on his mind for a time long afterwards.
[29]	He supported Dr Hitchcock’s claim that a handgun was appropriate for use in a practice treating large animals on farms. In his opinion it was an appropriate tool to use to euthanise a horse suffering from colic. He had no scope to use such in his practice in city stables and backyards, but he said Dr Hitchcock’s situation was different.
[30]	In a statement of evidence Dr Reid talked about the usual practice of euthanising by way of lethal injection as follows:
… the most common practice is to inject intravenously a lethal dose of barbiturate. Circumstances do arise in equine veterinary practice however where it is not physically possible or safe on some occasions to do this and the use of firearms with an accurate shot to the brain is humane and appropriate.
I have experienced situations where the welfare of a horse has been severely compromised due to the inability and difficulty in performing a timely intravenous injection, or by using a long-arm firearm.
It is important to realise that to perform euthanasia correctly in a humane manner using any firearm, the shot and direction has to be accurately aimed at a relatively  small target – the horse’s brain area in the forehead above the eyes – in order to render immediate unconsciousness and subsequent death.
As mentioned, situations sometimes arise making it impossible or safe (sic) to use a long-arm firearm.
[31]	Dr Reid concurred with Dr Hitchcock that it was unsafe to have an assistant hold a horse’s head given the inaccuracy of a shot fired from distance; sometimes an assistant is not available to hold a horse’s head or the assistant can’t hold the horse’s head; a horse may be constantly moving or thrashing around because it is suffering severe pain; environmental conditions in rural areas may be poor with mud, loose footing, steep slopes, darkness or foul weather making injections impossible and unsafe.
[32]	Both veterinary surgeons impressed me when giving their evidence. They gave their evidence clearly and their concern and passion for animals was very evident. 
[33]	I accept the evidence of Dr Hitchcock and Dr Reid.
[34]	I accept Dr Hitchcock has used both rifle and intravenous injection to euthanise animals in the course of his work but his experience with horses suffering from colic has reasonably led him to conclude that use of a category H weapon (handgun) is sometimes necessary and sometimes the only viable option. I accept that was a reasonable conclusion to draw based on his experiences in his particular circumstances.
[35]	I conclude his use of a handgun when euthanising a horse suffering from colic in distress and moving erratically is not a matter of simple convenience to him but a matter of safety and necessity.
[36]	I find he has a genuine reason for using a concealed firearm in his occupation. Its use may be infrequent but his example of using it twice to euthanise a horse at the end of 2019 and then again early 2020 belies any pattern to use. Despite potential infrequency I determine he has an actual, not simply a potential, requirement to use a handgun.
Occupational Use Annexure
[37]	Whilst the previous issue of a licence does not give a licence holder any legitimate expectation that the licence will be renewed, the use of a handgun by veterinary surgeons appears to have been acceptable practice to Weapons Licensing in years past. It is unclear why it is suddenly not.
[38]	When one applies for a weapons licence for occupational purposes one completes an annexure to the Form 1 application.
[39]	The annexure has various recognised common occupations requiring use of a weapon and the category of weapon applicable to each occupation. For example it provides for a paintball gallery employee to apply for a Category A weapon. A firearm licence instructor may apply for Categories A, B, C, D, E, H and M; a mobile butcher and abattoir worker, Categories A and B. 
[40]	The annexure provides for a veterinary surgeon to apply for “A B or H” categories. Immediately after that appears a notation “Veterinary Surgeons Board – provide a copy of your current annual registration with the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland showing that you are the holder of a recognised veterinary degree”.
[41]	There is no issue about Dr Hitchcock’s registration as a veterinary surgeon in Queensland.
Conclusion
[42]	I find that Dr Hitchcock has a reasonable and genuine reason for possessing a concealed firearm in his occupation as a veterinary surgeon. His application for renewal should be approved.