Alkozai v Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit
[2013] QCAT 186
| CITATION: | Alkozai v Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit [2013] QCAT 186 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Salime Alkozai (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR334-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 10 April 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Mr David Paratz, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 10 April 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of the Principal Probity Review Officer, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit, made on 10 September 2012, to refuse the application of Mr Alkozai for a Security Officer (Unarmed) and Crowd Controller licence is confirmed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Review of refusal of application for Security Officer (Unarmed) and Crowd Controller licence – prior criminal conviction within previous 10 years – disqualifying offence – hearing proceeding in absence of party after initial appearance Security Providers Act 1993 s 11, Sch 2 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Mr Alkozai in person (initially) |
| RESPONDENT: | The Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit represented by Mr Peter Rashford |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr Alkozai applied for a Security Officer (Unarmed) and Crowd Controller licence on 04 July 2012 under the provisions of the Security Providers Act 1993 (the Act).
The Principal Probity Review Officer, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit, made a decision on 10 September 2012 refusing the application.
The grounds of refusal were that Mr Alkozai was not an appropriate person for the grant of a licence due to a conviction for a disqualifying offence within the last 10 years.
Mr Alkozai applied to the Tribunal on 3 October 2013 for a review of that decision.
In his application, Mr Alkozai stated as to why he thought the decision was wrong or not properly made as follows:
I believe that I’m a fit and proper person to hold a security licence and work in the industry, the charge in question was possess prohibited drug although it was found underneath the tyre in the boot not in my personally possession. I haven’t taken prohibited drugs could conduct a drug test. I have many responsibilities including supporting several family members.
Mr Alkozai resides in New South Wales. He was convicted in the Parramatta Local Court on 28 July 2010 of possessing a prohibited drug.
An email from NSW Police to the Qld Department of Justice dated 5 April 2013 states that the conviction was under section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The substance was not analysed but Mr Alkozai is said to have stated that he believed them to be steroids.
Section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) provides for a penalty of a fine of 20 penalty units or imprisonment for a term of 2 years or both.
The Department has submitted that the NSW section is comparable to, and to the same effect as, the provisions of section 9 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The Queensland section provides that a person who unlawfully has possession of a dangerous drug is guilty of a crime. The penalty ranges from 15 years to 25 years imprisonment.
Section 11(5) of the Act provides that a person is not an appropriate person to hold a licence if the person, within 10 years of applying for a licence, has been convicted of a disqualifying offence.
Schedule 2 of the Act defines a disqualifying offence as an offence:
(a)(ii) under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 that is punishable by imprisonment for 1 year or more, even if a fine may be imposed in addition or as an alternative;
(b) includes an act or omission committed outside Queensland that would be a disqualifying offence if committed in Queensland.
I am satisfied that the offence which Mr Alkozai was convicted of in NSW falls within the description of a disqualifying offence if committed in Queensland, and is therefore a disqualifying offence for the purposes of the Act.
Directions were made by the Tribunal on 26 February 2013 granting Mr Alkozai leave to appear by telephone, and directing that any statement of evidence of Mr Alkozai with any attachments be filed in the QCAT Registry and be given to the Department by 4pm on 3 April 2013.
No statement of evidence was filed by Mr Alkozai.
Mr Alkozai was contacted by the QCAT Registry on 4 April 2013 to obtain his contact details for the hearing. He said that his mobile number would have to do, as he is a plumber and would be on the road. He was advised that mobile phones were not reliable as they could cut out or run out of battery, and he was asked to provide a landline number. He said he would check and call back with a land line number if possible.
He did not advise any landline number. At the commencement of the hearing at 9.30am on 10 April 2013, Mr Alkozai was contacted by telephone on speakerphone in the hearing room. An initial introduction was made, and he confirmed that he could hear, but then the line went dead. Numerous attempts were made until 10am to contact him on the same mobile number without success. His home telephone number was rung, but only an answering machine with a message in a foreign language answered. A text message was sent asking him to ring in urgently to the tribunal conference facility, but he did not do so.
At about 10am, I indicated to the Department that I was prepared to proceed in the absence of Mr Alkozai under s 93 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 as I was satisfied that he had notice of the hearing, having briefly participated. The department requested that I proceed.
Mr Rashford for the Department referred me to two previous decisions of the Tribunal where applications for licences were refused on the basis of prior convictions and those decisions were confirmed:
Singh v The Chief Executive, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation [2010] QCAT 663
Douglas v Chief Executive, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation [2011] QCAT 173
Mr Alkozai has not challenged the validity or accuracy of the prior conviction, or argued that the substance involved would not be classed as a dangerous drug in Queensland. The conviction speaks for itself and is a disqualifying offence. He is therefore not entitled to a licence under the Act.
I order that the decision of the Principal Probity Review Officer, Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Industry Licensing Unit, made on 10 September 2012, to refuse the application of Mr Alkozai for a Security Officer (Unarmed) and Crowd Controller licence is confirmed.
0
2
0