Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Tedesco - [2005] SADC 79

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
COMMR FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v TEDESCO
Judgment of His Honour Judge Lee, Assessor MacDonald and Assessor Steuart
8 July 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 offences of rape – 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 cancelled.
Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995 ss 9(1)(b), 25(1), 29 & regulation 5, referred to.
Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Sollars (2001) 79 SASR 145; Carusi v Police [2002] SASC 240; Craig v Medical Board of South Australia (2001) 79 SASR 545; Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Stamoulis (unreported decision of Judge Bright, 18 July 2002), considered.

COMMR FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS v TEDESCO
[2005] SADC 79

This is a complaint against the respondent as the holder of a licence under the Security and Investigation Agents Act 1995. The respondent’s licence is restricted to guard work and crowd control work as an employee. The complaint asserts that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against the respondent by reason of his conviction on 4 November 2002 of two indictable offences.
Section 9(1)(b) and regulation 5 of the Act together disentitle a person from obtaining a licence if that person has been convicted of an indictable offence. Section 25(1) states that there is proper cause for disciplinary action if events have occurred such that the holder of a licence would not be entitled to be granted the licence if he were to apply for it. The penalties are set forth in s 29 of the Act, and range from a reprimand to cancellation. Within that range is the power to impose conditions or further conditions on the licence.
The two indictable offences in question were of digital rape against a former partner on 6 September 2001. The respondent was found guilty of those offences, and also of assault against the same victim on a subsequent occasion, following a trial by jury in this Court. The offences were committed in the context of, to use the words of the sentencing Judge, “a relatively short lived and tempestuous relationship”. The Judge said that the respondent was possessive and jealous of his partner, and lost control of his temper at the time of the rape offences. The assault occurred some three weeks later when the respondent discovered the victim’s whereabouts at a new address and uttered a serious threat against her. The Judge imposed a single sentence of five years with a non parole period of two years and six months. The non parole period expired on 3 May 2005.
In

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 Tedesco

Details

AGLC: Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Tedesco [2005] SADC 79
Case: [2005] SADC 79
Decision Date: 8 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner for Consumer Affairs v Tedesco involved a disciplinary action against a respondent who held a licence under the Security and Investigation Agents Act. The complaint against the respondent was based on his conviction for two indictable offences of rape, which was considered proper cause for disciplinary action. The respondent's licence was subject to cancellation, suspension, or other conditions as deemed appropriate by the court. The court was required to consider the objectives and scheme of the Security and Investigation Agents Act, as well as the respondent's circumstances, to determine the appropriate penalty.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the respondent's conviction warranted disciplinary action under the Act and, if so, what penalty would be appropriate. The court had to balance the need to maintain public confidence in the standards and integrity of the security industry with the respondent's individual circumstances. The court was also required to consider the objectives of the Act, including the protection of the public and the maintenance of professional standards in the security industry.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the objectives and scheme of the Security and Investigation Agents Act, as well as the respondent's circumstances. The court held that the respondent's conviction for two indictable offences of rape warranted disciplinary action under the Act. The court found that the penalty should reflect the need to maintain public confidence in the standards and integrity of the security industry. The court concluded that the appropriate penalty was the cancellation of the respondent's licence.

The court ordered that the respondent's licence be cancelled. This decision reflects the court's commitment to upholding the standards and integrity of the security industry, as well as its duty to protect the public from individuals who have been convicted of serious criminal offences. The court's decision also demonstrates the importance of the licensing regime under the Security and Investigation Agents Act in ensuring that the security industry operates to a high standard and that the public can trust those who hold security licences.

Orders