Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sangster - [2005] SADC 157

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
In the Matter of SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENTS ACT 1995
COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v SANGSTER
Judgment of His Honour Judge Smith
(Assessor Klavins and Assessor Hewitt)
29 November 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 - respondent convicted of producing cannabis and theft of electricity - complaint alleged proper cause for disciplinary action against the respondent by reason of the two offences - consideration of scheme of Act - discussion of the purpose of disciplinary proceeding being the protection of the public and maintenance of standards in the security industry as opposed to punishment of the respondent - held there was proper cause for disciplinary action - order that respondent's licence be cancelled.
Security and Investigations Agents Act 1995 s 9(1)(b) & (d), s 25(1)(e)(ii), s 26, s 29, Part 4; Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 32(1)(a); Security and Investigation Agents Regulations 1996 sch 1, referred to.
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145; O'Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210; Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70, considered.

COMMISSIONER FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v SANGSTER
[2005] SADC 157
Background Circumstances

The respondent, Luke Thomas Sangster, is the holder of a Security and Investigation Agents Licence pursuant to the provisions of the Security and Investigations Agents Act 1995 (SA) (“the Act).
On the 21^st January 2005 in the Magistrates Court at Adelaide the respondent pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the following offences:
On the 27^th day of May 2004 at Goodwood in the said State, knowingly produced cannabis, a prohibited substance, such production being 19 plants or less, namely 12 plants.
Section 31(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
This is a summary offence
On the 27^th day of May 2004 at Goodwood in the said State, committed theft by taking electricity of a value involving $2500 or less the property of ETSA dishonestly and without the owners consent and intending to deprive the owner permanently of the property or to make a serious encroachment on the owner’s proprietary rights.
Section 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
This is a summary offence.
The Act empowers the complainant, the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, to take disciplinary action against licensed agents if there is proper cause to do so (see Part 4 of the Act).
There is proper cause for disciplinary action against an agent if, inter alia, “events have occurred such that the agent would not be entitled to be granted the licence if he or she were to apply for it” (s 25(1)(e)(ii)).
A person who has been convicted of knowingly producing 12 cannabis plants contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984, is not entitled to be granted a licence if he or she…

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 Sangster 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: [2005] SADC 157
Decision Date: 29 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a complaint against Sangster, the respondent, who held a licence under the Security and Investigation Agents Act. The complaint was brought by the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and alleged that Sangster's conviction for producing cannabis and theft of electricity provided proper cause for disciplinary action against him. The central issue before the court was whether these criminal convictions justified disciplinary action under the Act, and if so, what the appropriate disciplinary measure should be.

The court examined the purpose and scheme of the Security and Investigation Agents Act, emphasising that the primary objective of disciplinary proceedings was to protect the public and maintain standards within the security industry. The court considered that the disciplinary process was not intended to punish the respondent but to ensure that licensed security and investigation agents operated at the required standards. In light of Sangster's criminal convictions, the court found that there was indeed proper cause for disciplinary action as these offences reflected adversely on his fitness to hold a licence.

Following its analysis, the court determined that the appropriate disciplinary measure was to cancel Sangster's licence. This decision was grounded in the need to uphold public safety and the standards expected of licensed agents in the security industry. The court concluded that Sangster's continued licensure would be incompatible with these objectives, given his criminal history.

Orders