Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Jurjevic - [2006] SADC 65

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v JURJEVIC
[2006] SADC 65
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Shaw
(Assessor Warner and Assessor Hutchinson)
15 June 2006
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - OTHER PROFESSIONS, TRADES OR CALLINGS - LICENSING OF PARTICULAR TRADES OR CALLINGS
Complaint against respondent as holder of a licence under Security and Investigation Agents Act - Complainant asserts that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against respondent by reason of his conviction of indictable offences - order that respondent's licence be suspended for a period of fourteen months.
Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 ss26-29, 25(1)(e)(ii) & 9(1); Controlled Substances Act s32(1)(a), referred to.
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Tedesco [2005] SADC 79; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Stamoulis [2002] SADC 101; Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello [2005] SADC 134, considered.

COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v JURJEVIC
[2006] SADC 65

The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs (“the Commissioner”) brought a complaint dated 13 February 2006 against Bob Jurjevic (“the defendant”), the holder of a security agents licence since 31 March 1996, pursuant to the provisions of the Security and Investigations Agents Act 1955 (SA) (“the Act”).
This court, sitting as the “Administrative and Disciplinary Division”, exercises jurisdiction relating to disciplinary actions commenced against licensed agents pursuant to ss26-29 of the Act. The complaint is brought pursuant to s26 of the Act. The Commissioner requested that the hearing be heard ex-parte.
There was no appearance by the defendant. An affidavit of service has been filed. The court received a letter dated the 22^nd March 2006 from the defendant indicating that he would not contest the action taken by the Commissioner. In these circumstances the court decided to hear the matter ex parte pursuant to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division Rules No VI-31.
The Commissioner alleges that there is proper cause for taking disciplinary action against the defendant upon the ground that:
1.Events have occurred such that the defendant would not be entitled to be granted a licence if he were to apply for one.
Sections 25(1)(e)(ii) and 9(1) of the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995.
The defendant is the holder of a security and investigations licence as alleged in paragraph one of the particulars of the complaint.
In paragraph two of the particulars of the complaint, it is alleged that the defendant was convicted on 27 April 2005 of producing a controlled substance contrary to s32(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act. Because the offence involved nine plants, it is not a simple offence within the meaning of s45A of the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore this offence falls within the class of offences in respect of which the Regulations provide that a person is not eligible to be granted a licence.
It is alleged in paragraph three of the particulars of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Jurjevic and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] SADC 65
Decision Date: 15 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jurjevic, a holder of a licence under the Security and Investigation Agents Act, faced a complaint from the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs due to a series of indictable offences for which he had been convicted. The Commissioner argued that these convictions constituted proper cause for disciplinary action against Jurjevic, including the suspension of his licence. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's convictions warranted such disciplinary measures and, if so, the appropriate duration of the licence suspension.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Security and Investigation Agents Act and previous case law to determine the criteria for determining proper cause under the Act. It considered the nature and gravity of Jurjevic's convictions, his past conduct, and the potential impact of the licence suspension on the public interest and the respondent's livelihood. The court also weighed the need for deterrence against the principles of proportionality and natural justice.

After careful consideration, the court found that Jurjevic's convictions did indeed constitute proper cause for disciplinary action, and that the appropriate sanction was a suspension of his licence for a period of fourteen months. The court reasoned that this period was sufficient to serve the purposes of deterrence and protection of the public, while also taking into account the respondent's rights and the proportionality of the penalty. The court thus upheld the Commissioner's decision to suspend Jurjevic's licence for the specified duration.

The final orders of the court included the suspension of Jurjevic's licence for a period of fourteen months, starting from the date of the decision. Jurjevic was given the right to appeal the decision within the specified timeframe, and the Commissioner was directed to take necessary steps to ensure the enforcement of the suspension. The court's decision highlighted the importance of maintaining high standards of conduct among licence holders and the role of the Security and Investigation Agents Act in protecting the public from potential risks associated with the industry.

Orders