Legal Research
Cases
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello

Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello

Case [2005] SADC 134 5 October 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division: Application for Review)
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v LEONELLO
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
(Assessor Hewitt and Assessor MacDonald)
5 October 2005
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 - Complaint asserts that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against respondent by reason of his conviction of two indictable cannabis offences involving personal use - scheme of Act discussed - respondent's circumstances discussed - held that penalty should reflect need for Court to maintain public confidence in standards and integrity of security industry - order that respondent's licence be suspended for twelve months.
Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 ss7, 9(1), 20(4), 26-29 and Regulation 9; District Court Act 1991 ss20(4)(b)(i) and (ii) 42G; Controlled Substances Act 1984 ss 31(1), 32(1), 32(6), 45A, referred to.
Commissioner for ConsumerAffairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145 at 147; Carusi v Police [2002] SASC 240; Commissisoner for Consumer Affairs v Tedesco [2005] SADC 79; Scerri v Commissioner for Consumer Affairs (2003) 139 ACrimR, 24 LSJS 343; Commissioner for ConsumerAffairs v Stamoulis [2002] SADC 101; Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Act (1979) 22 SASR 70, considered.

COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v LEONELLO
[2005] SADC 134
Background

Francesco Leonello is the holder of a restricted Security Agents Licence issued pursuant to the provisions of the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 (SA) (the S&IA Act), a licence he has held since 1 April 2003.[1] The Commissioner for Consumer Affairs brings these proceedings as complainant seeking the cancellation of this licence for the reasons appearing below.
[1] Exhibit P1.
When hearing the complaint this court exercises the jurisdiction relating to disciplinary actions commenced against licensed agents under the S&IA Act vested by ss26-29, sitting as the ‘Administrative and Disciplinary Division’[2] of the Court. That being so, questions of law and procedure are determined by the presiding Judge, whereas other questions fall for determination by majority opinion.[3] As it happens we are of a unanimous view as to such questions.
[2] Section 3 “Court” of the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 (SA) and s7(d) s20(4) of the District Court Act 1991 (SA)
[3] ss20(4)(b)(i) and (ii) District Court Act
The Defendant’s use of licence
Mr Leonello is a painter by trade, owning and operating his own business.[4] He has held a builder’s licence for about ten years, and he supplements the income from this business by undertaking employed security duties, essentially at large venues, particularly the “Big Day Out” and at the Entertainment Centre.[5] These activities top up his income to the extent of up to $4,000 per year.[6] His work under the S&IA Act plainly does not supply the majority of his income in any sense, nor is he dependent upon it to make a living. The type of work he undertakes at 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.

Continue reading Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello

Details

AGLC: Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello [2005] SADC 134
Case: [2005] SADC 134
Decision Date: 5 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Leonello, the Commissioner brought a complaint against the respondent, who holds a licence under the Security and Investigation Agents Act. The complaint alleges that there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action against the respondent due to his conviction on two indictable cannabis offences related to personal use. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent’s convictions warranted the imposition of disciplinary measures under the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's convictions for indictable cannabis offences justified disciplinary action against his licence. The court considered the implications of the respondent’s convictions on the public’s confidence in the security industry and whether these convictions reflected poorly on the standards and integrity expected of licence holders. The court also examined the respondent's personal circumstances and the specific provisions of the Security and Investigation Agents Act to determine the appropriate penalty.

The court found that the respondent's convictions for indictable cannabis offences warranted disciplinary action. It emphasised the need to uphold public confidence in the security industry by ensuring that licence holders adhere to high standards of integrity and conduct. Given the respondent’s personal circumstances and the nature of the offences, the court decided that a twelve-month suspension of the respondent's licence was an appropriate penalty. This decision was intended to reflect the seriousness of the offences while also considering the respondent’s personal situation.

The court ordered that the respondent's licence be suspended for twelve months, effective from the date of the decision. This suspension aims to address the need for maintaining public confidence in the security industry and to uphold the integrity of the profession. The respondent is required to comply with the terms of the suspension as outlined in the court's order.

Orders