Commission for Consumer Affairs v Wheaton - [2006] SADC 3

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
COMMISSION FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v WHEATON
Judgment of His Honour Judge Boylan, Assessor Hewitt and Assessor MacDonald
27 January 2006
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS - LICENSING OF PARTICULAR TRADES OR CALLINGS
Complaint against respondent as holder of licence under Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 - respondent convicted of producing cannabis and of various firearms offences - two of the offences were prescribed offences for the purposes of Section 9(1)(b) of the Act - complainant alleged proper cause for disciplinary action against the respondent by reason of those two offences - complaint also alleged proper cause for disciplinary action by reason of respondents not being a fit and proper person owing to the commission of all offences - consideration of the purposes of the Act - held there was proper cause for disciplinary action - order that the respondent's licence be cancelled.
Security and Investigations Agents Act 1995 s 9(1)(b) & (d), s 25(1)(e)(ii), s 29; Controlled Substances Act 1984 s32(1)(a), s 31A;; Firearms Act 1997 s 11, ; Firearms Regulations 1993 Reg. 29(2), 32(1), 53 and 45A8;; Security and Investigations Agents Regulations 1996 Schedule 1, referred to.
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145; Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70, considered.

COMMISSION FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v WHEATON
[2006] SADC 3

The defendant is the holder of a security agent’s licence. He has been convicted of a number of offences. On account of those convictions, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs has laid a complaint alleging that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against the defendant. It is the Commissioner’s submission that the appropriate action is the cancellation of the defendant’s licence.
The defendant, who has been duly served, failed to appear on the hearing of the complaint before us. Accordingly, the court proceeded with the hearing of the complaint in his absence pursuant to Rule VI-31 of the District Court Administrative Appeals Rules.
The defendant has held a licence pursuant to the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995since the 31^st of March 1996. That licence restricts him to guard work, security systems work, crowd control work, canine handling, inquiry work and collection work. In each of those categories, he is restricted to working as an employee.
The Offences
On the 22^nd of February 2002, police officers attended at and searched the defendant’s premises at Happy Valley. There, inside a toolshed, they found one large cannabis plant growing hydroponically. In a cellar underneath the floor of a garage, they found three larger cannabis plants being grown hydroponically. The hydroponic and watering set up was elaborate. In the garage, they also found some 240 grams of dried cannabis and some bullets. Inside the defendant’s house, the police officers found 40 grams of dried cannabis, an air pistol and a sawn off .22 rifle. The rifle was found in a laundry basket partly hidden…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Commission for Consumer Affairs v Wheaton

Details

AGLC: Commission for Consumer Affairs v Wheaton [2006] SADC 3
Case: [2006] SADC 3
Decision Date: 27 January 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Commission for Consumer Affairs bringing a complaint against Wheaton, a holder of a licence under the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995. The complaint arose from Wheaton's convictions for producing cannabis and various firearms offences. Notably, two of these offences were identified as prescribed offences under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act. The Commission argued that these offences, and the fact that Wheaton was not deemed a fit and proper person due to the commission of all offences, constituted proper cause for disciplinary action against Wheaton.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around whether Wheaton's criminal convictions warranted disciplinary action under the Act and whether the respondent's unfitness as a licensed agent due to his criminal history justified the cancellation of his licence. The court had to balance the purposes of the Act, which include protecting the public and ensuring the integrity of licensed agents, against Wheaton's specific circumstances.

The court found that the respondent's convictions for producing cannabis and firearms offences, which were prescribed under the Act, indeed constituted proper cause for disciplinary action. Additionally, the court concluded that Wheaton's criminal history rendered him unfit to hold a licence. The decision was grounded in the statutory purposes of the Act, which emphasize the need for licensed agents to be of good character and integrity. Given the severity and nature of Wheaton's crimes, the court determined that his licence should be cancelled to uphold these statutory objectives.

Consequently, the court ordered that Wheaton's licence be cancelled, reflecting the gravity of his offences and their impact on his suitability to continue practising as a licensed security and investigation agent.

Orders