Akram and Commissioner of Police (NSW)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr Akram for an extension of time to lodge a review application concerning the Commissioner of Police (NSW)'s decision to refuse him a Class 1ACE NSW security licence. The refusal was based on the Commissioner's finding that Mr Akram had obtained his Australian Capital Territory (ACT) security licence using a false address and had applied for the NSW licence under mutual recognition principles to circumvent NSW licensing requirements.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time for Mr Akram to lodge his review application, which was lodged outside the prescribed 28-day limit. This involved considering the reasons for the delay, the prejudice to the respondent and the public, and the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal also had to consider the application of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), the *Mutual Recognition Act 1992* (Cth), and relevant provisions of the *Security Industry Act 2003* (ACT) and the *Security Industry Act 1997* (NSW).

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Mr Akram, as a holder of a student visa, was restricted from obtaining a security licence under the NSW Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Mr Akram had made false declarations in his ACT licence application, even if unintentionally. Applying the principles established in *Andriotis v Victorian Building Authority* and *Victorian Building Authority v Andriotis*, the Tribunal held that the *Mutual Recognition Act* does not extend its benefits to individuals who have obtained registration in one state through fraudulent means. Consequently, such an individual is not eligible to lodge a valid notice under section 19 of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence and the legal principles applied, it was not satisfied that it was reasonable to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was refused.